[ Page 2615 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Access to Information Act (Bill 79) Mr. Gibson.

Introduction and first reading –– 2615

Oral questions

Sale of Mount Stephen property. Mr. Barber –– 2615

Canadian submission to Habitat on unearned profits on land. Mr. Gibson –– 2616

Seatbelt regulations. Mr. Wallace –– 2616

Fraud charges against BCR. Mr. Barrett –– 2617

Law programme at UBC for native Indians. Ms. Brown –– 2617

Government actions on unemployment. Mr. Lauk –– 2618

Reports

Reports 2, 3, and 4 of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and

Private Bills. Mr. Mussallem –– 2618

Statements

Law and order in Hedley. Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2619

Mr. Macdonald –– 2619

Move of PWA head office to Alberta. Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2619

Routine proceedings

Societies Act (Bill 47) Second reading.

Mr. Gardom –– 2620

Companies Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 76) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2620

Mr. Macdonald –– 2621

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2621

Miscellaneous Statutes (Court Rules) Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 69) .

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2622

Mr. Macdonald –– 2623

Mr. Lauk –– 2623

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2623

Attorney-General Statutes Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 74) . Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2624

Judicial Review Procedure Act (Bill 44) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2624

Mr. Macdonald –– 2625

Mr. Wallace –– 2625

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2626

Credit Unions Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 60) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2627

Mr. Barrett –– 2627

Mr. Gibson –– 2627

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2627

Legal Professions Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 62) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2628

Mr. Macdonald –– 2628

Mr. Lauk –– 2628

Mr. Gibson –– 2629

Mr. Wallace –– 2629

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2630

Petroleum and Natural Gas (1965) Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 25) .

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2630

Mr. Barrett –– 2631

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2631

Municipal Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 53) Second reading.

Mr. Gibson –– 2632

Mr. Macdonald –– 2632

Mr. Wallace –– 2633

Mr. Bawlf –– 2633

Mr. Barber –– 2634

Mr. Lea –– 2637

Mr. Lockstead –– 2639

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2639

Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 63) .

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2641

Mr. Barber –– 2641

Mr. Gibson — 2641

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2642

Strata Titles Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 73) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2642

Mr. Wallace –– 2642

Mr. Nicolson –– 2644

Mr. Bawlf –– 2646

Ms. Brown –– 2646

Mr. Gibson I I –– 2647

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2648

Division on second reading –– 2649

TUESDAY, JUNE 15, 1976

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. W. DAVIDSON (Delta): It gives me both pride and pleasure this afternoon to introduce my father, the Rev. D.D. Davidson, in the gallery. I would ask the House to join with me in making him welcome here this afternoon.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the House to welcome Father Lancaster, who led us in prayers today, an active and very highly regarded priest in greater Victoria. I understand that he's going to be on a sabbatical, and there are at least one or two of us around here who wish that we also could take a sabbatical from time to time. But we wish him well and it's very good to see him here.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased that I was able to arrange seats for two members in the gallery, two gentlemen who are not strangers to this House, Mr. Gordon Dowding and Mr. Jim Gorst.

MR. L. BAWTREE (Shuswap): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this afternoon are two people who have meant a great deal to me in my lifetime — I refer to my wife and my mother. I would ask the House not only to welcome them, but also to be on their best behaviour while my mother is in the House. (Laughter.)

MR. G. HADDAD (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, I have in the gallery today Mrs. Don Douglas and her daughter Melanie. I might mention that Mrs. Douglas is "the office manager for the city of Cranbrook, and has been for many years. Would the House please welcome them here today?

Introduction of bills.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT

On a motion by Mr. Gibson, Bill 79, Access to Information Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

SALE OF MOUNT STEPHEN PROPERTY

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): My questions are to the Minister of Housing, and they concern the Mount Stephen properties in Victoria. Can the minister confirm that the advertisement, which appeared in the June 7 edition of the Vancouver Journal of Commerce announcing that the Mount Stephen public housing lands in Victoria are to be sold to private developers, appeared by mistake more than two or three weeks before it was intended to appear?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's interest in this particular project. I've indicated on two occasions now that I will be making a statement. That statement is in preparation; I have prepared a draft and I hope to have a full statement for the House on the Mount Stephen matter within the next sitting or two. I'll take the question as notice.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Answer it now.

MR. BARBER: In advance of that statement, I wonder if you would be so good as to include in it answers to these questions as well — and I'll be very brief: could you inform the House who authorized the sale of the property and who ordered the accidental advertisement to appear in the Journal of Commerce? Will you take that as notice as well, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The phraseology puzzles me, Mr. Speaker. I don't know that people order accidental advertisements, but I do take the question as notice and will have a statement.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): You admit it was accidental, then.

MR. BARBER: Well, Mr. Speaker, if I may continue on a supplemental; the advertisement did appear and I am informed that it should not have appeared. Someone must have ordered it, and presumably the bill will be paid.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! You are becoming argumentative in presenting what should be a question.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is another matter which I hope the minister might also take as notice and refer to in his statement. It's very recent.

The council of the city of Victoria met in committee just this morning and has demanded a full explanation of the Mount Stephen matter. In committee they learned that the proposal call asked that one-half acre of the lands be set aside for park or play space development.

They further learned that the Department of Housing advised the developers....

[ Page 2616 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. member please state his question?

MR. BARBER: If I may, in order that the question be sensible, I'd preface it with a couple of remarks.

They learned that the department advised that the developers were informed by the department that that property could, in fact, be turned over to the city. The developers wouldn't be responsible for the park but the city would. Needless to say the city has been further insulted by this matter. The question is this: will you, if you intend to proceed with the sale, rewrite the proposal call to compel the developer to pay for the park himself and not place an additional burden on the city of Victoria?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I take the question as notice and will be making a statement on this matter at the earliest possible time.

MR. LEA: Cover-up.

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member for Prince Rupert has just used the word "cover-up," which is totally incorrect.

MR. LEA: If it isn't a cover-up, make it public.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I've indicated, Mr. Speaker, that a statement is in preparation. I could have rushed in here today with a statement to satisfy the points made earlier, but on the basis of questions from the hon. second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) that....

MR. SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I would ask the member to withdraw the word "cover-up."

MR. SPEAKER: On the point of order, the word "cover-up" in itself is not an unparliamentary word, but if the member for Prince Rupert was imputing a motive to the Minister of Housing when using that word, then I would ask him to withdraw it.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, of course I wasn't. I was just trying to find out why he was going to buy time and why he wouldn't make a statement in this House now when he has the information. What is he trying to cover up?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

CANADIAN SUBMISSION TO HABITAT
ON UNEARNED PROFITS ON LAND

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Housing. The minister, I believe, was British Columbia's representative on the Canadian delegation to Habitat. The Canadian delegation approved the insertion of a statement which read, with respect to land sales: "The unearned increment resulting from the rise in land values resulting from changing use of land from public investment or decision, or due to the general growth of the economy, must be subject to appropriate recapture." Could I ask the minister if he supported this stand of the Canadian delegation?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I was not a member of the committee assigned to that particular aspect of the several principles that were dealt with at Habitat. I was on Committee 1 and this was in Committee 30.

I will be reporting to cabinet. I think that as far as the statement is concerned, the hon. member would know that a statement of that sort would provoke considerable disagreement and difference of opinion as far as a number of members of the delegation are concerned.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, the minister may not have been a member of that particular committee but this was a statement of the entire delegation, if I understand correctly. My question was whether he supported that statement or not. It's very simple one way or the other.

HON. MR. CURTIS: As a member of the delegation assigned by cabinet, Mr. Speaker, I see it as my first duty to report to cabinet on matters which were dealt with at Habitat, particularly declarations.

SEATBELT REGULATIONS

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Transport and Communications. Could the minister tell the House if a final decision has been taken as to the penalties which will be imposed on drivers or passengers who do not wear seatbelts?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, this will be discussed when the legislation is being introduced. A final decision has not been made at this moment.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Apparently, Mr. Speaker, it's another of the situations where this kind of thing can be discussed in the press but not in this House.

In view of the opinion expressed by the B.C. Automobile Association that demerit points should not be imposed on drivers not wearing seatbelts, has the minister taken any initiative to meet with the

[ Page 2617 ]

officials of BCAA to discuss this important aspect of the pending legislation?

HON. MR. DAVIS: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker, but I would be glad to meet with them if they so wish.

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary then, Mr. Speaker. Since opinions have also been expressed that imposing fines on passengers who do not wear seatbelts would further clutter up the demand on already overcrowded courts, has the minister had any discussions or will he be having discussions with the courts or their representatives to determine how valid a criticism that would be?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, we have had discussions with the Attorney-General's office and the representatives of the police forces in that connection.

FRAUD CHARGES AGAINST BCR

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): I would like to direct a question to the hon. Attorney-General. I would like to know from the hon. Attorney-General some specific information about the court case between a Crown agency and M.E.L. Paving that your department is partly involved with. The BCR is the Crown corporation, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to ask the Attorney-General about the court case between M.E.L. Paving and the B.C. Railway relating to charges of fraud and conspiracy against the Crown corporation of the B.C. Railway arising out of contracts signed in the spring of 1972. The trial was set for May. The court registry now informs us that the case has been postponed until October 4.

Can the Attorney-General tell the House why it was necessary to delay this case of fraud and conspiracy which has been under consideration since 1974?

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): No, Mr. Member, I'll have to take the question as notice.

MR. BARRETT: Would you also take the following supplementary questions? Was the case postponed at the request of the railway or was the case postponed at the request of M.E.L. Paving? Can the minister assure this House that this important case relating to fraud and conspiracy charges will be heard fully in public court?

HON. MR. GARDOM: In response to the last mentioned statement, I'd certainly like to assure the hon. member that it has been the practice of courts not only in this province but in this country to hold their hearings in public, save and except in matters where it is considered by the court on motion to be in the public interest that they so not proceed.

I'm taking your question as notice, Mr. Member. I'm unaware of the allegations which you are raising today, and I'll look into them.

MR. BARRETT: I'm not raising an allegation — as a supplementary, Mr. Speaker — I'm just asking for information and your opinion on a question on a serious charge of fraud and conspiracy against a Crown agency.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's sub judice.

MR. BARRETT: It's not sub judice. Would you allow this to be settled out of court?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: It's not sub judice. I'll get your old definition of sub judice out from when you used to sit there.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! The hon. minister has taken the question as notice. I would hope that he will bring the answer in as soon as possible.

LAW PROGRAMME AT
UBC FOR NATIVE INDIANS

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, my question is also addressed to the Attorney-General. All of the native Indian students, Mr. Attorney-General, who entered the University of B.C. faculty of law in the programme of legal studies for native people were failed at the end of this year's programme. Will the Attorney-General be intervening as a result of the failure of this very important programme?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I can't quite determine the full impact of the hon. member's question. I don't think it is the responsibility of this department to intervene in the method of examinations in this province.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the Attorney-General, that programme was set up in consultation or with the support of the Department of the Attorney-General to right a historical wrong in this province. All I am asking, Mr. Attorney-General, is whether you will be intervening, now that the programme has failed, to try and recapture it — the same way that you recaptured the aid for developing countries fund?

[ Page 2618 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: In response to the hon. member, I gathered from her first question that it was the students who failed. Is that correct — the students had failed?

MS. BROWN: When all the students fail, the programme has failed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Oh, I see. We'll look into the programme.

MS. BROWN: Thank you.

