1981 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, JUNE 19, 1981

Morning Sitting

[ Page

6297 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Social Services Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1981 (Bill 26). Hon. Mr. Curtis

Introduction and first reading –– 6297

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing estimates. (Hon. Mr.

Chabot)

On vote 152: parks and outdoor recreation –– 6297

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Howard

Mr. Cocke

Mr. King

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Leggatt

Ms. Sanford

On vote 154: building and occupancy charges –– 6300

Mr. Howard

Division on an amendment

On vote 155: computer and consulting charges –– 6300

Mr. Howard

Division on an amendment

Power Engineers and Boiler and Pressure Vessel Safety Act (Bill 17).

Third reading –– 6301

Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 8). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Williams)

section 12 as amended –– 6302

Mr. Macdonald

Report –– 6303

Environment Management Act (Bill 22). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Rogers)

section 3 –– 6303

Mr. Skelly

On the amendment to

section 3 –– 6303

Mr. Skelly

Mr. Cocke

section 3 –– 6303

Mr. Skelly

section 4 –– 6304

Mr. Skelly

On the amendment to

section 4 –– 6304

Ms. Brown

Mr. Skelly

Mr. Barrett

Mr. King

section 12 –– 6308

Mr. Skelly

Mr. Cocke

Division on

section 12

Third reading –– 6308

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

section 1 –– 6309

Mr. Stupich

Hon. Mr. Williams

section 7 –– 6309

Ms. Brown

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy

Hon. Mr. Williams

Mr. Lauk

section 14 –– 6310

Mr. Barber

Mr. Lauk

Hon. Mr. Hyndman

section 23 –– 6311

Mr. Cocke

Hon. Mr. Curtis

section 38 –– 6311

Mr. Cocke

Hon. Mr. Nielsen

Ms. Brown

section 51 –– 6312

Mr. Stupich

Hon. Mr. Hewitt

section 61 –– 6312

Mrs. Dailly

Hon. Mr. Smith

section 64 –– 6313

Ms. Brown

section 80 –– 6313

Ms. Brown

Hon. Mr. Hewitt

section 81 –– 6313

Ms. Sanford

Hon. Mr. Hyndman

Mr. Howard

Hon. Mr. Gardom

Tabling Documents

Ministry of Human Resources addendum to annual report, 1980.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 6314

Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing annual report, 1980.

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 6314

Appendix –– 6314

FRIDAY, JUNE 19, 1981

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'd like to ask the members of the assembly to join me in welcoming to the precinct the mayor of North Cowichan, Mayor Bruce.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

I have the pleasure to introduce some very special guests, Mr. and Mrs.

Harry Howard from London, England. Mr. Howard is the executive

secretary of the International Association of Seed Crushers. They are

considering Vancouver for their 1986 world congress. Mr. and Mrs.

Howard are accompanied this morning — and throughout their visit — by

our manager of conventions and incentive travel for Tourism, Mr. Dennis

Holmes. I would ask the Members of the Legislative Assembly to extend a

very warm welcome.

MR. RICHMOND: Today in the gallery

is a young gentleman from the riding of Yale-Lillooet, who is now

living in Kamloops and studying at Cariboo College. He worked very hard

on my behalf during the recent election in Kamloops. I would like the

members to please welcome Kevin Hanna.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'd like to join the member for Kamloops in welcoming Kevin Hanna.

Also

in the members' gallery today are two constituents from the village of

Hope. Would the House please welcome Mr. and Mrs. Leslie Wilson.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

With particular appreciation to the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr.

Rogers) I would like to make an introduction that I know is going to be

of special interest to the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations

(Hon. Mr. Gardom). May I introduce the fact that tomorrow is the

opening of trout season on the Skagit River.

Introduction of Bills

SOCIAL SERVICE TAX

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1981

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

a bill intituled Social Service Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1981.

Bill

26 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.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

LANDS, PARKS AND HOUSING

(continued)

On vote 152: parks and outdoor recreation, $26,452,233.

MR. KEMPF:

Mr. Chairman, there are some who have suggested that by speaking this

morning I am prolonging this debate, but that is one of the nice things

about freedom of speech. If freedom of speech should prevail anywhere,

it should prevail here in this chamber where we all come to speak, I

hope, on behalf of the constituents who sent us here.

MR. BARRETT: If you can't speak to the Socred convention....

MR. KEMPF:

Even though the Leader of the Opposition persists in disrupting this

chamber, I wish to debate further this very crucial and very important

ministry. I'm surprised and shocked at the irresponsibility of the

official opposition who want to end this debate after only two days — a

debate carried primarily by the government members. I want to say a few

words this morning on parks. Before doing that I want to reiterate what

I've been saying in regard to this minister's responsibility as far as

land is concerned, and to suggest — as I have in the last two days —

that we have a fictitious shortage of land in this province and a

fictitious value on that law.

I'll get back to vote 152. I

want to talk for a moment about parks, and attempt to encourage this

House and this minister to give more attention to the provision of

overnight parking facilities in this province, particularly in the

north along the northern trans-provincial highway, Yellowhead 16, and

the Stewart-Cassiar highway where the Minister of Highways and

Transportation (Hon. Mr. Fraser) is doing a fine job in upgrading and

paving that great highway through the constituency of Atlin. Mr.

Chairman, we in British Columbia must accept the responsibility of

providing more of these kinds of facilities in our province,

particularly in the north. Because of the extreme shortness of the

tourist season the private sector cannot possibly financially provide

the service needed for a very fast-growing tourist industry in our

province. I commend this minister for his initiative, and I fully

realize that we have a number of excellent — bar none — overnight

camping facilities in my constituency of Omineca: Beaumont Park at

Fraser Lake, Maclure Lake Park at Telkwa, Red Bluff Park at Granisle,

and the soon-to-be-opened Parron's Beach Park at Fort St. James.

But,

Mr. Chairman, we have been so successful under this administration's

excellent handling of the tourist industry in this province that there

is a need for more. We have been so successful not only in enticing

out-of-the-province tourists to British Columbia but also in convincing

British Columbians that they should holiday in their own province and

partake of those very excellent facilities that we have. Because of

that, those excellent facilities, particularly in my constituency, are

absolutely swamped during the months of June, July, August and

September. Again I say this minister is not at fault; we're all at

fault for not paying far more attention to this very vital and

lucrative aspect of our economy. We have not allocated a sufficient

number of dollars in light of the return to the province from this area.

Mr.

Chairman, this morning I would like to make a comparison, and I have

here some statistics from the state of Oregon. I'm sure that almost

every member of this House has at one time or another travelled down

the coast of Oregon and utilized one or more of the outstanding

facilities for overnight camping in that state — not just on the coast

but all over the state. In that state, where they have only 96,981

square miles of area compared with more than 365,000 square miles in

British Columbia, they have 650 overnight camping parks.

[ Page 6298 ]

The

budget for the state of Oregon in the last fiscal year was $5.5 billion

compared with our budget this year of $6.5 billion. The money spent

from that budget on parks and recreation was $37.9 million in the last

fiscal year. In this fiscal year, we have seen fit to spend only $25.5

million. I think that points out very clearly that in this province we

must give more attention to the provision of that kind of facility, not

only for those who visit our province from other countries but for our

own people as well.

I realize that the state of Oregon has

been in the tourist business for much longer than we have. But we also

must recognize the need to nurture that most viable industry. Oregon

state is beautiful, but it doesn't hold a candle to British Columbia in

that department. But it sure does in the provision of overnight camping

facilities. We have better roads and highways than they do, thanks to

many years of Social Credit administration. We know what happened to

our roads and highways when we did not have a Social Credit

administration in this province. But we're missing a link —

overnight camping facilities.

Interjections.

MR. KEMPF:

The members opposite seem amused, but none of them have talked about

this very vital industry in our province. They want to pass over the

debate on this very vital ministry. They want to wrap it up in two

days. We have a missing link.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF:

If you'd get out in the province and see some of it, you'd know that,

Mr. Member for New Westminster. Not only do we need overnight camping

facilities, but we need more day-use pullouts so travellers can pull

out and rest in an area that has nice surroundings. Here again, I

realize that the Minister of Highways is doing a good job. But in my

estimation we need more. It's not as if we won't see a return for our

dollar, because it will come back tenfold. There is an immediate need

for two additional camping facilities along Yellowhead 16 West in my

constituency.

I would imagine if the member for Skeena (Mr.

Howard) would stop laughing and be more realistic, he would find that

he probably needed more of those kinds of facilities in his

constituency.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I will remind the member that he is on vote 152.

MR. KEMPF:

There is an immediate need for two additional overnight camping

facilities along Yellowhead 16 West in my constituency of Omineca: one

in Vanderhoof and one in Burns Lake, They have to be good-sized

facilities, such as Beaumont Park at Fraser Lake, in order to take the

traffic that now exists, let alone additional traffic that will

materialize in the future — facilities large enough to have full-time

caretakers, who would not only charge fees but also keep the area neat

and clean.