GOVERNMENT ACTIONS ON UNEMPLOYMENT

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): A question to the hon. Minister of Economic Development. At a time when the lumber market is improving, Mr. Herb Doman of Doman Industries is curtailing operations at his Nanoose and Ladysmith mills, adding to an already massive unemployment rate in the province of British Columbia. In view of the fact that he is also a director of the British Columbia Development Corp., can we interpret his moves as the government's policy to get the provincial economy moving again?

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's question, I am quite sure that he will interpret the move any way he feels fit, based on his past experience as Minister of Economic Development.

MR. LAUK: Would the minister indicate what current programmes are being implemented, at a time when everywhere else unemployment is decreasing and it is increasing in this province? What kind of programme is his department, and he, the Cardinal Richelieu of the government, implementing today to help the unemployment rate go down?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, what the member is asking me for is really a statement of the programmes and all the great things this government is doing. If you would like me to start right now, I'm quite prepared to stand on my feet for the next couple of hours and tell him the positive initiatives which this great government is taking. Every day new proposals are flowing into this government, new proposals for new industries and new companies....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LEA: A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: Disrespectful again.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LAUK: Big fat zero — zero!

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. SPEAKER: In case the hon. members of the House are not aware, during the exchange which just took place the bell rang ending the question period.

The hon. member for Prince Rupert on a point of order, I believe.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask leave of the House for the hon. Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) to make a statement on what the government has done so far to stimulate the economy in terms of the forest industry. I ask leave of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: That's not a point of order. It's not in line with the business of the House at the moment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: It's not a point of order, Hon. Members.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Presenting reports.

Mr. Mussallem from the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills presented the committee's reports 2, 3, and 4, which were read as follows and received:

Mr. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows:

Report No. 2:

That the preamble to Bill 50 intituled The Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of New Westminster Incorporation Act has been proved and the bill ordered to be reported with amendments.

[ Page 2619 ]

All of which is respectfully submitted.

Report No. 3:

Mr. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows:

That the preamble to Bill 51 intituled British Columbia Association of Colleagues Incorporation Act has been proved and the bill ordered to be reported without amendments.

Your committee further recommends that the additional sum of $300 paid by the petitioners pursuant to standing order 98(3) be refunded.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

Report No. 4:

Mr. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows:

That the preamble to Bill 52 intituled Vancouver Stock Exchange Act Amendment Act, 1976 has been proved and the bill ordered to be reported without amendments.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

George Mussallem,

Chairman.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, I move the rules be suspended and the reports adopted.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom presents the 64th annual report of the superintendent of insurance.

HON. MR. GARDOM: With leave of the House, I would like to make a statement, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

LAW AND ORDER IN HEDLEY

HON. MR. GARDOM: Hon. Members, this deals with the problem at Hedley which was referred to in the House in earlier stages when questions were raised. The problem there is not a new one. It is one that has been occasioning over the past, short while; as a matter of fact, the file indicates some correspondence to my predecessor.

Since the statement in the House, the member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt) attended the area of May 30 and met with a number of people and received some first-hand reports. On June 14, Inspector Fullerton of the B.C. Police Commission went to Hedley to discuss problems with citizens, individually and in small groups. I am pleased to announce that on June 1, the Princeton detachment has been increased by one additional constable on a temporary basis which is going to result in increased coverage for both Hedley and within the total detachment area; the patrols have been increased, including random night patrols. A staff sergeant has been sent to do an in-depth study of the policing needs of Hedley and, on the basis of his study of the policing needs of Hedley and, on the basis of his study and the B.C. Police Commission's findings, consideration is going to be given to increasing the Princeton detachment on a permanent basis by one or two constables.

On Friday, June 25, a public meeting has been called at which time Dr. Hogarth, the chairman of the B.C. Police Commission, will himself attend to hear the views of the citizens. I think, as all the members know, that these kinds of problems do not clear themselves up overnight, but the actions that I have announced can be considered as steps toward a long-term solution, and I think we all know that these kinds of solutions are really best found in the community itself.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, we welcome the initiative shown by the police commission, which I think is the way to go in these things. I would like to add, however, that since my Mazda blew up outside of Hedley and I had to push it into town, I wonder if they could have a look at that at the same time. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'd like to have leave to make a second statement, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

PACIFIC WESTERN AIRLINES MOVE

HON. MR. GARDOM: This deals with the situation of Pacific Western Airlines. I'd like to draw to the attention of the hon. members that on Monday of this week a statement of claim and a notice of motion and affidavit were filed in the federal court seeking an order to restrain the movement of Pacific Western Airlines operations from B.C. to Alberta, pending the determination by the CTC of the outstanding issues relating to the acquisition of the majority of shares of PWA by the government. Since the proceedings were filed a wire has been received from the secretary of the Canadian Transport Commission, and I'd like to read it to the members:

RE APPLICATION BY THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA TO ENJOIN OR RESTRAIN THE MOVE OF OFFICES BY PACIFIC WESTERN AIRLINES LTD. FURTHER TO OUR TELEPHONE CONVERSATION I AM ADVISED THAT THIS APPLICATION IS BEING PLACED ON AIR TRANSPORT COMMITTEE AGENDA FOR CONSIDERATION THURSDAY, JUNE 24.

Orders of the day.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): By leave, Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 47.

[ Page 2620 ]

Leave granted.

SOCIETIES ACT

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, British Columbia adopted its first Societies Act in 1920, and a number of amendments were made from then until 1947 when rather an encompassing revision was enacted. Major changes in the company law in the province resulted from the 1973 Companies Act, and this bill is subsidiary to and a satellite of those changes.

An in-depth study resulting in the proposed legislation was undertaken under the chairmanship of Mr. Gerald H. Cross, QC, of this department with Mr. Richard Berg and Mr. H. Craven, CA as independent consultants. Legislation in other provinces, some of the United States and England were considered in the formulation of the present bill along the following fines: that the legislation be stated in simple, modern language; that small societies with uncomplicated corporate structures and activities of little economic significance be incorporated and maintained with relative ease;' that large societies, complex ones and those of, shall we say, considerable economic significance receive a more sophisticated legislative provision for incorporation and more stringent regulation of their affairs. For consistency, Mr. Speaker, the general style of draftsmanship and terminology of the Societies Act has followed that of our present Companies Act.

Certain of the major changes, as I've indicated, will be these: simplified procedures, uncomplicated forms of incorporation and routine reports, plus a comprehensive set of bylaws as provided in the statute. Responsibility of directors and officers is more clearly articulated; relevant sections set forth duties of honesty, good faith and degree of care to be taken. Directors may be required to furnish security for the faithful discharge of their duties, and may be indemnified for any liability incurred as a result of honest mistakes.

There is a means for removal of a director during his term of office. Conflicts of interest must be disclosed; otherwise any gained profits will belong to the society. Procedures are also available for persons to apply to the court to upset unresolved conflict situations. There are more stringent requirements for reporting societies, and again this is a parallel proviso to the 1973 Companies Act which itself made provision for a very special and higher level of financial disclosure.

Reporting societies will be those which themselves decide so to be; there will be those requiring licences or consents from the superintendent of insurance or other officers or ministers of the Crown to incorporate, and those which are subsidiaries, and those which the registrar of companies orders to be reporting because of their large membership or other special circumstances.

They will be required to prepare and issue comprehensive financial statements, have professionally qualified auditors and report to the registrar upon acquisitions or dispositions of subsidiaries. There is also a reinforced right for members: 10 per cent of the members of the society will have the right to require directors to call a meeting for any special purpose, and in the event the directors do not do so, then the members may take that course themselves and at no cost to the directors,

I think the members will be interested in these statistics. According to current record from the office of the registrar of companies, there are about 8,700 societies in B.C. with upwards of 85,000 members. In order that they, the general public, the legal profession, the members of this House and others concerned and interested in the conduct and in the business of the societies will have an opportunity to consider this bill, it is proposed that it will not go beyond adjourned second reading at this session. A very similar measure was followed when the new Companies Act was first introduced in 1973, and it was found to be most helpful.

So it is my proposal this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, to adjourn this debate myself upon sitting down. If any of the members have comments — and I would certainly welcome the general public to carefully take a look at the bill — would they direct them to the attention of Mr. Gerald H. Cross, who is the chairman of the corporation legislation committee of this department in Victoria. As I say, this is a similar procedure to that adopted before with the Companies Act, Mr. Speaker; I think it's appropriate in the circumstances.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 76.

COMPANIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1976.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, in second reading I am not going to belabour the various items contained in these amendments. They are considerably technical. I think the House would perhaps be best served by addressing itself to the points during the committee stage.

I would just like to have a couple of introductory remarks and inform the members of what has occasioned here. The present Companies Act was passed, as we will all recall, in 1973. Since that time a member of the staff, Mr. Sheppard, has been working

[ Page 2621 ]

in cooperation with a committee of the bar of B.C. comprising Mr. Lundell, Mr. Montgomery, Mr. Lambert and Mr. Huberman. They have been reviewing the Act essentially on a continuing basis and have considered a variety of comments from the bar, from the judiciary, from the accounting profession and from businessmen in the province.

As the result of those recommendations and as a result of the committee considering the same, we are now making amendments to the Act to bring the statute into line with common business practice. I think it will be the intention of this government, as it has been of all governments in the past, to keep its Companies Act current and up to date.

There are a couple of items that are new and are different. I would like to refer them to the hon. members. The bill contains a provision which allows companies to transfer in and out of the province. Previously if a company was operating in Ontario and it wished to move to B.C. and discontinue its operations in Ontario, the only way it could do that would be to register extraprovincially in this province. It could never be treated as a B.C. company. By virtue of the amendment, if a company wishes to move from Ontario to B.C. It can take advantage of this provision and transfer the registration of the company to British Columbia so it will become a British Columbia company with all the rights and the privileges that are allowed a B.C. company under the Act.

The bill has expanded the number of people who can apply to the court for relief from oppression under section 221 to include individuals who are beneficial owners of shares. This section deals with applications to the court pertaining to injustices allegedly experienced by members of the company — directors or what-have-you. It provides the mechanism for the appointment of an inspector that the affairs be properly conducted.

An interesting provision is that if a director of a company has a registration under the Securities Act and he loses that registration by virtue of action taken by the superintendent of securities or the Securities Commission by virtue of improper activities, then he loses his right to continue on as a director of the company.

The bill amends the Act to allow a director or an auditor of a small company to be a liquidator of that company. It will allow the registrar of companies to make orders amending mortgages or other documents filed with his office rather than having to have people go to the expense and time and inconvenience of a court order.

A few other points here: it tightens up the requirements for a company of keeping a complete records office in the province. There are different provisions concerning the filings of notices of directors, for example; there are different provisions concerning the time for an annual general meeting. Amendments will permit the appointment of additional directors between meetings of members and there are improved mechanisms for service of legal documents.

The amendments now require that an individual cannot serve a legal document on the company by simply serving a receiver. It is also necessary to serve the registered office or a director. Requirements are improved dealing with extraprovincial companies' maintaining records offices. Dealing with those companies which have to file financial statements with the registrar of companies, provision is now within the amendment to make it abundantly clear that such statements must cover the full previous fiscal year and that they be placed before the shareholders.

So as I say, it is technical, Mr. Speaker. I think perhaps it could be handled a little better in committee stage. If between now and committee any of the members of the House have any specific questions concerning any of the individual items, we will do our level best to answer them.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I agree that the best place for questions would be in committee, because all the sections cover different matters. I'm pleased, however, that the cumbersome procedure for extra-provincial incorporation of companies is being done away with and there are some other pluses in the bill.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 69, Mr. Speaker.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know that the front benches are a little bit nervous today, but they should move an order of this House referring to the last debated bill to a committee; otherwise, it would be a good idea, I believe, if the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) were to move that the bill be placed on orders of the day and be referred to a committee at the next sitting. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'd like to thank my learned friend for his advice and counsel. Thank you very much. (Laughter.) I'm glad he wasn't retained. I could never afford that, though.

Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

[ Page 2622 ]

Motion approved.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 69.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
(COURT RULES) AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I have to readily admit that there's an awful load within this particular bill. It contains reference to 49 statutes and indeed a larger number of amendments. The reason for it is this, hon. members. The new rules of court for both the supreme and the county court have been approved by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council with their effective date being January 3, 1977, next year.

They were recommended by a committee of draftsmen who worked in very close liaison with a committee of judges and bar review committee of practising lawyers. I may say that this has been a seven-year exercise and a great deal of study and hard work has been put into the project by almost innumerable people, and I would very much like to both thank and congratulate them upon their efforts.

I would refer to some of the highlights here, Mr. Speaker, and they are rather lengthy but I'll endeavour to be as short as I can.

The drafting committee recommended the use of more up-to-date language and terminology in the rules and the simplification of many of the existing procedures. In addition to the actual revision of these rules of court the drafting committee identified a large number of statutory provisions which would have to be amended so that the new terminology and simplified procedures of the new rules could work.

What we're doing today, Mr. Speaker, is ensuring that the language of the statutes and the language of the rules court will be able to effectively mesh.

The amendment proposed in the bill fall into several general categories. The first is language. We tried to avoid archaic legal jargon wherever possible, and phrases, for example, such as "suits, cases and matters" have been eliminated in favour of the general word "proceeding." A writ of fieri facias has been renamed "a writ of seizure and sale." Another example of change is that the statutory provision of describing a procedure to get before the court merely states now that there's a right to make "an application" to the court as opposed to having a multitude of procedures.

As the result of a variety of statutory formulae, confusion arose in the past as to the power of a local judge of the court to hear certain matters, especially in chambers, so rather than now referring to an application to the court, or to a judge of the court, or to a judge, the recommendation is that the statute simply state a right to apply to the court.

A number of obsolete provisions have been repealed. I'd like to refer to some of the procedural changes. The procedure for commencing a matter in the court has been simplified so a person now attempting to get in front of the court need only choose between a writ of summons and an originating application.

There have have been important amendments to the Evidence Act which I know the solicitors in the House will be interested in. In short, the amendments modify the present law with respect to the way in which a medical doctor gives evidence and applies that law to the evidence of all experts. A statement in writing setting out the opinion of the expert is required to be given to the other side at least 14 days before he testifies; then the court may accept the statement in writing without requiring the expert to appear, although any other parties of the lawsuit may require the expert to be called so that he may be cross-examined. What has happened with this amendment, hon. members, is we now have a similar practice for all expert witnesses, as was heretofore restricted only to those In the medical field.

AN HON. MEMBER: Rights of doctors are the same, though.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes, they're within...they're maintained as before, hon. member, in a similar situation as the practice you were accustomed to over your many tortuous and hard years at the bar.

Section 22 of the Infants Act is of interest. It's been recast to clarify the procedure for service of documents on people who have not attained their majority. I'd like to refer to the county court rules, which, for practical purposes, have been greatly diminished — almost eliminated — because now we have only one set of rules for both the county court and the supreme court.

A few of the existing county court rules, which are not applicable to the supreme court, have been recommended to be placed in the County Court Act, and you'll see this within the bill, so there will not be a necessity any longer for a separate set of county court rules.

As example of one item where the relief is maintained and put into the statute, as opposed to being in the rules, is that which would allow a plaintiff to abandon a portion of his claim which is in excess of the monetary jurisdiction of the county court.

The next item I was going to refer to is one of some interest. For years now, B.C. has had a provision both in the Supreme Court Act and in the rules of court to the appointment of a master, and because of a variety of difficulties, this concept has never been brought to light. And B.C. has never had a master, although most of the other provinces of

[ Page 2623 ]

Canada have a judicial officer performing this very role. We think this concept is indeed worth trying, and we also feel that by restricting the activities of this master, essentially a master in chambers, to interlocutory matters, the constitutional difficulties can be overcome.

Dealing with court administration, the Supreme Court Act is being amended to provide for both a registrar and a chief court administrator, and it's hoped by divorcing the responsibility for administrative services to the courts from the responsibility of carrying out the quasi-judicial duties, the quality of both administration and quasi-judicial will be improved.

There are certain subsequent matters which require the approval of the Legislature, and I would say that this problem was solved in 1943 by having the Legislature approve and validate the rules of court in section 4 of the Court Rules of Practice Act, so the present bill uses the same solution as occasioned then by amendment to section 4 of the Court Rules of Practice Act, referring to the new rules of court.

AN HON. MEMBER: Speech!

HON. MR. GARDOM: A few more puffs here, Mr. Member.

There is now a discretionary jurisdiction to the court to direct the sale of property of proceedings under an agreement for sale of mortgage, and that has been by virtue of an amendment to the Laws Declaratory Act, which clearly states that both the county and the supreme court will have jurisdiction there. And I would again say, as I said at the outset in talking about that other bill, this is a mighty complicated bill — 49 statutes. The intent is to dovetail the statutes with the supreme court rules which will be coming into effect in January, 1977.

I would like to say one thing about that again. We've deliberately picked that day in order to give the bar and the bench adequate time to consider that which will be occasioning in this session, and the results of the order-in-council. If they have any suggestions or comments, indeed, they would be welcome.

I move second reading on it.

MR. MACDONALD: Once again, I think this bill could be considered in detail in committee when the hon. members of the House will have as good a chance to understand it as they had before the Attorney-General spoke.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ohhh! Shame! (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: I, too, would like to congratulate those individuals who worked tirelessly over the many years to bring about these changes in procedure and so on — the court rules of practice.

AN HON. MEMBER: Going back to school?

MR. LAUK: Yes, I'm going to have to to learn those changes.

A lot of people out there, Mr. Speaker — and this may come as a surprise to you — don't appreciate the full effect on the, practice of law with respect to those clients that these rules will have benefit toward.

MR. MACDONALD: That's right.

MR. LAUK: It will cut down costs in time and fees, and so on...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LAUK: ...and, as you well know, there's no lawyer in this chamber that wishes to supply his pension out of antiquated court rules.

Mr. Speaker, I have another point to raise in the debate in principle on this omnibus bill, and that's that the recent bar meeting in Victoria alarmed a few local trial lawyers with respect to the Law Reform Commission of Canada's report and the new proposed national evidence Act.

We were considering changes in rules of evidence. Some people were critical that members of the bar made personal statements about those who drafted this new codified evidence Act, when in fact it was by reason of the fact alone that these people were academics, and unpractised lawyers, that they would recommend a system of evidentiary rules in criminal courts that would bring about an American system of evidence. If there's anything that we Canadians think is better than in the United States — and there may be other things — it is that our court system brings justice without the kinds of delays we see in the courts in the south, that we have better evidentiary rules overall, and that we don't need a group of academics back east telling us it's not the case.

We don't need those new changes, and I think that I, for one, would like to publicly associate myself with the remarks of the chairman of the criminal justice subsection committee of the Canadian bar here in British Columbia, Mr. H.A.D. Oliver, and say that no self-respecting defence lawyer Father Lancaster knows of whom I speak in this jurisdiction would have any truck or trade with the new proposed evidence Act. I am sure this relates to this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Attorney-General closes the debate.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I haven't seen such a marvellous exercise of seagulling since the former

[ Page 2624 ]

Speaker was here, Mr. Speaker. I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 69, Miscellaneous Statutes (Court Rules) Amendment Act, 1976, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 74, Mr. Speaker.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

HON. MR. GARDOM: Bill 74, Mr. Speaker, is the omnibus bill from the Department of the Attorney-General. It covers amendments to some 25 statutes. The explanatory notes, I think, are full and complete. I would ask all hon. members to address themselves to the matter and I think that, again, this could be far better considered in committee stage. I accordingly move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 74, Attorney-General Statutes Amendment Act, 1976, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 44, Mr. Speaker.

JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEDURE ACT

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, this Act emanates from a very comprehensive report by the B.C. Law Reform Commission. It is highly important legislation and most complimentary to the civil rights of an individual because it's designed to ensure that a citizen may not be unlawfully or mistakenly dealt with by an administrative board or tribunal exercising statutory powers without that citizen having recourse to the curative powers of the supreme court.

The proposed legislation will cover the spectrum of pretty well all of these statutorily established boards and tribunals in the province, save and except those that are specifically excepted from judicial review as provided within their own statutory authority.

The existing law is highly complicated and in many cases antiquated. Today there are many differing forms of procedure for administrative review by the court. It has not been uncommon for an applicant having been subject to an administrative abuse to have proceeded to the court for relief only to have found, not that he should have not been entitled to the relief, but that he happened to ask for it in the improper form and, for that reason, the court was unable to assist. I'd say, Mr. Speaker, that it used to be pretty much of a pigeon-hole exercise, and technical postures were the order of the day. Now it's the intention of this bill to remove such procedural impediments to the due course of justice.

The legislation will mean that, per se, this procedure will replace the four prerogative writs, certiorari, where an administrative tribunal acted in excess or abuse of its jurisdiction, or contrary to the rules of natural justice, or where there was an error of law on the face of the record. It was open to a person to initiate a writ of certiorari and come to the court through that particular approach.

It will also eliminate the writ of prohibition, which prevented tribunals from acting or continuing to act in excess or abuse of jurisdiction or contrary to the rules of natural justice. It will eliminate mandamus, which would compel the performance of a public duty owed to a person who has so entitled. It would further do away with quo warranto, where a person could be removed from an improper use of a position or of an office.

I'd like to stipulate, Mr. Speaker, that, in effect and in spirit, these traditional remedies will certainly continue but that now there's going to be one uniform and readily defined procedure. This will be by a petition to the court under an application for judicial review.

There are also some substantive changes, and I'd like to refer to those. Under the former procedure where, say for an example, an arbitrator had made a recommendation that it was beyond his jurisdiction, the court didn't have any choice but to quash his decision, resulting in the need for a complete rehearing. Now this bill will rectify that kind of an inadequacy, and the court will now be permitted to remit the matter back to the arbitrator for reconsideration and permit him to make a fresh decision within the bounds of his corrected jurisdiction.

Also, as another example, under the earlier law where a tribunal failed to comply exactly with the details in a statute, it was possible to challenge how that power was exercised, but once again with the court not having any option but to quash the findings of that tribunal.

This bill is curating, and the court will be allowed to validate the exercise of the power, providing it was not any substantial wrong, nor any miscarriage of justice occurred since he can validate and return back, notwithstanding there might have been a technical defect in the lower stage through the administrative tribunal.

Now the machinery necessary for bringing this uniform application for judicial review is already in

[ Page 2625 ]

place, once again by the passage of the supreme court rules. So it's contemplated, Mr. Speaker, that this bill itself will not be proclaimed until such time as necessary when the supreme court rules come into effect on January 3 of next year.

The reform, so far, has only been located in two other jurisdictions — in Ontario in 1971 and in New Zealand in 1972. I'm informed that they've had very good success with the procedure.

In closing I'd like to say, Mr. Speaker, that I think this will very greatly enhance the ability of an individual to be dealt with quickly and fairly in today's-society which, as we all know, is becoming increasingly regulated. I think it's a first-class measure, if I may say so.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, clearly the bill should be supported, although it abolishes some of the old Latin on which I used to make a pretty good living — certiorari, quo warranto, mandamus prohibition — and those technical procedures will now be simplified.

I'm a little concerned that what's called the private clause is going to continue to have a life. I know it's a technical subject to discuss, but in many of the statutes it said "no court shall overrule or look at us or our procedures no matter what," and I think that all of them should be subject to this kind of judicial review.

The other question I don't know the answer to — and perhaps the Attorney-General in committee could give me the answer — is: should not the Arbitration Act be looked at in this relation to this Act, because there you have a procedure for the review of arbitration proceedings, and I just wonder whether this covers the same ground. Perhaps he could let us know in committee.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'm the last person to even claim to understand some of the technical language that the Attorney-General referred to and which is being removed from this bill. But one thing I do know is that the man in the street is becoming more and more concerned that his rights to question various arms of government in the form of these tribunals, commissions, boards — you name it, they're all over the place — and his or her right to challenge these decisions has been becoming more difficult.

Perhaps related to the point I made at the start of my comments, that the individual has sometimes difficulty even understanding what his rights really are, then to embark upon the jungle of legal jargon and rules and regulations is formidable and enough to dissuade even the stoutest heart. So it seems to me very clear from the minister's introduction of second reading that this bill is a sincere attempt by the government to make not only easier but more straightforward and more readily comprehensible the avenues of approach which the individual can have in relation to various arms of government.

I realize that the Attorney-General explained that this does not apply to certain authorities which are set up by virtue of their own statute — and in particular he mentioned the Workers Compensation Board. While this is not the place to debate that particular statute, I would pass the comment that I hope the Attorney-General in the months and maybe years ahead will review the question of the need, perhaps, for even workers' compensation legislation to be reviewed in the same light as he has obviously reviewed these boards and tribunals to which this bill does apply, because when a person lodges a claim with the Workers Compensation Board he or she is automatically giving up any right of access to the courts at a later date, no matter how many mistakes might be made in the meantime by various levels of administration in the Workers Compensation Board.

While this bill very clearly relates only to these various boards and tribunals that are not set up by a specific statutory authority, and while it is a step in the right direction, I hope that the caucus meeting going on at the moment in the front benches is not distracting the Attorney-General from my very earnest plea....

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Yes — all is not well with the WCB is the motto. I'm saying that while I understand in your introduction, Mr. Attorney-General, that this bill does not apply to such authorities as the Workers Compensation Board, I'm hoping that in the future you will review the need for the citizen to perhaps have the same kind of access and review of Workers Compensation Board decisions as will apply to some of these other boards and tribunals being covered by this bill, because when a person in good faith presents a complaint to the Workers Compensation Board, he or she is automatically giving up the right of any further access to appeal mechanisms other than the appeal mechanisms included within the Workers Compensation Act itself.

I know from direct experience how human and fallible are many individuals involved in doing what they believe to be in the best interest of an individual. Those individuals make mistakes just the same way as individuals on arbitration boards or various quasi-judicial bodies. When the appeal mechanisms provided under the Workers' Compensation Act are exhausted, the individual has nowhere else to go. He certainly cannot go to the courts. I am not satisfied that all the procedures of review within the Act are adequate.

But more specifically relating to the positive aspects of this bill, I am delighted that the minister

[ Page 2626 ]

obviously realizes that legislation is intended not only to serve people but to be understood by people and to be readily accessible to by people. The symbolic abolition of many of these Latin terms, I think, is to be applauded. I think that the general spirit and intent which the minister outlined in introduction of second reading of this bill is the kind of progressive — one might even say liberal...

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. WALLACE: ...thinking that we would support and encourage in the sessions ahead, assuming that the Attorney-General realizes this is just a start in a reforming process in regard to legislation affecting the rights and civil rights in particular of individuals.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if some of the more specific points might be better debated in committee, but I do feel that in general terms this is an excellent bill. If the minister could give some kind of response in winding up debate regarding my comments on future policy in regard to such pieces of legislation as the Workers' Compensation Act, I would be most grateful.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to respond to the question from the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), who queried as to whether or not this would have any effect on the Arbitration Act. This, of course, refers to the prerogative writs, Mr. Member, which were in use against statutory bodies and will continue to be restricted to that. But of course the common law motion to quash the decision of private arbitration boards will still remain within the common law. The common law has not been altered to that extent. The only thing that has been removed has been the prerogative writ; in their place we have established this judicial review procedure.

I'd like to also thank the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) and the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) for their comments in support, because it is innovative legislation. I very much agree with the statement so well articulated by the member for Oak Bay vis-à-vis having legislation that will not only do the job but which the general public can understand.

I would like to refer to the privative clause that he referred to, which is section 4 of the Act, without getting into the matter in detail. I think the hon. member was being a little prophetic; I don't recall that I talked about the Workers' Compensation Act. He is perfectly correct that that is one statute that would be excluded from this particular bill, as would be the Labour Code. There is a statement in the Workers' Compensation Act that the finding is final and conclusive and is not open to question or review in any court. In the Labour Code it says: "The Labour Relations Board in respect of some matters has and shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction to determine the extent of its jurisdiction on those matters or determine any fact or question of law that is necessary to establish its jurisdiction." I think the hon. member has made a good point. It's a very difficult area. It might be able to be cured in a manner different, than including it in a statute such as this.

I think, hon. members, that this is a matter that we intend to give consideration to over the months ahead — that is, perhaps, the establishment of a rule of procedure in administrative tribunals, which is really not as new as sliced bread nor as old as the wheel, because we find such procedures in other common law countries. It is certainly something that we could give a great deal of thought to in this province. If there were established rules of administrative procedure, it could well cure some of the difficulties which the hon. member has referred to.

But then again on the other side of the coin, we know that there has been in the past the greatest of complaint by society that one should not be getting into a pigeonhole exercise, which this bill is improving upon and doing away with. It found, for example, in the proceedings before the Labour Relations Board that they are handled, I think, perhaps far more effectively on an informal basis subject to what rules they intend to impose themselves as opposed to a rigid code. I think if we moved into the area of a rigid code that would be retrogressive.

I thank the member very much for his comments. I shall certainly consider them.

Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

MR. SPEAKER: I think we had better have second reading first.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I thought I moved that when I stood up the first time. That was so long ago....

MR. SPEAKER: First of all, Mr. Attorney-General, we have to have the motion. The question is second reading of Bill 44, Judicial Review Procedure Act.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for keeping me on track. I'm just trying to get through the business of the people as quickly as I

[ Page 2627 ]

possibly can.

Bill 44, Judicial Review Procedure Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 60.

CREDIT UNIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

HON. MR. GARDOM: Again, Mr. Speaker, I think this is a matter which perhaps could be best considered in committee. Again it is technical, but I would like to make a few opening remarks.

In the spring session of last year a new Credit Unions Act was passed by the Legislature, and I'd say a good job was done by the former administration in this regard. During the past year the new Act has been reviewed in the light of day of practical experiences, and that review has been conducted by the B.C. Central Credit Union, the superintendent of credit unions, and Mr. Sheppard, associate deputy minister of this department. That group also had discussions with the credit union reserve board, and all of the amendments have been agreed to by the individuals and groups that I've referred to.

The amendments are of a housekeeping nature, to correct problems of interpretation and other practical problems which have arisen since the proclamation of the Act. Some of the examples are these, Mr. Speaker:

There is an amendment to clarify prohibitions against overdrafts, which I'm sure that none of the members in this House would ever run into.

There is an amendment to allow a credit union to rebate excess profits to the purchasers of homes which were built under a credit union project, without the credit union having to face federal tax complications.

There is an amendment to clarify that only 10 per cent of the assets of a credit union can be invested in a subsidiary.

Another clarifies that reserves of the credit union cannot be held in the form of mortgages purchased in the market.

A further one allows a subsidiary of a credit union to qualify as a member.

One more permits two amalgamating credit unions to use one common insurance carrier on amalgamation.

Another limits the circumstances under which credit unions can invest trust funds in their own securities.

Another one deals with the transmission of deposits and death under the provisions of our Succession Duty Act.

In B.C. we have today about 178 credit unions, Mr. Speaker, with a membership of nearly 600,000. I'm sure that the bill will be looked upon with a great deal of interest by them.

Accordingly I move second reading.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, before passing this bill I wonder if the Attorney-General could give us the report prepared by the credit unions on a possible cooperation of a financial institution with the provincial government so that we could discuss that report.

We'd need to know what the government's policy is on that report. As you know, the report has been kept secret, perhaps even from you, and it may even alter your approach to this legislation.

I would ask the Attorney-General if he would let us know that that hidden report will be available to the House so that we can read it and more intelligently relate it to this particular legislation.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano) ; Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the Attorney-General that this is a bill that should best be discussed in committee. I just wonder if the Attorney-General could give the House the assurance before he moves second reading that the provisions of this bill in substance have been discussed with the credit union movement and have generally been found to be acceptable.

MR. SPEAKER: The Attorney-General closes the debate.

HON. MR. GARDOM: In response, first of all, to the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett), I would suggest he direct his question to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe.) In response to the hon. Liberal leader, this bill has been vetted through the B.C. Central Credit Union, through the superintendent of credit unions, through the associate deputy minister of this department, Mr. Dennis R. Sheppard and we've also had discussions with the Credit Union Reserve Board. My information is that all of the amendments have been agreed to by all of the groups concerned.

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

Bill 60, Credit Unions Amendment Act, 1976, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Second reading of Bill 62, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 2628 ]

LEGAL PROFESSIONS
AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, this bill again is one that I think perhaps can be best considered by the members during the committee stage.

Essentially, it deals with a change of certain dates for elections, and also with a very interesting provision which will empower the benchers — and perhaps more specifically the discipline committee of the benchers — to inquire, if necessary, into the competence of a member of the bar and suspend him, if necessary, or require him to take additional training to improve his competency. I suggest that from now on, Mr. Speaker, the phrase "learned friend" will have to mean what it says.

I think perhaps notwithstanding the very personal trepidations of myself and my four legal colleagues in, the House, this measure does have the support of the bar; it's comparable to standards requirements in other professional statutes — the Medical Act, the accountancy Act, even the Hairdressers Act — so I think the lawyers are really just coming into step. I think the measure will receive the acclaim of the general public.

There have been considerable discussions by the bar in hearings over the past few years on the question of competence and specialization, and it is their decision to move ahead with this procedure, and the government is supporting it. I would address myself to moving second reading after I have heard from my colleagues.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, some of the legal members of this House might be a little bit concerned about that provision that a lawyer henceforth has to be competent — not necessarily mentis, but competent — and that's really a break for the public if it's carried out. (Laughter.)

But when Adrian and I were looking at this kind of legislation in the spring of 1976, Adrian was suggesting that perhaps there should be a lay member put on the benchers, one or two, to protect the public interest in the legal profession. I thought that was a very good suggestion. I suppose I'm not really puzzled as to why it hasn't appeared in this bill at the present time, but maybe that sheet was lost.

MR. LAUK: You know, Mr. Speaker, it would be a fine thing indeed if, by passing a law that says that all lawyers will be competent, that in fact tomorrow morning, after the law was made law, they would be. It says in the amendments to the Legal Professions Act that the benchers are going to decide as to who is competent. Well, there are some uncharitable members of the bar who would ask: "Who is going to judge the competence of the benchers?"

MR. BARRETT: Shame! (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: I think that'a a legitimate question to ask, because they're elected, most often than not, by popularity....