While on the subject of fees, I would just

like to talk for a moment about the state of Oregon and compare the

fees charged there with the fees we charge in British Columbia. I would

like to seriously suggest that we look at raising our fee rates for

government overnight camping facilities in order to do two things:

(1) ensure that out-of-province users pay their share, because, after all,

every taxpayer in this province already has an investment in these

government facilities; (2) to protect the private sector, those who

have the initiative to try to provide a facility, even though in many

areas the season is very short. In the state of Oregon the charge for

full hook-up — that is when there is water, sewer and electrical

hook-up available — an Oregon resident pays $7 a night; a non-resident

pays $9. In a facility where electrical hook-up only is available, the

Oregon resident pays $6; a non-resident pays $8. For tenting sites,

which include parking, table, fire-pit and flush-toilet facilities, an

Oregon resident pays $5; a non-resident pays $7. In the primitive sites

where only fire-pits and outhouses are available, the Oregon resident

pays $4; the non-resident pays $6. I seriously suggest to the minister

that we look at those kinds of rates for the province of British

Columbia. I don't think they're too high. I don't think that's asking

too much. And it will put into the provincial coffers additional moneys

that will allow us to build more of those needed facilities.

must look immediately to providing these facilities in the areas which

are now hurting, particularly along Yellowhead 16 and the

Stewart-Cassiar highway. We must take a look at raising those rates for

the reasons I gave earlier. First of all — and it is the reason for me

standing today to debate vote 152 — we must in this chamber recognize

the need and give this minister the wherewithal to get on with the job.

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Chairman, I just want to suggest that the member for Omineca could

probably find that some of the things which he is asking for and

seeking to have established in his constituency could partly be funded

if the member for Omineca would pay back to the government the

$1,334....

MR. KEMPF: Is that all you've got to add to this debate?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, we are on vote 152. I would commend vote 152 for discussion to the member.

MR. KEMPF: You're a disgrace to the north.

MR. SKELLY: You don't defend the north. How much does a maverick cost?

MR. KEMPF: I represent the north.

MR. HOWARD:

Shall I proceed, Mr. Chairman? I was on the particular vote, talking

about those overnight services and the like that the member was talking

about. I just suggested to him that he has received money under false

pretences and he should pay it back. If he's not prepared to pay it

back....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the

hon. member to make his comments relevant to vote 152. Certainly the

remarks to this point in time — and I'm sure the member on reflection

will agree — are not relevant to vote 152 and the administrative

responsibility of the minister whose estimates we are currently

discussing — and not the member for Omineca.

MR. HOWARD: They may not be precisely relevant to the vote, in your view, Mr. Chairman. That's perhaps because

[ Page 6299 ]

you're

not able to follow the refinement of my argument in this regard. But

they are certainly relative to the silly propositions put forward by

the member for Omineca.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, I

listened with great interest to the member on the parks vote. I agree,

having gone all around the province myself and having entertained

myself in many of the campsites of the province, that there is need for

more. But when the member got up and suggested that the opposition were

letting down on this particular subject.... I waited with bated breath

for him to talk about home care under Health; I waited for him to talk

about acutecare hospitals under Health; I waited for him to talk about

very important areas in this province. He is suggesting that we're

letting this vote go through. It is so absolutely ridiculous that we

have to listen to that kind of preposterous argument. If the member had

got up, made his case and sat down, that would be fine. But instead of

that the member gets up and flails away at the opposition while he

really wants at the minister. Fair enough. And at the Minister of

Tourism. He didn't even mention it under the Minister of Tourism. Right

now he has a little cause célebre. Most of that member's time has been

spent speaking from his seat, not from his standing position in this

House.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I don't know if you're preoccupied

with the letter from Joe Clark or what, but you're not paying much

attention to vote 152.

MR. KING: The minister's point is well taken.

wanted to deal with two points. I'd like to ask the minister if he has

made a decision yet with respect to the Goward property near the mouth

of the Adams River. I've written to him about it, and many of my

constituents have written to him too. He indicated to me that he was

looking very seriously at adding that to the provincial park area. I

would just remind him that that area not only is appropriate for public

park purposes but very closely borders on the very important and

sensitive....

If the Premier would go on his way, Mr.

Chairman, perhaps I could have the minister's attention. I don't think

the Premier can get the attention of anyone else in the province but

his subservient cabinet ministers. Perhaps that's why I have to compete

this morning.

I want to remind the minister that that Goward

property is very close to the very important and sensitive Adams River

spawning run. I think it would be a shame if that should fall into

hands for some kind of commercial or industrial development which would

be invidious to that salmon run. As the minister has received

indication, the whole community is in accord that this should be added

to the public park. I would ask him if he's made a final decision on

that.

The other point is the property I've written to him

about at Sicamous just between Shuswap and Mara Lakes. I think it's the

old Weyerhaeuser property in there, if I remember correctly. It's quite

a large tract. There was support for the acquisition of that land from

the local municipality as well as the regional district. I think it's

something like 160 acres. It would really be appropriate for a reserve

for public use for the future, because access to the Mara and Shuswap

Lakes is not very readily available considering the amount of usage

that resource receives. It's a major area of tourism for the province

of British Columbia, and I wish the minister would look favourably at

that acquisition too.

HON. MR. CHABOT: We've approved

the acquisition of the the Goward property in principle, and it's just

a matter of working out the details now. Yes, we will be acquiring that

property.

On the other property, I'd have to check my records. I'm not familiar with the issue on the Weyerhaeuser property.

MR. STUPICH:

Just a word about Newcastle Island Park, which was turned over to the

government by the city of Nanaimo. In the approximately ten years the

government has owned it the level of service has steadily deteriorated.

There were some good buildings there at the time it was turned over,

and they've been allowed to fall into a pretty sad state of repair. The

grounds as well are just not being tended. I wonder whether the

minister has any plans at all for doing anything to upgrade the level

of service at Newcastle Island Park.

HON. MR. CHABOT: We've had people from your constituency, Mr. Member, who have advocated we build a bridge to Newcastle Island.

MR. STUPICH: That's a long time ago.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Oh no. In the last year I've had suggestions that a bridge be built to

Newcastle Island as a means of access to that provincial park. However,

we've examined that and find that it's not feasible at this time. It

might interfere with navigation or the cost would be prohibitive. But

I'll take your suggestion that facilities be improved on the island,

and I'll look at that and talk to officials in my ministry.

MR. LEGGATT:

I'm very surprised to hear that there have been representations within

the past year. I've certainly not been aware of them, and in no way

would I associate myself with them. The bridge to Gabriola is a

different matter — even more political. I'm quite opposed to a bridge

to Newcastle.

I'd like to ask the minister some questions

concerning parks in the lower mainland area. One of the difficulties

that many people have in the lower mainland is easy access to parks on

a day basis for recreation. At the moment the Coquitlam watershed is

sealed up because of the need for water in that area. The Seymour

system of course has no access to the water at the top of it. The same

is also true with

[ Page 6300 ]

the

Capilano system. I raised this with the Minister of Environment (Hon.

Mr. Rogers) some time ago. I'm pleased to see he's here in the House. I

want to deal with the question of Widgeon Lake, public access to

Widgeon Lake and whether Widgeon Lake will become a part of the Greater

Vancouver Water District's system, thereby denying the public access to

it. Widgeon Lake is one of the few hiking areas with an alpine setting

within one day of an urban area for the million people who live in the

lower mainland. What I'm asking the minister to do is (

a) to seriously

consider park acquisition for the Widgeon Lake area and (

b) to

intercede with his cabinet colleagues when the subject of water

diversion from Widgeon Lake comes up, so that particular lake can be

protected for the inhabitants of the lower mainland who want to visit

it on a one-day basis. It's a substantial hike, but it can be made in

and out in a day. It's a beautiful, pristine alpine lake. It's kind of

another area that's an island of tranquillity in the lower mainland.

realize it's perhaps not a matter that has been under active

consideration by his department, but I'm asking the minister to direct

his attention to the problem of additional park areas in the lower

mainland that are outside of the Greater Vancouver Regional District,

so that hikers could go into that area. I'm not exactly certain whether

Widgeon Lake is inside or outside of the minister's jurisdiction, or

whether it comes within GVRD jurisdiction. I suspect it doesn't. It

seems to me that it might be an area the minister could give some

consideration to in his provincial parks program.

MS. SANFORD:

I have one brief question for the minister, related to Hornby Island. I

wonder if the minister could advise what he intends to do with the

lodge at Tribune Bay which he wanted to sell as a resort, but which the

school board would like to have for outdoor educational use. What are

the intentions of the minister at this point?

HON. MR. CHABOT: That request is still under consideration.

Vote 152 approved.

Vote 153: ministry enterprises, $10 — approved.

On vote 154: building occupancy charges, $2,378,000.

MR. HOWARD:

Earlier we had some ideas advanced by the member for Omineca (Mr.

Kempf) about particular things that he would like to see happening in

his constituency. He couldn't obtain those because there was no money

available. Here is an opportunity for the member for Omineca and others

to cut some of the fat and padding out of one of these votes — an

excessive amount of money, an unnecessary budgetary expense — and make

it available to the minister to provide some of the services that the

member for Omineca and other members were inquiring about. Now the

member for Omineca and others will be able to put their vote where

their mouth is, and see whether what they say coincides with what they

do. There's an excessive amount in this particular vote of $297,000.

The purpose of reducing the vote by that amount is to put the

expenditure back to what it was estimated to be and to what was voted

last year. It's founded on the concept that for the preceding two years

— no matter what amount of money was voted — it was not all expended by

the ministry on building-occupancy services. It's not going to be this

year. Even if it is, it accumulates in the coffers of B.C. Buildings

Corporation and comes back into the treasury in a secondary way. So

it's padding, it's unnecessary — all puff-up for the purpose of

substantiating the tax increases. On behalf of the member for Omineca —

because I know he's going to support this amendment, to get some money

for the things in his riding — I would therefore move that vote 154 be

reduced by $297,000.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm rather

shocked and surprised, Mr. Chairman. This slight increase for building

occupancy is about 15 percent. It doesn't appear to be excessive. I'll

have to take into consideration the views of the member for Skeena, who

feels that we should probably shut down some offices in this province.