AN HON. MEMBER: Do they switch parties, too?

MR. LAUK: There's only one party with the lawyers, except for a handful of us brave types.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's the coalition party. (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: That's the Liberal Party. There's only one access to the bench, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Oh, there's two accesses to the cabin.

But seriously, Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General said he has some trepidation in bringing this forward. Can it be misused? I say, after reading this statute, it can be misused if you have a bencher group.... Benchers, for those of you who don't know what that is, is the ruling body of the bar association of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that like a cabinet?

MR. LAUK: They're made up of lawyers and lawyers only, and they're elected to those positions. There is no reason to believe that any bencher is competent or incompetent. They don't go through any tests of competence. They're elected as the ruling body of the bar association.

Now what if, heaven forbid, all the members of the benchers were of one political party and one political faith?

MR. WALLACE: Impossible.

MR. LAUK: What if they wanted to use this section to find a lawyer who was practising law, but who was of an opposing political party and political faith, incompetent? I wonder what would happen, Mr. Speaker, if this was improperly used, and I'm not for any minute suggesting that the present benchers of the law society would do that. But we don't know what's going to happen in the future. Events change, social circumstances change, and can the public rely on the political, philosophical and moral integrity of a bar of the lawyers in that community if they are subject to this kind of big club over their heads?

We know what goes on in the Soviet Union, Mr. Speaker....

HON. MR. GARDOM: You know better than

[ Page 2629 ]

most.

MR. LAUK: I don't know as well as you do. You have the....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: That's right. You know more about totalitarian government, Mr. Attorney-General, than this side of the House, and that seatmate of yours, with her new Genghis Khan bill taking away powers from the Legislature...you ask her about totalitarian government.

But getting back to my uninterrupted discussion of this bill, it's important to note that in the Soviet Union they have similar boards of. competence, and they have similar boards that decide whether a person is insane. Their definition of whether a person is insane or not is whether he believes in communism. If he believes in communism, he's sane; if he doesn't, he's insane.

Now what if someday some group of benchers, personnel who make up the bench, change in the many, many years to come and they use this tremendously powerful instrument for other than reasons of having competent and high standards within the bar — very dangerous. There is no provision for the protection of individual lawyers and therefore for the protection of the public. Who is to judge the benchers, Mr. Speaker? What appeal is there? What protections are there for this kind of political misuse of these vast powers? I am not stating arguments that have occurred to me on the moment. These arguments have been used to delay, at least, the passage of these provisions for many years. Those questions should be answered.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre has raised some very serious questions, but I would have thought, in observing the legal profession, that by the time any bar in British Columbia, as a whole, has become so corrupt and venal and unconstitutional as the hon. member suggested, our liberties would long since have vanished in other ways.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. LAUK: They're about to. Have you seen Grace McCarthy's new Act?

MR. GIBSON: It seems to me, on the other hand, that there is a great deal of merit in the case for some maintenance of professional standards and the ability to enforce that maintenance. I believe that other bodies, such as the medical profession, have such powers and they haven't been abused. But as a backstop to ensure the wise and judicious use of these powers, I would like to suggest to the hon. member and to the Attorney-General that perhaps the time has come to consider in a very serious way a greater public input and public representation in the governing body of the legal profession. Taking up the cry again of the hon. first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald)....

MR. MACDONALD: That's what Adrian was saying.

MR. GIBSON: He raised it earlier in this debate and reiterated what Adrian Wong used to argue so eloquently outside of this chamber. It is important, Mr. Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Speaker, that the sunshine of public opinion be let into the governing body of the legal profession. I hope that by this time next year we'll see another Legal Professions Amendment Act which will provide for members of the public to sit with the benchers in their important duties, to bring before that august body and into that august body the sense of public interest, which is, of course, already there, and public representation, which presently is not.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I just wish to associate my remarks with those of the Liberal leader, in much the same terms. The public is concerned about the various boards and tribunals we discussed in another bill, the rights and the protection of their rights in that regard, but at the same time the public is showing a much closer interest, and rightly so. The so-called self-governing bodies such as the doctors, lawyers and others, who have a great deal of authority under the statutes of this province to discipline themselves.... I know that many professional people in the respective professions — and I am certainly speaking for the medical profession — are not disposed to having a member of the public as part of the council of the College of Physicians and Surgeons in British Columbia. I feel in the strongest possible way that if professionals, such as doctors, believe in the wisdom of self-governing professions, they should have no fear of having the public gain access to the manner in which that internal governing is carried through.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: Now I realize that in the actual hearing of such cases where a doctor appears before the council.... But I am not suggesting for a minute that this should be a public hearing where the privacy and personal affairs of many other individuals besides the doctor are brought before the hearing. All I am saying is that it seems to me very reasonable that at least a member of the public should be a participating member of the group of professionals who hold the

[ Page 2630 ]

hearing dealing with the professional conduct of a member of the profession. So often the impression is created that by giving professionals this kind of authority to discipline themselves it is abused and that, in the simplest of terms, professionals look after themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I don't personally believe that is the case at all. But I happen to have had access or contact with some of the cases which have been dealt with in the case of the medical profession. I think it would build public confidence in the performance of these professions and in the fact that these professional bodies take the most strenuous measures to ensure that justice and fair play are carried out in cases where a professional person might suffer the very serious penalty of losing his licence to practice his profession.

I happen to have the same kind of confidence in the legal profession that their primary goal in disciplining themselves is to see not only that the public is given the protection that it deserves, but that the individual lawyer who may be, for whatever reason, called before a disciplining body also not only receives justice and fair play but is seen to receive just and fair treatment.

I understand that in Ontario the equivalent body in the medical profession has already appointed a lay person to its tribunal. I think it is a trend which, instead of appearing to question the efficiency and proper conduct of such hearings, adds something by way of public confidence by having the public know that at least one lay person is closely involved with the carrying out of the admittedly very extensive degree of authority which is afforded by statute to these professional bodies.

MR. SPEAKER: The Attorney-General closes the debate.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'd like to say in closing, Mr. Speaker, that this is a measure in the right direction and not in the wrong direction as perhaps one could construe from the remarks from the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk). Professional people have to know their trade and they have to know it well, and they have to maintain proper standards. What is proposed here is hardly dramatic legislation but it is, I think, comparable legislation.

I refer at the outset to the Medical Act. There's a provision in there that the college can investigate as to whether or not a member of the college is bringing to his practice of medicine or surgery adequate skill and knowledge. They can inquire into the conduct condition, capability or fitness to practise of any member of the college. Under the dental Act there's a somewhat similar provision. If the college reaches the opinion that a member of the college is performing substandard dental services, then that individual will have to present himself for re-examination and could face suspension. Under the Architects Act, it's open to the institute to cause an inquiry on a complaint made against a member or into his conduct, capability or fitness to practise. Under the Chiropractic Act, the words "ignorance or competence as to render it desirable in the public interest that his registration should be cancelled or suspended" are found. Under the Hairdressers Act, the board can revoke any certificate issued on grounds of gross incompetency. Under the Notaries Act the board has power and authority to inquire into the professional conduct or any alleged incompetence or negligence or fraud of a notary public.

What has happened here, Mr. Speaker, as I've indicated, is a step in a positive and correct direction and one that has been thoroughly considered, debated by the bar and approved by them.

Dealing with safeguards which would seem to be he concern of the member for Vancouver Centre Mr. Lauk), first of all, the benchers are elected. If they happen to exercise with a degree of impropriety, that would certainly be readily determined and they would not be re-elected a second time around. We further have the safeguard of the very statute that we agreed to this afternoon in second reading in principle, and that's the Judicial Review Procedure Act. It would assist under these circumstances. Furthermore, of course, as my colleague, the learned friend from Vancouver Centre is aware, there is an appeal to the court of appeal from the decision of the benchers.

Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I would move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 62, Legal Professions Amendment Act, 1976, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 25, Mr. Speaker.

PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
(1965) AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker, these amendments to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act are designed to streamline some of the red tape and paperwork involved in administering this Act and to provide access to the board of mediation, where it is required and which is not provided in the present Act.

For example, access over lands on which permit, licence, lease or drilling reservation is not held is

[ Page 2631 ]

provided in this Act. Oil companies or exploration people at times have to pass over land on which they do not hold the licence, lease or drilling reservation in order to get to lands where they do hold such licence, lease or reservation. It provides access to a mediation board for a determination of compensation when such access is provided.

These amendments eliminate the need to submit to the board copies of leases which do not contain rental provisions. The mediation board has no use for these or copies of leases. They serve no useful purpose, so the necessity of submitting them is eliminated.

When lump sum payments are made, these amendments eliminate the need for renegotiation of lease terms. When annual payments are made on lease terms then it is necessary at times that they be renegotiated. However, when an agreement is in effect and a lump sum payment has been made, there's no necessity for renegotiation, so this requirement is eliminated.

Other minor amendments brought forward in this amendment Act clarify that the money payable, as ordered by the mediation and arbitration board, must be related to rent or damages of the lands over which the mediation board is ruling. The loss of farm income, for example, is a direct cost to the owner of agricultural land, and this type of compensation is allowed. However, costs other than real damages are not provided for. This clarifies the role of the mediation board.

These amendments also provide for the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act to make regulations regarding the disposition for exploration of and production of oil from oil sands and oil shales which are not presently covered in this Act. At the present time there's no such production or exploration carried out in British Columbia. However, there is potential for this in certain areas in the future, and we wish to make the Act such that it covers this type of work.

Also the Act makes provision for the mine regulation Act applying to exploration and development work for oil sands and oil shales because, in fact, this type of work is really a mining operation.

These amendments to the Act are strictly housekeeping revisions. I cannot see where they are controversial in any way. I therefore move second reading.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on the question of oil sands and oil shale and other related oil products, there was some controversy earlier about access to oil shales in the Queen Charlottes. We'd like to know if you're proposing this bill to resolve that particular matter and, if so, exactly how you intend to resolve it since you're only saying here that regulations will be promulgated. We have no idea what those regulations are. That Queen Charlottes matter is a long-standing case.

In terms of the rest of the amendments, we find that there's really not too much to criticize here except that we find it ironic that this government that allegedly is supposed to protect the freedom of the individual is now saying that the state will give authority to any oil company to go right over somebody's property and then they'll mediate compensation after. I find that somewhat surprising in light of the commitments by this government that private property is sacred. This is really a right given to the oil companies which will go to mediation afterwards. Some members of this House, if they were in opposition on this kind of bill, would have a holy fit over it. They would throw themselves onto the ground and curl up into some kind of anti-socialist position that would be antediluvian, but then when they find that they have to take this authority they don't even consult the Attorney-General, who used to write those free-wheeling bills protecting the rights of the individual. There's no section about schizophrenia in here. I'd like to know what protection the individual and those great freedom fighters are going to give to the individual who owns this property. They're worried about the heavy hand of statism, iron-heel legislation, sweeping powers and all those things.

We want to know what protections there are, and we want to know if there's an appeal system before the crossing of private land takes place. What kind of notice is given? What kind of opportunity is there for people to prepare for this?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, in reference to the litigation that was underway in the Queen Charlotte Islands, I understand now that this litigation has now been withdrawn. This government, shortly after taking office, placed a reserve on this land to protect the interests of that particular party so that when this case was resolved they could be in a similar position or at least not have lost any rights which they thought they had. That particular dispute was relative to whether or not the rights for these oil shales were granted under the Mineral Act or under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act. My understanding at this time is that this case has been withdrawn. When these regulations are made for the disposition of these oil shale rights, then those people will have to apply for such rights on the same basis as anyone else.

As far as taking the rights of individuals away from them as far as their private ownership of their land is concerned, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the member opposite realizes that he's being a little bit facetious here, because the right to extract and develop the people's oil for the benefit of the people of British Columbia is essential, and the right to enter upon

[ Page 2632 ]

land on which oil rights have been disposed of has always been in effect.

This Act just clarifies the fact that at times you must pass over land on which you do not have rights...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. WATERLAND: ...in order to reach that in which you do have rights.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: There has always been provision for compensation for people whose land is crossed over. This compensation must be set and established before such entry is made. This Act is always read that way, Mr. Speaker; I'm sure that member opposite is fully aware of that.

MR. BARRETT: No!

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: You're great freedom fighters.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of this bill.

Motion approved.

Bill 25, Petroleum and Natural Gas (1965) Amendment Act, 1976, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 53.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

(continued)

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, previously I asked for the adjournment of the debate for the simple reason that the minister was not in the House. I know why he wasn't in the House; he was at Habitat and was unable to be here.

This bill is not one that in my view needs to be discussed a great deal at second reading; we should go into it in depth at committee stage. But the question I did want to raise with him on second reading was the absence, as far as I can see, of any amendments to the replotting section of the Municipal Act, some of which are quite controversial and are of great concern to some of my constituents. I would be very grateful if, in speaking to second reading of this debate, the minister could advise us if he is willing to delve back into all of the representations that he has had and his department has received on replotting over the years and consider this in a very active way for amendment t the next session of the Legislature, or as soon as may be possible.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of sections, of course, to be discussed in committee, but this is the bill that allows a company to cast two votes in a municipal election...

MR. LAUK: Shocking!

MR. MACDONALD: ...or three votes in a municipal election.

MR. LAUK: Shameful!

MR. MACDONALD: I think the minister is nodding his head or moving his lips but, as I understand it, the company can cast a vote now...

MR. LAUK: Outrageous!

MR.MACDONALD: ...but only one vote in each municipality. A company with offices in, say, five municipalities could cast five votes, but in different municipalities. Am I not right about that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes!

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I think that's what this bill does. You know, I am surprised that the tide of democracy which was surging forward under the NDP administration is now beating into retreat and ebbing. We're moving back to the time when we allow such things as corporate votes in municipal elections — not just the people voting, but companies voting, and companies voting two, three or four times. Now is that democracy, Mr. Speaker, or is that plutocracy? That's the question we have to ask ourselves. This is a retreat back to the old days of the Tory squire dominating civic politics and the multiple voting in cities like the city of Vancouver. We all remember it so well.

Mr. Speaker, the minister may not have retreated fully to the old days — not yet — but you have moved in that direction. You have moved away from the democratic franchise principle of one person, one vote and gone back to the principle of one person, one vote and if that person has a company, let that company vote too. That is one person, two votes; that is one person, three votes, Mr. Speaker. It is repugnant to everything we understand by the word "democracy." We on this side of the House do not stand for that kind of democracy. We should oppose that bill; we should debate it in detail in this House before this attack upon the simple democratic principle goes any further under this coalition

[ Page 2633 ]

government.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the comments of the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald). While I have no wish to speak in relation to the powers of corporations in voting, I am sure the minister in winding up second reading will clarify or confirm the understanding that the first member for Vancouver East obviously has about one section of this bill.

As far as I am concerned, one point that was lost sight of when the former NDP government removed the right of individuals to vote in a municipality outside the municipality in which they resided was the one big factor that is the most essential element in municipal franchise: it is that you as an individual are paying property tax in that municipality.

Since in recent days it has been suggested by some of the members of the Fourth Estate that we should all make sure there's never any information that's not made available to the public when an MLA speaks, I happen to own a medical office in the city of Victoria. Under the present legislation, all I have the privilege of doing right now is getting a tax notice last week saying my taxes are up by several hundred dollars. I, as the owner of that medical clinic in Victoria, have no say whatsoever in electing or not electing the municipal politicians in the city of Victoria.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: There's an interjection that I'm a miserable corporation; I'm often miserable but I'm not a corporation. (Laughter.) I'm just Scott Wallace, the owner of 1494 Fairfield Road. Oh, my goodness, I'm in trouble for advertising, Mr. Speaker! Oh, but then I'm not practising medicine, so it's all right. (Laughter.) This is becoming very complicated. I just....

AN HON. MEMBER: Is business bad, Scott?

MR. WALLACE: I've disillusioned a lot of people, Mr. Speaker; I've revealed the fact that I'm a businessman.

At any rate, I am serious and I am not sufficiently versed in the rights or privileges of incorporation, because I just make it very plain that there must be other people like myself who live in one municipality and as individuals pay taxes on property which they own in another municipality.

This isn't like a one man, one vote situation at the federal or provincial election where you're electing people at these two levels with a wide diversity of authority to deal with just about any subject under the sun. The essential element in municipal authority is that individual property owners pay taxes, and it is these taxes which pay a very large part in financing all that goes on in the municipality.

To suggest that because I happen to live in Oak Bay and own a small building in Victoria I should have no say in electing the municipal officials in Victoria, I think, is undemocratic.

The member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), who just spoke, thinks it is undemocratic to have more than one vote. I agree that at provincial and federal levels it would be wrong to base some additional voting advantage on the ownership of property.

MR. GIBSON: In any given area you only have one vote anyway, under this legislation.

MR. WALLACE: My understanding is, as the Liberal member has just interjected, that under this bill you only have one vote in one municipality. On that point, Mr. Speaker, I would also agree that that's the way it should be. I don't feel that depending on the number of pieces of property I might own.... And hastily I say that that is the only property I happen to own in Victoria, but even if I did own 10 or 12 others, I'm not for a moment suggesting that I would want 10 or 12 votes. But I do want at least one vote where the whole thrust of municipal affairs is based on the spending of taxpayers' money based on property ownership by these taxpayers.

I spoke strongly against the NDP legislation which took away my vote in the other municipality, and I'm just as willing and eager today to speak in favour of this bill — or at least this section of the bill — provided it is clearly understood that I'm only asking one vote in the municipality where I happen to own a piece of property.

I think that if the minister can give that assurance, in winding up second reading, it will probably clarify the comments made by the first member for Vancouver East and also re-establish what I think is a more democratic piece of legislation with particular, specific reference to the municipal field.

At no time am I suggesting that I should have several votes in a municipality, nor am I suggesting that at the provincial and federal levels such things as property ownership should give you any advantage over citizens who do not own property. In the municipal field the very essence of taxation decisions is so intimately bound up with property ownership that I think it is most undemocratic that an individual who does not happen to live in a municipality, but owns property, should have no say whatever in voting for or against the contending politicians seeking municipal office. On this particular section of the bill I support the government.

MR. S. BAWLF (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I want to very briefly associate myself with the remarks of the

[ Page 2634 ]

hon. leader of the Conservative Party. I think that the aspect of this bill which provides for a vote for a property owner, although they may not live in a municipality, is a most reasonable one.

The first member for Vancouver East has indicated that he thinks that by allowing a property owner, albeit a corporation in some instances, to vote in another municipality, he implies that that particular corporation is going to seize power over the municipality.

Well, the fact is that you're Gulf Oil and you own 47 gas stations in some municipalities; you still only get one vote. And the fact is that you only get one vote for one government to whom you're paying taxes — in this case through the medium of property taxes.

I hold no particular brief in my own regard. I would just, like the preceding speaker, like to make my interests clear. I own only my own home at this time, and I am most happy to be able to rise and speak from a point of view of impartiality. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): I must say it's a bit of a surprise to be debating this bill today, as we were given no forewarning.

MR. SPEAKER: That is not part of the principle of the bill, Hon. Member.

MR. BARBER: However, I rise as the designated speaker for our caucus, Mr. Speaker, but in giving that as warning, I don't intend to be too long.

There are a number of aspects to the Municipal Amendment Act which we will support. The raising from 8 per cent to 12 per cent on the level of interest that may be charged by municipalities for overdue taxes is itself long overdue, and we're very happy the minister's bringing it in.

Various of the improvements that he's making to audit procedures on the parts of municipalities are also an improvement, and we will support those section by section as they arise. But the major problem we have with this bill, Mr. Speaker, is that it is, of course, a kind of omnibus bill. There is no single or consistent principle throughout, but rather it speaks to a number of them, and that's fair and reasonable enough.

So what I would do today if you're willing, Mr. Speaker, is refer briefly to a couple of the sections that do concern us, and I realize this may ordinarily be a matter for committee to discuss; but because of the nature of this, and our brief discussion on second reading, I would simply like to put the minister on notice that we will be asking questions, and that perhaps prior to committee he might be able to obtain some answers for us.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

It may be noted that in section 1 of this bill, which later refers to section 4 and allows a partial return to the previous system whereby property has votes, that the definition of owners of property has been expanded, that not only have we come back to a system where property has, under certain circumstances, a vote, but indeed we have changed the definition of owners of property, and it only now means the purchaser or the tenant, providing the tenant holds, under a registered lease, the property in question.

This does expand, quite substantially, the number of persons who may care to exercise this particular kind of franchise. As I'll later mention when we get to debate on section 4, it is of some concern to us. As you well know, and the member for Vancouver East has already pointed out, we do object in principle to the idea that in any democracy at any level a person should hold more than one vote. We object even more when it's not a person so much as a property who holds the vote. We'll get into that a bit later.

Discussing section 3 again briefly, what the minister has proposed is to give rather substantial powers to the inspector of municipalities. This inspector now has the right to deny municipalities and regional districts the independence of action which they formerly had to establish companies. They were given that right under the previous administration. They were given the opportunity to establish various business enterprises which, in the view of the municipality or the regional district, were to substantiate the economic base of that enterprise, or of that region or municipality, or would in some way further the efforts of a municipality to take care of its own citizens.

One of them is, of course, of concern to my own riding in Victoria, where two years ago the mayor of Victoria and other members of council quite seriously proposed that the several municipalities in greater Victoria consider getting together for the purpose of forming an asphalt and paving company, because they had discovered a striking consistency in the tender proposals made by various of the paving companies for municipal jobs. Indeed, they were identical to the penny.

No legal charges have resulted so far, but it certainly was of grave concern, and therefore our government, responding to that interest, did amend the Municipal Act at that time to permit municipalities to engage in business enterprises of this sort — of a public works sort, of a kind that was clearly to the advantage of the municipalities or of the regional districts.

What's happened here in section 3, Mr. Speaker, is that the minister has chosen to reduce that autonomy of action, to reduce that independence of authority, to

[ Page 2635 ]

diminish the flexibility and the power of municipalities to move on their own, and has now in fact given that power to the inspector of municipalities.

It might well serve this House, Mr. Speaker, to be reminded that the minister, when in opposition — and other members of his coalition when in opposition — I frequently decried the broad and sweeping powers that were given to civil servants and governments and so on. We now see that the inspector of municipalities is in possession of such powers, and we will in committee — but in fairness to the minister I wish to put him on notice that we will be doing so — be raising questions about the criteria to be employed by the inspector of municipalities.

On what basis shall he make these judgments? When he turns down a municipality and its proposal to engage in a business enterprise, what judgments will he employ? What appeal procedures will exist once that decision has been made by the inspector, and indeed, if there is any political intervention of any kind on the part of the inspector of municipalities, to what extent will that inspector be accountable to this House?