Because of his reduction here, it's clear he feels that we have surplus

regional offices in British Columbia. Based on his recommendations,

I'll be looking.... If you want to cut some fat, maybe we'll have to

cut some offices. We'll have to look pretty hard at your riding.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Passarell.

NAYS — 26

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Hewitt

Jordan

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Brummet

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

Journals of the House.

Vote 154 approved.

On vote 155: computer and consulting charges, $1,354,100.

MR. HOWARD:

Another opportunity presents itself to save the taxpayers some money.

Under the computer and consulting charges, rent, which we pay to

ourselves — called B.C. Systems Corporation — has been padded, adjusted

upwards, in order to suit the tax increases that came along; juggled in

order to justify tax increases. That's precisely what has been done.

There is an extra amount of some $15,588 in here. I've got to look at

my library book, Mr. Chairman, to show you, and particularly the member

for Omineca, who, even though he complains about services to his

constituency, so far in this session has voted against the reduction of

$72 million.

[ Page 6301 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

MR. HOWARD: He's not alone, Mr. Chairman. Every

Socred says: "Squander the money, be spendthrifts, have excessive

amounts, pad the accounts and never mind the taxpayers." That's all

we've been trying to do consistently over these weeks with each

estimate, by not selecting those items which relate to services or

programs, but only those items that relate to excessive padding and

unnecessary expenditures. This is another one of them. Moving this

reduction, which I do, that vote 155 be reduced by the amount of

$15,588, if it were passed and if the others would have been passed,

would have brought the total amount of money which we've discovered to

be padded in this ministry alone to some $316,088. I so move and would

urge members opposite: for heaven's sakes, for once during your

political career have some sensitivity toward the needs of the

taxpayers — just for once. It's a small amount of money, $15,588. All

it says is tighten the belt back to last year. Those of you opposite

who want to indicate that this is a token recognition of the rights of

taxpayers have the opportunity to do it now. We will look forward to

your voting with us on this one for a change.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 19

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Cocke

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Passarell

NAYS — 26

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Hewitt

Jordan

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Brummet

Mr. Howard requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals

of the House.

On vote 155.

MR. HOWARD: Apropos the comment by the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing that may not have got into Hansard ,

about the colour on that chart that we're using — I think he classified

it as "commie red" — it's not nearly as red as the jacket worn by the

Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). I suppose she falls

into that category too, or would you consider her to be fascist?

Vote 155 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: We'll move to public bills and orders. Report on Bill 17, Mr. Speaker.

POWER ENGINEERS AND BOILER AND

PRESSURE VESSEL SAFETY ACT

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HOWARD:

I think it should be indicated to the House that the sponsor of the

bill, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), is not here — not

that that makes any difference; he's not familiar with the bill anyway.

But I think he should have been in attendance to handle his own

legislation.

Bill 17 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 8, Mr. Speaker.

PROVINCIAL COURT AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

The House in committee on Bill 8; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

section 6.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See

appendix.] May I very briefly explain that the amendment is to ensure

that a judge may be assigned to other duties, not in addition to and

therefore expanding his area of responsibility, but in place of all or

any part of his duties.

Amendment approved.

Section 6 as amended approved.

Sections 7 to 10 inclusive approved,

section 11.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See

appendix.] Since the bill was first drafted the position in the

Canadian Bar Association, British Columbia section, has changed from

that of chairman to that of president.

Amendment approved.

Section 11 as amended approved.

section 12.

[ Page 6302 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.] It merely corrects a clerical error.

Amendment approved.

section 12 as amended.

MR. MACDONALD:

Will the Attorney-General say when there is to be an inquiry, which I

presume, under this amended act, will be the kind of open hearing that

we're talking about; and when will there be an investigation — the kind

of thing that happens where somebody is assigned to speak to people,

but it is not in any sense a hearing before the Judicial Council?

What's the difference between them? Can you still order investigations,

as in the Colenutt case, that Chief Judge Darrell Jones just

investigated? Can you explain the difference between when you are going

to have an investigation and when you are going to have an inquiry?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Chairman, the statute contemplates two separate kinds of

examination of conduct. If it is a matter of a complaint from a citizen

with respect to matters which do not go to the question of fitness,

then there is an investigation and that complaint is examined by the

chief judge, and there is a report to the Judicial Council as well as

to the Attorney-General.

The matter of inquiry is one which

does go to the question of fitness or the performance of the

responsibilities of the office. Such an inquiry involves not only an

investigation of the matter but also a hearing which will be held

either before the Judicial Council or, if the person under inquiry so

selects, by a judge of the supreme court.

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Chairman, under the old act — and, as I read it, under this act

today — a case like Colenutt, which was a citizen's complaint that the

justice system wasn't working right for him, could have been treated as

an investigation. As it was, it was treated with secret proceedings and

no evidence, and no real explanation was given to the complainant or

anybody else. It could have been referred to the council for a regular

hearing, or the Attorney-General could have ordered that the council

should hear that citizen's complaint in a regular way. That's still the

case, I assume. Are you eliminating that kind of redress for the

private citizen?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Chairman;

in fact, just the opposite. In circumstances such as those to which the

member alludes, the existing legislation is inadequate to ensure that

there is power to direct that an inquiry can be made. This provision

gives that authority to the Attorney-General irrespective of what

reports may be received by others.

MR. MACDONALD: I

think it's clarified in this sense that what we're passing today does

definitely allow for a proper hearing of a civilian complaint before

the council. Under the old act, I think the power was definitely there

in any case.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD:

Certainly it was. The Attorney-General could order the council to look

into anything whatsoever, including the Colenutt case. But we can

debate that on another occasion. The point is that when you have a

civilian complaint about the justice system, it should be treated with

the same attention given to complaints respecting the unfitness of a

judge. That's important to the justice system too — that the citizen

doesn't get chewed up in the process. I would hope that while that can

still be treated as a private kind of investigation, without the taking

of proper evidence, the policy of the department should be that where

there is a substantial complaint, there should be a full and proper

hearing on that civilian complaint.

Section 12 as amended approved.

Sections 13 through 15 approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the title pass?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: What about sections 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That was all taken care of, hon. member, when the amendments were passed en bloc.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

On a point of order,

section 12 shows an amendment to

section 20 of the

act as it will be when it's recorded.

section 12 of the bill deletes

sections 14 through 23 of the statute, and substitutes other matters.

section 12, therefore, there is a further amendment by deleting the

replaced

section 20, which deals with the matter of the appeal and

substitutes the words of the amendment. I move the amendment which is

standing in my name under

section 12 — the second part of that

amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, we have passed

all amendments on the order paper indicated under the last amendments.

All amendments standing on the order paper have been passed.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Chairman, just so there is no confusion in the committee, under

section 12 of this bill there are in fact two amendments, and both of

them have been moved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Both amendments have been moved and duly passed.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Then on page 6 of the bill we have three additional sections — 13, 14 and 15.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sections 13, 14 and 15 have already been passed, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD:

On a point of order relating to the procedure here, how is it that

amendments pass when they were not moved as amendments? There were

notices given.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment was duly moved, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: The Attorney-General seems in some doubt as to whether he actually moved them.

[ Page 6303 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, the Chair recognizes the fact that the amendments standing

on the order paper were duly moved in committee under

section 12,

including both amendments.

MR. HOWARD: Even though the Attorney-General didn't know he did it.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I move that the bill be reported complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill

8, Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1981, reported complete with

amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call committee on Bill 22, Mr. Speaker.

ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT ACT

The House in Committee on Bill 22; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

MR. SKELLY:

The

section states: "Where the minister considers that a person

proposes to do anything which would have a detrimental environmental

impact, and that environmental impact cannot be assessed from

information available to the minister, he may require the person to

supply an environmental impact assessment in respect of that thing,

prepared in accordance with the regulations." In the opinion of this

caucus, if some project is going to have a detrimental effect on the

environment, the minister should require an environmental impact

statement if he doesn't have the material before him. It shouldn't be a

permissive

section allowing the minister to require an impact statement

if he wants one or does not want one. If the project is going to have a

detrimental impact, the law should require the minister to require that

statement.

I have an amendment to this section, which would remove the word "may"

section 3, line 4, after the word " he" and before the word "require," and substitute the word "shall."

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

Mr. Chairman, the government does not find this amendment to be

acceptable, the reason being that there are several occasions when we

may find ourselves in a condition of having what we consider to be a

detrimental environmental impact but not having to go to the

requirement of having this assessment. The matter may be relatively

simple and one which could be dealt with without going to the process

of requiring a full assessment; that's why we leave it in the

permissive state.

MR. SKELLY: As with all

environment legislation in this province, the legislation is almost

completely permissive. The minister could state in the regulations that

certain levels of detrimental environmental impact would not require a

full-blown environmental impact statement. That is done in a number of

provinces, including Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. There's really

no necessity to do a full-scale environmental impact statement similar

to the one on Hat Creek, where the minister determines that it requires

impact statements that are possibly at a less detailed level. That

should be spelled out in the regulations. However, as presently

written, this statute gives the minister the right to waive

environmental impact statements even if they have a magnitude of impact

along the lines of the Hat Creek project. So what we would like is that

the minister be required to require an impact statement, but that the

detail in the statement, as spelled out in the regulations, be varied

according to the anticipated impact of the project. It's a reasonable

suggestion for an amendment, and I'm sorry that the minister has chosen

not to accept it.

MR. COCKE: In supporting the

amendment, I would suggest very strongly that the minister probably

made the weakest argument I've ever heard, the weak argument being that

they might be able to settle it outside of the impact study. If that's

the case, then in any event it changes the character of the whole

situation, and so therefore would not require the study. I believe that

what the minister said doesn't hold any water at all, and the minister

should very well accept this amendment, which gives some sort of

credibility to his legislation. Otherwise, we can see the legislation

being just another piece of political propaganda, indicating that the

government takes seriously some of these environmental problems but

doesn't really want to do anything about it. If we look at our history,

time after time the government have let different groups get away with

doing a real disservice to our environment. Then we come along and say

we're sort of strengthening the act and put this kind of

section in.

It's a joke. I can't see anybody do anything but support the amendment

of the member for Alberni.

MR. SKELLY: It shouldn't

be rushed through, Mr. Chairman, without the opportunity for the

minister to reconsider the arguments placed before him by the member

for New Westminster and by the member for Alberni.

Amendment negatived.

section 3.

MR. SKELLY: I have an additional amendment to

section 3. That amendment is to add a subsection 3(a)....

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: If you were serious about the environment, this kind of act would never have been presented in this Legislature.

The

amendment states: "Every environment impact assessment supplied to the

minister pursuant to

section 3 shall be made public at the same time it

is presented to the minis-

[ Page 6304 ]

ter."

The reason for this amendment is to give the public full information as

to what steps are being taken by the minister to make sure that a

project does not have a deleterious environmental impact. One of the

problems we have with the impact requirements in the Fraser estuary and

in the Cowichan estuary is that there's no obligation on the part of

the minister to make it public. People are confused around

environmental issues in those areas, because impact statements are

being held privately. What we would like to spell out in this

section

is an obligation on the part of the minister and the development

proponent to make the impact statement public so that citizens will be

aware of deleterious effects on environment that are taking place as a

result of the permissive attitude of the minister.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

I have five amendments which have been passed to me by the member for

Alberni. This bill has been on the order paper for some time. Some of

these amendments would require some complex analysis to find out

whether or not they're in order. But speaking to the one that I have

before us at this time, some of the information I wouldn't disagree

with if the

section was a "may" and not a "shall." The reason is that

sometimes we require information of a confidential nature from

corporations that they are not prepared to give us in the fullness that

we'd like to have it if we have to make it public. Sometimes we require

things which are protected by patent or protected by official secrets

in Canada in terms of formulations and other things, especially to do

with pesticides. For that matter, I would suggest that in most cases we

will be prepared to make it public, but not in all cases. I would not

find the amendment acceptable to the government.

MR. SKELLY:

I simply can't believe it. Again in almost every other province of

Canada there are requirements to make environmental impact statements

public. In our neighbouring country of the United States there are

requirements to make that information public in a freedom of

information statute, which gives every citizen of that country the

right of access to information held in government files. In the past

much of it was considered proprietary information or patent material.

Now the public has access to it, so they know what damage is being done

to the environment. I know attempts have been made by corporations to

suppress or prevent public access to that information. In general the

courts in the United States have ruled that the public has a right to

know what kind of material is being dumped into their environment. This

minister intends to screen that material to protect the companies

involved. That simply is not acceptable in this province as it's not

acceptable in the United States.

There is adequate precedent

to include a

section like this in an environmental protection statute.

If the minister doesn't see fit to include it, he's not much of a

Minister of Environment.

Amendment negatived.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

MR. SKELLY:

There are two parts of

section 4 which I would like to propose

amendments to. I expect they'll get the same treatment as the previous

suggestions.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: I

suspect they would have received the same results whether they were on

the order paper or not. There are a number of questions on the order

paper that were there long before April 27, and they're not answered

either.

section 4(3), line 2, after the word "after" and

before the word "notifying," I will move to insert the word "publicly."

If this had been a complex amendment I certainly would have presented

it a long time ago, but it's a very simple amendment which requires

that notice be made public. And after the word "affected" and before

"make" I will move to delete the words "but without the necessity of

holding a hearing."

In each of these sections I propose to

amend under

section 4 the government specifically eliminates the right

to public hearings, and they eliminate any kind of public access to

this procedure for issuing environmental orders. What I would like to

do by this simple amendment, which will only take the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations and the Minister of Environment seconds to

read and analyse, is to make the procedure public, to notify the public

that orders are being issued, and to eliminate the specific bar against

public hearings.

I move that amendment to

section 4(3).

On the amendment.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

This bill has been on the order paper since April 27, and this

particular section.... The member seems to think drafting legislation

is a relatively simple procedure. He should try doing it sometime,

because it isn't all that simple.

I suppose I have two

copies of the same amendment here. What you're endeavouring to do is to

insert "publicly" in this process. I'm afraid I can't tell you whether

or not this drafting would even be acceptable. I'd have to have some

serious time to even consider that. I'd have to discuss it with

legislative counsel to find out if it's in order. On the other hand, on

the principle of the thing, what you're trying to insert is the fact

that you want the public to be involved

section by

section all the way

through this. I think that's what your other amendment involved, and I

think I've already addressed that matter.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MS. BROWN:

The spirit of what the member is trying to do is obviously quite clear

to both the Minister of Environment and the Attorney-General, because

they've indicated that given the time and, as the Minister of

Environment said, some consultation with legislative counsel, these

amendments would get serious consideration and, who knows, even the

possibility of being accepted.

The member for Alberni is

suggesting — and certainly he must have the support of every member of

this House — that the public has to be more involved in decisions

affecting the environment. The responsibility of the Minister of

Environment is not to protect people from the environment but to

protect the environment for people. The best way to do that is to make

the decisions as public as possible and get as much input as possible

from the community at large. The only thing that would result would be

an enriched and better piece of legislation and, in the final decision,

improvement all around for everybody involved. If the Minister of

Environment is

[ Page 6305 ]

saying he needs time, then I'm sure the opposition is prepared to give him the time.

HON. MR. ROGERS: You've had two months to get them in.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Chairman, I don't understand his statement that I've had two

months. If protection of the environment is important, what is two

months? Are you saying that because two months have gone by, you are

now prepared to sacrifice the environment? That argument doesn't make

any sense. All I'm suggesting, in support of this amendment and of the

other amendments which the member will be raising under this bill, is

that if the minister needs the time — an additional two, three, four or

five months to ensure that when the bill comes back it is in fact a

good environmental management act — then the opposition is prepared to

give him that additional time.

Public input only serves to

protect the environment, not destroy it. The more public input it's

possible to get, the better for the environment and everyone concerned.

The minister's reluctance to accept these amendments leaves us quite

baffled and makes us question his commitment to protection of the

environment.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, the minister

says that we've had two months to present the amendment. Going along

with what the member for Burnaby-Edmonds has said, we still have time

in this Legislature for the minister to withdraw the bill and go back

and talk to his legislative counsel to find out if these amendments fit

in. We weren't aware until late yesterday that this bill was going to

be debated today.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on.

MR. SKELLY: We didn't have an opportunity to get the material in in the form....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Alberni has the floor.

MR. SKELLY:

We have a lot of people working on this issue all over the province to

whom we sent the bill. They're examining the bill and sending back

proposals for amendments and comments on the bill. It takes a little

time to go through the process of public consultation. I'm not sure the

minister has done that. But as far as I'm concerned, that time should

be taken. We have received some proposals. Those will be submitted to

the minister today, as reasonable proposals which are fairly simple to

understand and fairly easy to incorporate into the legislation. If he

wants a recess, I'm sure the Chairman would grant him one to bring

legislative counsel into the chamber to see if these amendments are

appropriate for the statutes and fit in. Nobody is preventing the

minister requesting a recess; and I'm sure if he asked our side, we

would give leave for that. It would take very few minutes.

On the other hand, in many cases through the years, especially under the NDP

government, when a reasonable proposal was made across the floor, Mr. Chairman,

it was analyzed. Legislative counsel would sit in the corner of the House and

come over to take a took at the proposal. If he felt it fitted in with the legislation,

then it was in there. That's how the Legislature should work. We're

all here to make laws in this Legislature. Since the Social Credit government

has come back to office, it appears that they make the laws and the opposition

sits and listens. What we're trying to do is get involved in a more active

legislative process, in which everybody is involved to improve the laws and

to protect the public.

The

only reason for these amendments is to protect the public and let them

know what's happening. In each case, the minister has rejected the

right to public involvement, rejected the right to public input and

rejected the right to public information. What I'm asking the minister

to do in this case is take a short took at it, talk to legislative

counsel — they're within minutes of the chamber — and incorporate the

right of the public to become involved in this process.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

The member might recall that during my estimates you promised me these

amendments. Every day I have looked on the order paper for these

amendments. Now they arrive this morning, hand-written, and for the

first time. I have circulated this act and sections of it far and wide.

I have discussed it in a number of places with a number of people.