It's fairly clear, Mr. Speaker, that many people feel that a municipality, as is proposed in this amendment, now restricted in the variety and the strength and the enterprise of businesses in which it can engage by a civil servant, might well wonder why those objections take place.

We would certainly wonder whether or not the municipalities should be granted an appeal. Indeed we may well be proposing, in the form of an amendment, procedure whereby there should be some public and formal appeal. We want to know what the standards will be, what criteria will be employed, who he will be accountable to and whether or not there will be an appeal from his decision.

Now I wish to speak to No. 4, if I may, again briefly. There is a bit of a contradiction and more than a bit of a paradox in the proposal, Mr. Speaker. The previous Social Credit government allowed property to vote any number of times. This coalition government has to some extent restrained that right; they have extended that right to one person who owns one piece of property in one municipality. But as my colleague from Victoria did point out, if a corporation, say Esso, owned 47 gas stations in Victoria, they would only have one vote in Victoria, but if they owned 47 gas stations in 47 municipalities they would have 47 votes.

MR. BAWLF: There'd be 47 governments, too.

MR. BARBER: Well, 47 votes is how we look at it, and it seems to us questionable that any corporation should be able to exercise 47 or 147 votes at any level in any government in the province of British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: We think this is a major concern, Mr. Speaker, and we wonder why this particular proposal was necessary at all.

I d like to point out that a couple of years ago, I'm informed, in Gibsons Landing a recreation referendum went forward. I don't live there and I don't have all of the personal details, but from what I've read it was proposed that the electors of Gibsons proceed to construct a recreation complex. This vote was put to the electors, and was turned down. The vote was turned down because, as it later turned out, number of absentee landlords, who then under the Social Credit government had the power of a vote, got together — indeed, they may well have chartered bus for the purpose — and came up to defeat the vote. They only live there in the summer; they don't care what happens to the people in the winter or any other time of the year. They only care that their personal taxes be kept as low as possible, and, sure enough, they conspired to come up and defeat the vote.

It seems to us that that was an abuse under the previous Social Credit government, when they had those voting rights, of the democratic right of the year-round, full-time residents of Gibsons to make their own decision about whether or not they wanted a recreation complex.

So what's happened, Mr. Speaker, is that in the transition from Social Credit to coalition we see a kind of compromise. We've seen a lot of compromises, and here's one more. Now one only has one vote in one municipality, whereas previously one could have had, say, 47 votes in that municipality. If you're lucky enough to do business in 47 different municipalities, you get 47 different votes.

There is another kind of compromise, though, and it's something that we'll be asking the minister about. What we see in this section is that reporting corporations no longer have a vote. It's made very clear in subsection (9) of section 4 that reporting corporations as defined by the Companies Act no longer have a vote. Well, that presumably would, at this moment, exclude Esso, exclude Exxon, Hudsons' Bay Company and the rest of them. What's the point? What kind of a compromise has been reached here?

On the one hand you choose not, for whatever reason, to go back to the ancient Socred system of giving everyone who owns property a vote whoever may happen to own it, and on the other you've come back and said: "Well, you can own one piece of property in the municipality for which you shall be entitled to one vote," and then further compromise the matter by messing it up to say that reporting corporations don't have a vote. But what is the

[ Page 2636 ]

essence of this compromise, Mr. Speaker, and why have they made it? What conflicts of interest do they see and why do they see them? Is it possible they see the same conflicts that we see and this has been their attempt to avoid the political heat and criticism that will inevitably result when it becomes clear that once again we're returned to a system of property having a vote?

There is another problem with section 4, Mr. Speaker, and it's a problem that should be faced by any progressive government. Any progressive government in Canada is looking towards a unified voters list. Clearly it's of considerable advantage to every Canadian wherever he happens to live. section 4 most clearly works against a unified voters list because we have again gone back to the system of property having votes. This is somewhat unusual in Canada, and it's hardly a forward step, in our opinion.

It certainly does make unlikely, once again, the unification in any systematic way of a standard voters list throughout British Columbia for all Canadians, regardless of their place of residence, regardless of their age and so on, who are basically entitled to vote.

It's the hope of many Canadians that we will eventually get the system where every person, say, over the age of 18 with citizenship shall be able to vote. The unified voters list is obviously a substantial economy as well as an extension of democracy. section 4 if enacted will make the unified voters list out of the question.

Sections 5, 6 and 7 are technical and not of any terrible concern to us. We wish, though, to discuss briefly — and again perhaps the minister, during committee, might be forearmed. and forewarned and bring for us answers — questions that are raised by section 10.

Section 10 basically grants the municipalities, and later on in the bill regional districts, the power to contract debts, the power to enter into debts of various duration. The limit in the previous Act used to be 20 years on the power that municipalities might exercise to enter into debt. Now there is no limit; there's none at all. Here again is perhaps one of the compromises and one of the contradictions we see. On the one hand this government as was our government is well aware of the criticism that provincial governments tend to act in a fairly paternal way to every municipality, and tend perhaps to assume too much power and too much responsibility. On the other hand, we have to watch out that smaller communities in British Columbia, say, don't get out of hand. There was an incident in Parksville a little while ago and presumably the auditing improvements here in this Act reflect the problems that occurred in Parksville.

So on the other hand you do have to find some kind of balance with the proper need of the province to be responsible for the actions of municipalities and, on the other, allow them some autonomy and flexibility of action.

We've seen in an earlier section that the autonomy and flexibility of action earlier granted to municipalities to engage in businesses have been restricted. On the other hand, we see in section 10 that their ability to contract debt has been now made unlimited. Is it really so wise that every municipality, especially the smaller ones in British Columbia, should have unlimited opportunity to go into debt?

I'm informed, Mr. Speaker, that during the great Depression, three municipalities and two school districts in British Columbia went bankrupt. Prince Rupert was one of them, I'm informed. I wonder whether it's such a wise and advisable thing that the ceiling on indebtedness should be removed, as is proposed by section 10. It does concern us, and we hope very much that the minister might give us some answers.

Section 10, also again, we see, gives quite remarkable powers to the inspector of municipalities. In previous debates in this House, the present minister is recorded in Hansard as criticizing the wide, awesome and sweeping powers granted to the inspector of municipalities, and later on when we get into committee we'll be reading some of his remarks back to him. Here, though, in section 10 we see that the inspector of municipalities has substantial power given to him on three occasions — three subsections within this section. We see that the inspector has authority that he did not previously have. We wonder whether or not this is wise and advisable. If it is, in the view of the minister, wise and advisable, can he tell us how come and why his earlier remarks, when in opposition, have now been contradicted by his actions as a minister? It does concern us and we do look for some consistency.

The rest of the bill is of no real objection to us, Mr. Speaker. We would, though, remark that we do support the improvements in the auditing requirements. We do support the improvement in allowing the municipality to increase from 8 per cent to 12 per cent their ability to charge interest on overdue taxes. We would ask the minister, though, if it is necessary to delay that authority until January 1, 1977, or if it might be possible to introduce it somewhat earlier as local aldermen, in my riding anyway, have raised that question to me — whether or not there might be some opportunity to extract this money. In Victoria city, at least, that's a substantial amount of money, and the additional 4 per cent....

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: In many communities that's a substantial amount of money, and if it is possible to

[ Page 2637 ]

bring it in prior to January 1, 1977, we would certainly support that. If it's not, we should look for a reason.

Section 23, again, gives remarkably broad, awesome and sweeping powers to the inspector of municipalities — another contradiction, another conflict and inconsistency, and it's one to which we hope the minister will address himself.

I'd like to conclude, though, by returning to our earlier concern — and this is perhaps politically and publicly the most significant — about the return of the coalition itself to the principle that somehow property should have a vote. There aren't very many jurisdictions in the world, Mr. Speaker, where property any longer has a vote. Most progressive and most democratic jurisdictions throughout the world have recognized that individual human beings are the components and the elements of a democracy. That pieces of property have a vote is an idea whose time has long passed, an idea which might have had currency and support in the 15th and 16th centuries in Norman England but which in North America in the 20th, proceeding into the 21st, century surely can't be much supported at all.

MR. S. BAWLF: Are you not calling Scott Wallace a piece of property?

MR. BARBER: Scott Wallace is a most decent human being and no piece of property at all.

But a number of people, quite aside from their connections to any present political party, would raise the theoretical question which is that in a democracy, should any citizen have the right to vote more than once? You know, when it's done in provincial or federal elections it's considered ballot-stuffing, and it's a criminal offence. People don't like it. Somehow this coalition has determined that when it should be done at municipal elections it's not ballot-stuffing, it shouldn't be a criminal offence and, indeed, it's encouraged by this legislation. Well, it may not be a criminal offence, but to a number of us it's a kind of moral offence.

Why, in a democracy like ours, does any Canadian need more than one vote? We all have the right of free speech; we all have the right of free assembly; we all have every opportunity to express ourselves. Why should property have a vote? Why should a person who owns 47 pieces of property in 47 municipalities have 47 votes in the province of British Columbia? That seems to us unfair and unreasonable. We don't support it. Later on in second reading, in order not to contradict the rules of the House, we will be speaking at greater length upon this.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to touch briefly on one aspect of the principle of this bill, and that's the aspect of once again allowing property to have a vote in municipal elections within the province. You know, not too long ago I was talking with a reporter — that was before this bill was introduced into this House — and the reporter asked me whether I thought the coalition government would actually bring this property vote back to the province. I said: "No. I think they're stupid, but I don't think they're that stupid."

You know, I didn't really believe, when there wasn't a clamour out there for property to get the vote, that this government would come in and say they should get the vote. It's really ironic when you consider it's the same group of people who were against year-long citizens within municipalities — in other words, tenants — not getting the right to vote when it comes to a money referendum. The same group of people are against year-long residents of a community having the right to vote within their community on a money referendum, but they do believe that property should have the right to vote. It's just beyond me...well, no, I guess it's completely understandable. I guess it's completely understandable, because they honestly do believe that there is Jimmy Chevron, a Charlie IBM, a Frank Hardware Store. They honestly believe that property should have more rights in our society than individuals.

If you really check back on the source of this kind of belief, you'll find that in the days that the hon. second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) was describing in England when there was a privileged class, the privileged class were the people of the court, the lords and their ladies — hence the word "landlord." It's not "landperson." It's not "landwoman." It's "landlord," with all that it implies.

These days the role of the landlord has been taken over by money. In other words, people who have money are the privileged class within our society, and once again we are seeing the Legislature hand out privilege to that class of people.

We should also be reminded of a statement by the hon. Premier when he was Leader of the Opposition. When speaking against tenants getting the right to vote on money referendums, he said: "Tenants wouldn't fight for their country. Why should they have the right to vote?" That's what he said. If he can show me where property is going to fight for the country and go out in those front lines when war is called, then he may have a point. I have seen property fought over but I have never seen property fight for anything or against anything.

AN HON. MEMBER: When was that said, Graham?

MR. LEA: I'll find it. I'm awfully sure he said it. He made the statement that tenants wouldn't fight for their country.

[ Page 2638 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you address the Chair, please, Hon. Member?

MR. LEA: He said it last year or the year before. I heard it. It's a little hard to believe, isn't it, Mr. Member?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member...

MR. LEA: I am addressing you. Because my back is to you doesn't mean I am not addressing you. I am, Mr. Speaker. I am just talking to this end of the room but addressing you.

It wouldn't surprise me, Mr. Speaker, if there aren't a number of members in this House who aren't just a little bit surprised, if they haven't heard it before, that the Premier when he was Leader of the Opposition would make a statement like that — that tenants should not have the right to vote on money matters in their municipalities because tenants are really cowards and will not fight for their country.

I cannot understand why any government would come in and say that property has the right to vote in an election. Does property have a conscience? What really happens when property has the right to vote? We know it doesn't happen that often, but we do know that there are instances, or could be instances, of those property votes deciding the election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LEA: Those property votes could decide who is going to be mayor, who is going to be alderman, what referendum passes — those could be the votes which do it. It could be a close vote.

MR. BAWLF: Shame!

MR. LEA: You're darned right. Shame! Because you represent the upper class represented by money is no reason that we should sell out. You've sold out. The reason you are bringing this in is because it's a little sycophantic manoeuvre to try and win the people who are going to have the power to exercise those votes to throw a little more money into the next campaign. That's all it is. It's a sycophantic policy and a piece of legislation designed to do nothing else but curry favour with those people who you see as your betters — because you don't really see yourself as the moneyed class. The only reason this bill has been brought in is because of an ideological belief on your part that property is of more worth in our society than an individual. I'll bet you had a beautiful fight, because I don't believe every member of that cabinet and every member of that caucus believes that this is the way it should be, but the hawks won out. The hawks in that cabinet won out and got their way.

I'll tell you something. After getting to know a little bit, I think, the minister who brought this bill into the House, I find it hard to believe that he would author this bill unless ordered to do so by the hawks that are his colleagues. I spent hours over the last three and a half years in conversation with that minister, and I don't believe that he could possibly believe in this principle. I didn't talk about this principle specifically, but I talked about a host of other principles that the minister says he believes in. It is inconsistent to have the principles that he says he has in those other matters and then come in and bring this bill into the House. I say if there's one time when the back bench should be allowed a free vote, it's over this, because this goes to the very roots of democracy — giving property a vote. It's almost just too much for words!

How can anybody in 1976 turn around and give the landlords an extra vote over and above the individual in society? It just doesn't hold together within any way you describe democracy within a democratic system, especially in a system that is governed by the British parliamentary system. It smacks against everything that every free-thinking democratic person should stand for.

I think you protest too much. I don't think that you could vote for this in good conscience; I think you'll vote for it with lack of conscience. That's the only way you can vote for it — having no conscience whatsoever. You have to be an intellectual psychopath to vote for this kind of legislation, an intellectual psychopath with no conscience whatsoever in terms of democracy — none whatsoever.

You can all sit there and smile, but down deep where you live you know you are making a political gift hoping for political gains for yourself. Because there is no basis in democracy for this kind of a piece of legislation — none whatsoever, none whatsoever. I dare you to go out there and take a poll and then bring this piece of legislation in.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who's the psychopath?

MR. LEA: I hope that this legislation is the kind of legislation about which the people in this province will say "we reject, we reject," because it smacks at the very beginnings of democracy not only in this country but in every free country.

It is reprehensible legislation. You don't sit there and smile and bring it in — get up and speak about it. Get up and talk; get up and tell us why you are supporting this piece of legislation.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: There is an ex-alderman — there was an ex-alderman over there. He got up for 30 seconds and said: "I support it." That's good; at least he had the

[ Page 2639 ]

guts to do that. Let's see the rest of you get up. Another ex-alderman from Skeena — get up, support it or not support it! The rest of you just sit there like puppets. Vote and not talk is what you're getting famous for. That's what you're getting famous for. Get up! Put your mouth where you say your principles are!

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, just one brief note before the minister closes the debate on this bill — on the principle of this bill. Part of the principle of this bill as outlined by the last speaker is the business of.... I believe that this bill basically violates the principle of one man, one vote. No question about that. I think it's a regressive step.

One of the most far-reaching or progressive steps our government made — that the former minister made when he was the minister — was when he introduced this amendment to the Municipal Act so that people, absentee owners, could not vote in municipal elections and/or money bylaws. I would like to tell you why, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to give you a prime example.

In 1972 we had a major service referendum on the Sunshine Coast area. That area, Mr. Speaker, as you are probably aware, has many hundreds of residents who own summer homes, do not make that area their full-time residence, have votes in other parts of the province, usually the lower mainland. Anyway, there was a major referendum. Included in this referendum was to be decided whether we would have a recreation centre for that area or not.

There was quite a bit of debate on the matter and the vote was close. The referendum failed. But we found, Mr. Speaker, that there was quite a campaign against this recreation centre. We had found that hundreds — literally hundreds — of people from the lower mainland had been bused in to Gibsons, which is on the Sunshine Coast, to vote against that referendum because they had no stake in that community. They had their summer homes but they had no stake in the future of that community. How about the people who live there — the children, the young people — who could have made use of these facilities?

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, as I said, several hundred people were bused in and came over on the ferry, cast their ballots and went straight back to Vancouver just for one purpose only — to defeat that referendum.

It was narrowly defeated by absentee voters, people who have no stake in the community. So I am asking the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that he reconsider that section of the Act, that principle, that violates a basic principle of people in this century: one man, one person, one vote.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I did not have an opportunity to comment when this bill was introduced for second reading, as the hon. member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) observed, because of the fact that I was not in the city. I express appreciation to the hon. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), acting Minister of Municipal Affairs, for introducing the bill at that time.

It is a bill which, the comments of the members who spoke notwithstanding — I think the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) indicated as much — really is more effectively debated in committee stage because it does amend a number of sections of a voluminous Act.

I might say, Mr. Speaker, that I suppose I would be the third Minister of Municipal Affairs to express the hope that we can at some point during the term of this parliament amend the Municipal Act. Now that's a major job to put the whole thing together and correct this series of additions and corrections and so on which have been taking place for a good number of years.

The former minister under the NDP and the minister before him under the Social Credit government prior to 1972 also had that hope, but it is a major task. I think it is recognized that the Department of Municipal Affairs is not one of the largest in the government service by any means.

Just taking these as they appear, as they were listed, the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) when he adjourned debate.... I've read Hansard, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Speaker. I've read your brief remarks at that time, and you've raised the point again with respect to replotting. No, there is nothing in this amending Act with respect to replotting. The department is looking at it, and frankly we were just not in a position to proceed with it in time for this session.

We already have, as you've observed, a number of representations dating back quite some time, and I would make the invitation, through you, Mr. Speaker, to that member, and to other members, and to the province as a whole, to make further submissions, further representations with respect to replotting in order that we can analyse that material and bring it forward at a following session. I can't promise which one. I wouldn't attempt to do. It might be in the spring of 1977.

An interdepartmental committee, you understand, I think, Mr. Member, is looking at all matters relating to land title, again in an attempt to put things together and to achieve a degree of cohesiveness and interrelationship which perhaps has not been the case in recent times.

With respect to the official opposition, Mr. Speaker, the first member for Vancouver East, as the first speaker, and later the hon. member for Prince Rupert, engaged in a degree of hyperbole, of exaggerated statements with respect to what we have

[ Page 2640 ]

attempted to do in one particular section with respect to voting rights.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure you that this particular step has my whole-hearted, enthusiastic support.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: You had your opportunity to speak, Mr. Member.

This is what I believe to be and what I was able to convince my colleagues is, in fact, the best possible situation with respect to voting rights in local government. I did not want to return to the situation of a number of years ago where multiple votes were available in a single community, but I certainly did not want to restore a voting right to an individual, to a small corporation in many instances. The member for Oak Bay dealt with the situation very, very well indeed in identifying his particular case. His particular case is typical of those....

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, that member's not in his seat. He's not in his own seat.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. CURTIS: We did not want to go back to the situation of a number of years ago, but I did want to restore what I believe to be a very a fundamental democratic principle. That is, if you pay taxes in a given community, then you should have the e right to express an opinion when local government matters are under discussion or when a council is being selected. Not five rights, not 10 rights, not 20 or 30 or 47, as the hon. member for Prince Rupert indicated — or was it the second member for Victoria? — but the right to at least express your opinion. That is what we are attempting to do, and that is perhaps why we are on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, and not that side.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, now there is NDP logic, Mr. Speaker. The member for Prince Rupert interjects: "Does the homeowner get two votes?" That's NDP logic. We'll have an opportunity to discuss this in considerable detail in committee.

The second member for Victoria, forming corporations — and he cited the public works example. The authority which this bill proposes to give to the inspector of municipalities, in my view, is necessary for those very occasional instances when a municipality in the heat of some particular enthusiasm may decide to enter into a project which is not in the best interests of that community. I would think that the inspector of municipalities under this section would exercise his prerogative to reject something very, very rarely.

You cited the paving plant. In my view, that is the type of corporation, the type of municipal enterprise which should and would be encouraged by the inspector of municipalities and certainly by me, if he was asked my opinion.

We've had no significant complaint, Mr. Speaker, through you to the member, from municipalities with respect to this amendment, so the fear you have expressed with regard to restraining the municipal council has not been borne out in the correspondence I have seen or in comments I've had. We can debate hat point again further.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes, and I note that you have asked for the criteria. We will be able to deliver that in committee.

The unified voters' list is something I've spoken about too. If you've read Hansard, and I assume you've read it very closely, you've seen that I disagree. When I was on that side of the House, I poke about a kind of common voters list for national elections, provincial elections and local elections. As a layman — certainly not one who is well trained or experienced with electronic data processing computers — I believe that as you put the system together, if indeed we can reach the point where we have a single voters list, it would be a very easy thing to break out those individuals who are not the residents of a given community. In other words, the change being made here would not be an impediment to the introduction of a single voters list. It would just go on the computer. The computer would toss out the property owners for purposes of other votes, other elections.

Tax notices. You indicated that it would be nice to have that change, Mr. Speaker, to the second member. It would be good to have that change take place now. I'm informed — we discussed it when this material was in draft — that it cannot be done. Tax notices have gone out. To adjust in mid-year would confusing to say the least, and so it unfortunately as to be a year-end situation — the end of the municipal calendar and fiscal years.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to some of the unfortunate remarks made by the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), who got a little bit carried away, we believe that an individual in a given municipality who owns even a small piece of property should have he right to participate in the decision-making in that community.

Mr. Speaker, I know that there will be debate in committee stage. I look forward to it at that time.

[ Page 2641 ]

We'll be able to get into more detail. I now move second reading of Bill 53.

Motion approved.

Bill 53, Municipal Amendment Act, 1976, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 63, Mr. Speaker.

MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING AND
VALIDATING AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

HON. MR. CURTIS: This bill, Mr. Speaker, is traditionally one to carry a number of corrections which are encountered through the year. I believe that the members of the official opposition, when they were in opposition prior to that time, spoke about the overuse of this particular measure. We have in Bill 63 corrective action with respect only to the resort municipality of Whistler, which was established under the former government. Now that there has been an opportunity to work with the legislation, it has been found to be deficient and the purpose of the legislation is simply to correct those deficiencies.

If I may just briefly touch on the sections because again, perhaps it is a type of committee bill — when the Resort Municipality of Whistler Act was proclaimed and the municipality incorporated, it appeared, Mr. Speaker, that no minister had been appointed to administer the Act. Therefore the election of the council of Whistler and, incidentally, the appointment of the government member on the council were in question. So the proposed section 1 validates the election of appointment of council and those things which have been done by the council and all regulations which have been made by the minister — in this case, ministers — in the interval.

The second section clarifies that the Municipal Act applies to this municipality, to Whistler, unless inconsistent with its own operative Act — the Whistler Act — or the regulations and deems the resort municipality of Whistler to be a district municipality for purposes of the Municipal Act