People have made suggestions to me. Some have been loath to put their

suggestions in writing because they are complaining about the extent of

the fines, and I don't think they'd want to be identified as people who

are complaining about that particular matter. Nowhere did anyone

suggest that these amendments that you put forward be considered. None

of the people to whom I circulated the bill — and I have circulated the

bill extremely extensively.... Not only that but I have spoken on it

publicly on a number of occasions and no one has suggested these

amendments. If you have amendments of this nature, which are fairly

complex in terms of whether or not they'd even be legally acceptable,

and which would involve a matter of policy, if you were to give us some

time to consider these things in any kind of bills.... The member for

Burnaby Edmonds (Ms. Brown) says two months. This bill was introduced

on April 27. You've had two months to have these things on the order

paper. They're not on the order paper; they're hand delivered today. I

think that's inconsiderate. They're not acceptable.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, first of all, on the nature of handing in written

amendments — I know that the minister is new in the House — the whole

purpose of having amendment paper in the House is that in the process

of debate sometimes reasoned argument takes place, and because on a

rare occasion intelligence prevails, we use the amendment paper

provided by tradition in the House for that purpose. So the minister's

argument is acceptable only because he is brand new. The fact is that

the tradition of this House and every House in the Commonwealth is to

supply paper in the House for such amendments to be made here in the

House on the spot. Your argument may or may not be valid to you. I ask

you this simple question: if you don't accept this amendment, do you

believe in the principle of public hearings, and do you believe in that

principle being applied everywhere as much as possible in this act? Can

I ask you that question?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I think if the Leader of the Opposition was serious about that question, he would have asked it

[ Page 6306 ]

during second reading. That's to do with the principle of the bill, not clause-by-clause....

MR. BARRETT: Don't question my sincerity. This is committee stage.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The minister has the floor.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I'm not questioning your sincerity. I'm discussing the progress of the bill through the House.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, I'll resist my anger for that kind of judgmental

statement. This is committee stage. He's a new minister. In committee

this very discussion should take place. In this

section we're talking

about public hearings. I ask you simply and plainly, without the need

for gratuitous, judgmental, nonsense statements: does the minister

believe, as applied to this section, that there should be public

hearings, and are they desirable in his frame of reference? That's

all. I'm asking you that.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I've already indicated that to the committee.

MR. BARRETT:

Then, Mr. Chairman, if the minister sincerely believes that public

hearings should take place, what on earth has stopped him from ensuring

in law that they do take place?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I didn't say that.

MR. BARRETT:

Then you're opposed to public hearings. That's all I want to know. Are

you opposed to or in favour of public hearings as they apply to this

section?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I've already indicated that.

MR. BARRETT: Are you opposed to or in favour of this section, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I've already indicated to the members of the committee that I'm against this amendment.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, that is clearly where we should have been right at the

start. Instead of lecturing the member or lecturing me, just state

exactly what your position is — you're against the public hearings in

this

section and you reject the amendment — and we could have gone on

with it. But instead of that we had a minister who was gutless in

saying exactly what his position was.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Absolutely gutless.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Avoiding dealing with these issues in front of the public. Shame on the minister!

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll ask the hon. House Leader and the Leader of the Opposition to come to order.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. CHAIRMAN:

I find the personal reflection on the minister from the Leader of the

Opposition unparliamentary. I will ask the Leader of the Opposition to

withdraw that remark.

MR. BARRETT: I withdraw the

remark, Mr. Chairman. I want to point out that I wasn't saying that

about the House Leader. He's able to defend himself. I had no intention

of insulting the House Leader, even though he interrupted my remarks

and was badly behaved.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: He's out of order right now.

want to point out that there is no argument of validity that the timing

of this motion is late. There's no chastisement of being naughty in not

putting this on the order paper. The simple fact is that the minister

is against it. That's all. Have the conviction of your position to

stand up and say: "I don't care if it's handwritten, put on the order

paper or when it's delivered; I'm against it." You're against public

hearings as they relate to this section. That's what we got out of you.

It would be a little bit more straightforward in terms of political

debate if you emphasize that as we go through

section by section,

instead of facetious little lectures on things you obviously don't know

about.

Those order papers are in here for written

amendments. Those amendments can come at any time and can be in order.

As far as the lawyers are concerned, you've got a battery of lawyers

over there. You can press the bell or send a note out and we can have

lawyers in here to contradict each other or contradict the minister or

come up with new ideas. That's what they're paid for. But to insult

this process and say that you have to be notified two months or six

months or three months or three days ago is patently absurd. You're

opposed to public hearings in this

section and that's all there is to

it. We know what your philosophy is. You're the minister against the

environment and against the people of British Columbia.

MR. SKELLY:

It's a little difficult. I realize I've been here nine years and

possibly a few years longer than the minister. I've been through a

number of amendments and a number of forms of amending bills. Some

people do it on the order paper. Some people bring up their concerns

during second reading, and they expect the minister to take a look at

those concerns — which are printed in the Blues and printed in Hansard

— which express the lack of public information in this bill, the lack

of public input into this bill and the lack of a proper appeal system

in this bill. All of those concerns were expressed at second reading

some time ago. When you're dealing with a government in a civilized

way, and you make constructive suggestions during second reading and

those suggestions go for nought — not a single amendment came down from

the minister's side as a result of debate on second reading — then why

waste your time with a minister like that, when you know that the

person who engineered the bill in the

[ Page 6307 ]

first

place engineered it in such a way as to deprive the public of access to

information, deprive the public of input and deprive the public even of

knowledge that the processes were taking place. When somebody

engineered the bill in that way, do you really expect the minister to

respond to suggestions in second reading that the bill should be

changed around, and that amendments in fact should come from the

minister as a result of constructive suggestions made in second

reading? Forget it. Forget that kind of constructive response to

constructive suggestions.

As a result, we end up in this

process in committee stage. There is nothing in these sections that

would require even a lawyer or a legislative counsel to take a look at

them. If it did, you could pull the bill right now with permission of

the House. Within 15 minutes you could have an opinion from legislative

council as to whether these sections are appropriate. But you haven't

even called for that advice. That's your attitude towards public input,

public information and public involvement at any level. That's the kind

of public involvement, input and information that's been completely

engineered out of this bill; not by you, I would suggest, but by the

others in your cabinet.

MR. KING: Let the upper middle-class protect the environment.

MR. SKELLY: Yes, the rich protect the environment. It certainly isn't evident in this bill.

would ask the minister to adjourn debate on this

section of the bill,

withdraw the bill and consult with his legislative counsel as to the

appropriateness of these amendments. It's not going to take very much

time, but surely the minister would grant that amount of time to

consider these amendments.

MS. BROWN: The environment

is too important for the minister to say that because he has not

received the amendments until today, he's not prepared to consider

them. This business about the bill being introduced two months ago is

just a red herring. Whenever and at any time it's brought to his

attention that the public has been excluded from this bill, to the

detriment of the environment and all of the people of British Columbia,

the minister should be prepared to reconsider. It's not good enough to

stand up and say that the member had two or two and a half months. The

member made it clear that the bill was circulated, that he asked people

to read it and make recommendations, and that he awaited their

response. The very fact that the minister did the same thing and came

up with different responses from the people who read the bill on his

behalf is enough indication that we must have public input. The public

must have a chance to say something about what happens in terms of the

maintenance of the environment. This is what this bill deals with in

this section. I want to support the member for Alberni and all the

members on this side who are urging the minister to withdraw this bill

and take the time necessary, no matter how long it may be, to look at

it. Was the public left out inadvertently or were they engineered out,

as the member for Alberni claims? In any event, isn't it important that

the public input be there? If it takes the minister another two, three

or four months to make it possible for the public to participate in

these decisions, the minister should have that time. The opposition is

prepared to let the minister have that time.

Mr. Chairman, I am speaking in support of this amendment.

MR. KING:

I just wanted to remind the minister that amendments being introduced

at committee stage are quite normal. That's what the committee stage

process is all about — amendment of bills. For the minister's

information, the government itself on many occasions has introduced

amendments during committee stage whereby the opposition has lacked any

opportunity for a study of those amendments until the committee stage

was in process. For the minister to hide behind that argument is

patently nonsensical. I should remind the minister also that

intransigence on the government's

part in listening to reasoned

arguments which justify an amendment have resulted in disaster in the

past.

Mr. Chairman, I'm sure you remember the case of the

insurance company in this province that was legislated out of existence

because of an error in legislative draftsmanship by that government. It

was one of the opposition members — the first member for Victoria (Mr.

Barber) — who located that error, fortunately, to prevent this

corporation operating outside the law. The Legislature, in the

meantime, had recessed and had to be reconvened at great expense to the

province of British Columbia to patch up a sloppy drafting error that

government had perpetrated. It's the kind of stubborn intransigence

this minister is showing that breeds that kind of sloppy draftsmanship

— that kind of disdain for the public interest. The issue is clear; the

issue is simple. Is the substance of the amendment something that the

minister and his government can support, or is it not? That's the

issue. For the minister to attempt to hide behind some procedural

strawman is not very brave. I wouldn't say it was cowardly, Mr.

Chairman, but I would certainly observe it's not very brave. It's not

very intelligent.

Perhaps the minister feels that the

general public does not have a role, and that there should not be

public hearings. I think it was the gist of the minister's comments, in

an interview carried in the Vancouver Sun yesterday, that it

has traditionally been the upper middle-class who have protected the

environment. That was our class — the upper middle class — the minister

said. He talked about the upper classes protecting the fields and

streams. That sounds chummy to me. It smacks of the private reserve —

you know, the private game preserve that only the rich can afford,

where they have private fishing and hunting grounds. Oh, the upper

class will take care of it. Perhaps that's why the minister doesn't

want an amendment that would give that great, unwashed public some

input into the protection of the environment. If that is the case, the

minister should have the fortitude to stand up and say so. It

ill-behooves a neophyte minister to attempt to hide behind artificial

procedural rules in this Legislature — rules that do not exist. It is

important that the public have an opportunity through full public

hearings to voice their concerns and suggestions for the protection of

the environment.

The minister should address himself to the

substance of the amendment. Does he support an opportunity for public

involvement, or does he not? It's as clear as that. The minister should

have the fortitude to stand up and speak on that issue.

MR. SKELLY:

I'm sorry the minister refused to stand and debate the amendment

itself, because one of the things we've seen right through this bill is

an attempt to deny public access to the whole process in environmental

decision-making. We are wondering why the minister refuses. The member

for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) said it may be because of his class

background or something; I hope that's not the truth.

[ Page 6308 ]

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll ask the Leader of the Opposition not to interrupt members.

MR. SKELLY:

It appears that time after time in every environmental statute,

including this

section of this one, the public is specifically denied

access to environmental decision-making. We have a very simple

amendment, which would not allow public involvement in the

decision-making process and not public hearings, but would simply

remove a bar to public hearings and would allow the public to be

notified. That's all we're asking in this amendment.

Possibly

what we should do is to give the minister time to look over the

amendments. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report

progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Sanford

Skelly

Lockstead

D'Arcy

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Passarell

NAYS — 26

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Hewitt

Jordan

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Brummet

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

Journals of the House.

Amendment negatived.

Section 4 approved.

Sections 5 to 11 inclusive approved.

section 12.

MR. SKELLY:

This

section allows the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to overturn any

decision of the appeal board for what the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council decides is in the public interest,

whether that means taking George Spetifore's land out of the

agricultural land reserve or giving some Social Credit group up on

Kinbasket Lake virtually free waterfront for ten years. We simply do

not feel that the public interest is protected by the existence of the

Social Credit cabinet. For any appeal board or appeal proceeding to

have any kind of validity or respect at all from the public it should

have an independence from cabinet and an independence from this body.

We would prefer to see that appeal board and the decisions it makes

independent from cabinet. We intend to vote against this section. It

should be stricken out of the act.

MR. COCKE: I have

just one word, and that is that the minister and naturally the

government — it's a government bill — have indicated very clearly that

they're not interested in the public or the public interest by virtue

of the amendments they have rejected. For us to trust that cabinet to

act in the public interest with respect to this regulation

section is a

joke. How could anyone support it under the circumstances we have seen

before us today?

Section 12 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 26

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Hewitt

Jordan

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Mussallem

Brummet

NAYS — 19

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Sanford

Skelly

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Passarell

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

Sections 13 to 20 inclusive approved.

Schedule approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Bill 22, Environment Management Act, read a third time and passed unanimously on a division.

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

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

[ Page 6309 ]

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 1), 1981

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

section 1.

MR. STUPICH:

I've never heard of the Society of Management Accountants. I just don't

know what that is. I wonder if the minister could tell us who that

organization represents.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It's my

understanding — and I can't give you specifics — that there's been a

recent change of name by the industrial accountants group.

MR. STUPICH:

I wonder whether this bit of tokenism was requested by the association

itself. When the appointment is made by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, is it with a recommendation from the

association or does the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council go elsewhere?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

The amendment was made at the request of the association. The

appointment to this board of governors is not made on their

recommendation but by the Lieutenant-Governor exercising his own

discretion, as is the case with chartered accountants.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

section 7.

MS. BROWN:

Sections 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 all deal with the Family Relations Act. Can

I deal with them all as one, or how would you like them done? The act

is addressed to the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), so he

probably could respond.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's deal with

section 7, hon. member.

MS. BROWN:

I'm talking about the paternity and support amendments right through to

the Family Relations Act. I have a couple of questions I just want to

ask on those. Is that okay?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MS. BROWN:

The problem that we are having with maintenance orders is that there

doesn't seem to be any teeth in terms of the enforcement. I'm not quite

sure whether these amendments in fact do that. I know that the Minister

of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) must have discussed this with

the Attorney-General, because it is a real problem that we're having

with maintenance orders. It doesn't seem that we can enforce them. The

minister wants to respond.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: These

amendments are intended to ensure that the orders made under this act

for the maintenance of children are based on the same criteria as those

contained in the Family Relations Act. The member who has just asked

the question should know that once a paternity order has been made, the

amendments will allow a reciprocal enforcement in other provinces of

maintenance orders made under this act in the same manner as orders

made under the Family Relations Act. Under the present wording of the

Child Paternity and Support Act this is not possible. I think this is

what the member was getting at. Maintenance orders made in British

Columbia cannot be enforced outside of the province. The amendment will

also permit better enforcement in British Columbia, as it allows the

use of the provisions of the Family Relations Act.

The order

for maintenance is to apply to children up to age 19. At present the

Child Paternity and Support Act limits the age to 16. That's the change

there. When a child reaches this age, it's necessary to reapply under

the Family Relations Act for maintenance to age 19. The amendment then

eliminates the need for this procedure. The judge will be able to use

the same criteria for determining the amount of the order as are used

in the Family Relations Act. At present, some orders can be extremely

low, and it's anticipated that by using the Family Relations Act

criteria, orders will be made in higher amounts. This is to bring it in

line with the provisions of the Family Relations Act — again, I think

that's what the member is getting at — and the judge will have the

power to cancel or reduce arrears of maintenance under an order, which

is not in the present act. In general, the main impetus then of the

amendments is to ensure that the provisions for the making of

maintenance orders under this act will be uniform with the provisions

of the Family Relations Act.

MS. BROWN: I want to

thank the Minister of Human Resources for explaining the amendments —

to bring it in line. Are we going to then have better enforcement as a

result of this? Because I know that the Family Relations Act is there

now in place, but we're still having problems with enforcement, even

when the parent who is non-paying resides here in British Columbia.

It's the teeth in the enforcement

section that we need.

I just wondered if the Attorney-General wanted to respond to that question about the enforcement.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Well, that matter is not specifically involved in this amendment; it is

indirectly involved. I wish to assure the member that administratively

within the family law division of the ministry this question of

enforcement and increased enforcement is being examined. There are many

problems associated with the enforcement of orders under the Family

Relations Act — and there will be under this one. We are presently

considering a major revision in the entire structure which will handle

these enforcement problems.

If I may just briefly say with

your permission, Mr. Chairman, the direction in which we're trying to

move is to take the initial responsibility away from the person who

holds the order and to provide some more professional assistance.

MR. LAUK:

Just a word on this, Mr. Chairman. I hope the Attorney-General is

careful when he moves the civil order into a law enforcement procedure.

Is that what the Attorney-General is discussing? Is that what he meant

by more professional assistance — giving it into the hands of a bunch

of supercops who can swoop down and...? Not that something like that

may not be needed from time to time, but I would hate to see a

precipitous action taken.

[ Page 6310 ]

Sections 7 to 13 inclusive approved.

section 14.

MR. BARBER:

Mr. Chairman, in the city of Victoria there are three buildings owned

by a developer named John Congdon. They are on Cook Street, Pendergast

and Olympia. In the instance of each of these buildings it has been the

landlord's declared intention to convert them from rental to

condominiums and to sell each of the apartments therein. There are

approximately 120 apartments altogether. Through a loophole the

landlord was able to sell the building to himself.

MS. BROWN: Sounds like BCRIC.

MR. BARBER:

It's true, just like BCRIC. He sold it in the name of Congdon

Construction to another company named Despard Construction. Mr. Congdon

is the sole owner of both companies. As a result, he has been able to

circumvent the requirements of an order-in-council passed by our

administration in 1974, and subsequently.... The Minister of Forests

(Hon. Mr. Waterland) says that's a good thing. Do you realize what's

happening to the people who are being kicked out of their homes?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARBER:

Anyway, he's been able to circumvent the provisions of the

order-in-council and the policy of the city of Victoria, which is to

protect the tenants who own those homes.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the first member for Victoria is

saying that the Minister of Forests said certain things that were not

said. I'd like the record to be clarified. I said nothing. I would ask

the member to please withdraw those comments which he ascribed to me.

MR. BARBER: I will not. You pounded your desk when I said the developers circumvented a regulation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister makes a correction.

Hon. members, we must all remind ourselves that it is not appropriate for one member to attribute remarks to another member.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Chairman, it's well known in this House that during the speeches of

all hon. members those remarks that are made by the speaker who is

recognized can be applauded or rejected, and the sign of that approval

is by pounding the desk. Because the Minister of Forests uses his

forehead rather than his hand to pound the desk does not mean that the

pounding of the desk was not a sign of approval of the suggestion made

by the hon. member for Victoria. I don't know why he's so upset. I

think we could move his chair out into the corridor, though.

MR. BARBER:

What the developers managed to do is thereby circumvent both provincial

and local policy, which requires the approval of municipal governments

before a building may be converted from an apartment to a strata title.

What that has meant for the senior citizens — not exclusively, but

primarily senior citizens — who are currently tenants in those three

buildings is that they have found themselves under some duress and

considerable pressure to move out. The landlord has given his written

commitment to me that unlike the previous encounter — which was on

Heywood Avenue, Victoria, also owned by Mr. Congdon, when he for all

practical purposes required the tenants to leave — he says he will not

too gravely encourage them; he will allow them to stay in the building.

The problem for the tenants is that they are now being hit with

significant rent increases to pay for the costs of renovating those

suites in the building which are shortly to be marketed as strata

titles. This is grossly unfair and is currently the subject of an

appeal by the rentalsman.

My question to the minister is

whether or not he contemplates that

section 14 in any way can address

the problem, which is twofold: first of all, the circumvention of the

clear intent of this Legislature — the current government did not

revoke the order-in-council passed by our administration, and that's

good — and the clear intent of policy in the city of Victoria that only

with consent of local government may a building be converted from

rental to strata. I should point out that it is currently the policy of

the city of Victoria that no buildings shall be converted from rental

to strata, because we're in a very desperate shortage of affordable —

or any, for that matter — rental housing in Victoria. If the minister

declares that this

section is not competent to address that problem, I

wonder if the minister might undertake to bring in and incorporate

within the miscellaneous statutes bill which we gather will be coming

down shortly some further provision to strengthen the clear and

untrammelled ability of local governments to protect the interests of

renters who may wish to continue living in a rental building where the

developer has found some sneaky way of getting around the provisions in

law.

There's a second issue as well. I wonder if the

minister could tell us whether or not

section 14 or a

section to be

incorporated in the next omnibus bill might also address it. It is the

case that the tenants in these three buildings were not aware that the

developer had previously attached to the title a condition which

allowed him, he thought — by virtue of this loophole; by selling the

building to himself — to transform the building from rental to strata.

I wonder if the minister might give an undertaking that, either through

this

section or some

section to be contemplated and included in the

next omnibus bill, a requirement might be imposed on the owners of all

rental properties in the province that if they choose to apply under

whatever local policy may exist for conversion from rental to strata,

they be required to notify in writing each of the tenants of their

intention to do so. There are two problems here. The first is that

these people feel that they are under considerable duress and unfair

pressure to move from their homes in these three buildings. The second

problem is that they were given no notification whatever that it was

the intention of the landlord to do this — because, you see, the law

does not currently require it. On both counts that seems to me to be

unfair to the individual tenants. On the larger count what seems unfair

and unreasonable is that this or any other developer shall, by selling

a building to himself, which is what happened when it went from Congdon

to Despard — both owned by the same individual — be able to circumvent

the clear intention of this Legislature and of the city of Victoria. I

wonder if the minister could answer those particular questions about

the section; if the

section fails to address them as they should be

addressed, would he give an undertak-

[ Page 6311 ]

ing that the next omnibus bill coming down — in the next week or two, I gather — might in fact help remedy these problems?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

I will try to summarize the answers to the three questions raised by

the first member for Victoria. First,

section 14 would not address or

relate to the kind of problem the member has just described.

Section 14

deals with a different type of problem but I do point out that it

provides a superintendent's discretion. Therefore the structure of the

section in any event does not automatically provide that certain things

will happen, but gives to the superintendent a discretion.

With

respect to the member's two further questions which relate to the

jurisdiction or autonomy of the local or municipal government to have a

right to screen or approve so-called conversions, and with respect to

attempts by persons to circumvent the clear policy of this government

that conversions from rental to strata premises shall require municipal

approval, I think the simplest answer is this: these concerns and this

issue have recently arisen in the city of Vancouver in the Barclay

Manor case. It's the current classic. I've spent several hours this

week with the rentalsman working on that problem. It's very

complicated. I expect to have a report to the House early next week. In

the course of that report we'll be addressing the issues that the

member has raised.

At this moment, I cannot give any

undertaking as to what the next miscellaneous or omnibus bill will or

won't contain. As we analyze the Barclay Manor situation, we're finding

that a series of policy issues are arising — some involve some

consultation with Vancouver city hall, for example. So I wouldn't want

to be premature in committing myself. I can assure the member that I am

greatly concerned about any efforts to circumvent the process, and I

think that in this very tight rental market the trend should be to

ensure that tenants have full and adequate notice of any proposal which

might impinge on their security. People who are going to test or try

new techniques first should, if at all possible, be required to have

those run by or commented on or vetted by, if not the rentalsman,

certainly local government. So that's the direction we're moving in.

MR. BARBER:

I thank the minister for his comments, and ask whether or not he would

be prepared to discuss with the rentalsman the issue of the three

buildings in Victoria owned by Mr. Congdon at Cook Street, Pendergast

and Olympia. The rentalsman's office in Victoria has the entire file.

I've had a great deal of correspondence with the office. If he would be

willing, I think he would find some similarities between this issue and

that with which he is currently familiar at the Barclay building in

Vancouver.

Secondly, I would urge the minister again that at

the very least, we should have some provision in law this session that

requires notification by the owner to each individual resident of those

buildings if he intends to seek approval, or in some other way obtain

approval, for conversion. The simple fear is that the citizens in these

three buildings have been made to suffer by virtue of gossip and rumour

— the stories of carpenters who come in to fix up vacant suites which

will not be rented again, and the carpenters say, "Oh, didn't you know?

Here is the new policy. No one told you?" The stories and the fright

that abound are just unreasonable. It is absolutely unreasonable that

that should be allowed to occur.

As I say, we finally got an

undertaking from the landlord. Nonetheless, it doesn't deal with the

real problem. We're grateful for the minor undertaking from the owner.

I would prefer, and urge on the minister at the next statute

opportunity, a major undertaking by the government to ensure that

notification and reinforcement of both his government's commitment and

ours — continuous now for seven years — to require municipal approval.

That should be guaranteed and ironclad in law. At the moment, there

seems to be a loophole that's hurting citizens, and that's not just

fair or reasonable.

Sections 14 to 22 inclusive approved.

section 23.

MR. COCKE:

Well, Mr. Chairman, on

section 23 we're looking at an amendment to the

Ferry Corporation Act, and the amendment gives the Ferry Corporation

the right, and no doubt the obligation, to turn back any of the surplus

from their sinking funds to the government — that is to general

consolidated revenue. In this situation I would just like to remark

that having sold four ferries, including the Queen of Oak Bay , which

has just come on stream, really what we're doing here is borrowing

money. I suggest we're playing jiggery-pokery as usual. I would just

like to hear precisely what we can anticipate in terms of revenue from

this particular situation. Oh, the Minister of Finance is in such a

huffy to get on his feet.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr.

Chairman, the responsibility for this particular

section would rest

either with the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr.

Fraser) or with myself. This is a one-time move, and I trust that the

explanation which follows will be of assistance to the member for New

Westminster and to other members of the committee.

Prior to

the establishment of the Ferry Corporation as we now know it, over

something in excess of $41 million in securities was transferred out of

consolidated revenue fund of the province in order to provide

investments to retire the debt that had been incurred up to that point.

As a result of higher than anticipated earnings on those investments,

there developed a surplus of something in excess of $4 million after

repayment of the debt is expected — a relatively small amount in terms

of the Ferry Corporation and other activities. Since the so-called new

Ferry Corporation did not make any payments toward the retirement of

this debt, the surplus should — and would with this

section — be

returned to consolidated revenue fund. I hope the explanation assists

the member.

Sections 23 to 37 inclusive approved.

section 38.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, I notice that the Health Emergency Act has been changed

and a commission now shall submit to the minister a report from the

preceding calendar year respecting the operation of the commission, and

the minister shall lay the report before the Legislative Assembly as

soon as possible. Well, that's a significant change. In the past there

was a statutory demand for the minister to put it forward at a specific

time. Now the minister can bring it forward.... We saw a report

recently in this House on the fiscal year 1979. So if there is anything

a mite

[ Page 6312 ]

embarrassing

in the report, the minister can have difficulty getting it ready and

into the House. The whole question of a separate financial statement is

something I would also like to question the minister about. In any

event, what's the reasoning behind this particular move?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Basically, Mr. Chairman, the amendments would permit the health

emergency division to supply a separate report to the minister. That

report then would be incorporated into the annual report of the

Ministry of Health, rather than having two separate reports.

MS. BROWN:

Does that mean that a separate, detailed financial statement will still

be prepared? And does this mean that it will simply be incorporated

into the annual report, or are we going to lose that detailed financial

statement?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The purpose of the

amendment is as the member suggested; that is to incorporate that

report. My information is that the report which would have been tabled

separately would be contained within the Ministry of Health report. I

don't see any reason why it should have lost any of its detail.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, it sounds like an expeditious way of handling a

situation, but I worry about it from this standpoint. This year when we

went through the Health estimates, vital statistics, who once had a

vote of its own, was buried under administration with absolutely no way

of being able to bring it out. The same thing applies to an annual

report. You can take a particular area and just bury it in the report.

The numbers are all there, but at this level one doesn't have access to

those numbers. The minister will have access, but the House will not.

I'm really quite worried. I can see that as long as the emergency

services isn't embarrassing to the ministry in any way, shape or form,

then their numbers will be large and in place in the report. Somewhere

down the road this could be an embarrassment, and then it could be

buried under some particular area within the report. I'm not quite sure

I really understand why it's being done.

MS. BROWN:

One of the first things that the auditor-general pointed out in

auditing the Ministry of Human Resources was the lack of detail in the

annual report. She criticized quite strongly that, in fact, annual

reports give you general kinds of statements. But the detailed

financial statement, which you can presently get, is going to

disappear. Instead we're going to get a kind of general, overall

statement, as you find in most of the annual reports around. I think

the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) was right when he zeroed in

on the vital statistics branch in the Health estimates. It had one line

under administration. Although there were a number of things that one

wanted to raise under that particular vote, I had to ask the minister

where the vote was, because it was so diminished in terms of its

reporting. It seems to me that the House is quite satisfied with the

report as it's presently done and with the detailed financial statement

which accompanies it. Any move away from that is not going to make it

any better for the opposition or the government members in terms of

understanding what's going on in that ministry. I don't think it's a

good amendment.

Sections 38 to 50 inclusive approved.

section 51.

MR. STUPICH:

The sections 9 and 10 that are being replaced in the

section before us

now did provide for an appeal on almost any grounds. If someone didn't

like what was being done, they could appeal. The amendment before us

limits the appeal to a point of law, so I take it from this, if this

amendment passes, that no one will be able to appeal an order of the

Marketing Board except to the supreme court and except on a point of

law. I'm not sure whether the Attorney-General should be answering or

the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) or the Chairman.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

The appeal process is there, Mr. Chairman. Normally what happens is

that a grower or a person appeals a decision of a commodity board — for

example, the Chicken Marketing Board — to the B.C. Marketing Board. He

appeals to that board — a provincial body — a decision of a commodity

board. So that is his route of appeal. To then go through a procedure

to appeal a decision of the provincial marketing board other than on a

point of law is almost going through a second appeal procedure. The

avenue always has been that the commodity board passes an order; if

somebody is aggrieved they appeal to the provincial board. I recognize

that the member for Nanaimo knows all that. It was redundant to go a

further step with a further appeal. Therefore we have taken those two

sections out, and the appeal route now on a decision of the provincial

board is on a point of law.

MR. STUPICH: Mr.

Chairman, there have been appeals from decisions of the provincial

marketing board. I appreciate the procedure is as you say, but

nevertheless people have felt in the past the desirability of

appealing. That procedure was there to accommodate that. It is your

intention now that they will no longer have that avenue of further

appeal except on a point of law.

The other question I'd like

to ask is: now that we're bringing the supreme court into it, it seems

to me that that achieves two things. It delays the process

considerably, and it makes it much more expensive. Is the expense borne

by the person who appeals?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr.

Chairman, there has only been one appeal in the history of the B.C.

Marketing Board, so basically the

section itself has never really been

used. The costs would be allotted in the normal manner with regard to

any supreme court action.

Sections 51 to 60 inclusive approved.

section 61.

MRS. DAILLY:

This is the amendment to the School Support (Independent) Act. I

particularly want to ask the minister about the dropping of the number

of qualifying years from five to three. When this act was brought in I

remember the former minister who was in charge giving all his rationale

for the five years, and I'm wondering why the present minister or the

government has seen fit to change it.

HON. MR. SMITH:

It was the experience of the five-year waiting period that the result

was really six years before a new school was funded. That was too long,

and it was not

[ Page 6313 ]

necessary

for a school to prove that it was meeting all the other criteria for

funding set out in the act. The reduction of that to three, plus the

first year in which they won't get funding, should amply guard against

a proliferation of schools that may lack stability or cohesiveness, but

still reduce the period sufficiently that bona fide and stable schools

will be able to qualify.

On the education tour this

reduction was asked for almost universally from people in the

independent school system. I feel it's a good balance. There are

Catholic schools in this province that are seeking to establish in new

areas, and it seemed harsh and unreasonable that they, and some others,

should wait the five years plus. That's the rationale for it.

MRS. DAILLY:

I thank the minister for his explanation. I notice that FISA, of

course, is referring to other provinces where it apparently gets less

and less. I just want to make the point that I hope we don't find that

here. I'm sure that if your government endorses this act we all want to

be sure that the type of schools that qualify under it are properly

investigated.

Sections 61 to 63 inclusive approved.

section 64.

MS. BROWN:

I want to ask the minister if he could tell me in terms of dollars what

the end result of this new formula is. What exactly is going to happen

now? The budget impact on that change in the 1982-83 budget year, which

will be the first year that it's applicable, is estimated to be

approximately $350,000. That is in revenue that has been lost to

independent schools, as the member knows, arising out of transfers

where students did not stay the full qualifying period. Quite often

there were transfers within the independent school system, so two

independent schools got no benefits. But that is the dollar impact.

Sections 64 to 79 inclusive approved.

section 80.

MS. BROWN:

I just wanted to ask the Minister of Agriculture and Food whether there

was any consultation with the municipalities or the regional district

before bringing in this particular amendment. In fact it seems to me

that what he is doing is taking over some of the jurisdiction of the

municipalities and the regional district. In case you haven't read it,

Mr. Chairman, it means that now the consent of the municipality or the

regional district is not needed before an inspector moves in and starts

his weed-control program. I just wondered whether there was any

consultation before this decision was made.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Yes, Mr. Chairman. Concern has been expressed where an order was issued

for clean-up and it wasn't carried out, especially in a regional

district situation where the inspector had to wait 30 days and had to

go back to the regional district board to get approval. By that time

the weeds had all gone to seed, and the problem had passed. All the

seeds had spread around to everybody else's property. So yes, they were

consulted. What happens is the property owner is first served an order.

He gets notice; he gets time to clean up the property. If he doesn't,

then the weed inspector has the right to go on the property and clean

it up.

MS. BROWN: Without bothering to consult with the municipality.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Without having to go back, because it was just too much of a delay.

Section 80 approved.

section 81.

MS. SANFORD:

This morning we've had answers from ministers responsible for the

various sections of the bills. We've heard from Agriculture, Health,

Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and Human Resources. I regret the

Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) is not here, because this

section deals with an amendment to the Workers' Compensation Act. I

have a number of questions, and I would also like an explanation as to

why this particular

section was necessary. In view of the fact that the

minister is not here, I'm wondering if the government would perhaps

agree to hold the bill over. First of all, could I have an explanation

of the reason for this particular section.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

The underlying reason relates to the steps to make the boards of review

independent from the board itself. As part of the move to greater

independence, I think the 1979-80 session legislation reflected that.

As I understand it, there are several loose ends to be tidied up

relative to financial arrangements for staff of the boards of review. I

understand that this particular amendment will bring the boards of

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

government and will remove the direct financial responsibility of the

Workers' Compensation Board for the boards of review. In the simplest

of terms, I think that given that the boards of review have been moved

a step independent from the board itself, one of the remaining

questions for the staff of the boards is: what about things like

traditional employee benefits? The provision here is to make it

possible for them to be secured through agreement, as opposed to those

particular benefits being directly provided under the board, given that

the policy goal is to make the boards of review more independent from

the board in every sense.

MS. SANFORD: I have a

further question to the new Minister of Labour. We are removing the

words "and the members and staff of the boards of review" from

section

86(6).

Section 86(6) in the act says: "The commissioners of the

board, and the members and staff of the boards of review, are entitled

to the benefits provided under subsections (3) and (5), and to other

fringe benefits provided to employees of the board. Since we're

removing members and staff of the boards of review from

section 88(6),

could the minister explain what other fringe benefits those people will

now have eliminated as a result of this particular amendment?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

Mr. Chairman, none will be eliminated, and indeed the purpose of the

amendment is to ensure that the affected staff members do not lose —

and indeed maintain — the short- and long-term illness plan of the

provincial government.

MS. SANFORD: Well, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is attempt-

[ Page 6314 ]

ing

to explain that this relates to the long- and short-term benefits and

that the employees and boards of review members are being moved from

the coverage now contained under the WCB Act to the provincial

government plan itself. I'm wondering if the minister could then explain

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

section for these particular people — that is, the staff and the

members of the boards of review.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

Well, I think it's clear, Mr. Chairman, that the amendment before us is

one that deals with the procedure by which such employee benefits as

may be added can be achieved. I can only say to the member that this

amendment ensures that when in the result it is wished to expand the

range of employee benefits, they can indeed be secured through

agreement. As of this moment the amendment does not speak in terms of

any immediately added amendments for those people; rather, as I say,

the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that it will be the case that

the short- and long-term illness benefits will indeed continue to be

available to those affected staff members.

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Chairman, I think the committee needs to look at the matter of

order and procedure involved here. While the explanations from the

adviser counsel to the Minister of Labour may sound all right in a

legal way, he is not the Minister of Labour, and the Minister of Labour

is the person who has the responsibility for reporting to the House

about the compensation act and for handling amendments and proposals

thereto. That's the essence of what part of responsible government is —

the minister of the Crown responsible for his ministry to the

Legislature. I'm not saying that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs doesn't know what he's talking about; he obviously knows far

more than the Minister of Labour, if we're making any comparisons on

this matter. But it seems to me that we should not handle this

particular

section of this bill in the absence of the Minister of

Labour. Regardless of the explanations given, it is the responsibility

of the Minister of Labour, as it has been for all other ministers so

far during the day. So I suggest that the only course we should follow

is to hold it over until the Minister of Labour is available.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Mr. Chairman, the procedure being followed is the usual procedure in

committee, but the request is a reasonable one. I move the committee

rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy filed an addendum to the 1980 annual report of the Ministry of Human Resources.

Hon. Mr. Chabot tabled the 1980 annual report of the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1 p.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

8 The Hon. L. A. Williams to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 8)

intituled Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1981 to amend as follows:

Section 6: In the proposed

section 8 (2) by deleting "in addition to" and substituting "in place of".

Section 11:

In the proposed

section 12 (2) (

d) by deleting "chairman" and "Section" and substituting "president" and "Branch" respectively.

In the proposed

section 12 (3. 1) by adding "second and" after "the presiding member shall cast a".

Section 12:

In the proposed

section 15 (2) by deleting "subsection (2) " and substituting subsection (1)".

By deleting the proposed

section 20 and substituting the following: "Appeal to Court of Appeal

"20.

The judge, justice or court referee may, within 30 days after the

notice under

section 19 (3) was mailed or personally served on him,

appeal to the Court of Appeal from an order made under

section 19 (1),

and the Attorney General is respondent in the appeal."

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1981,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada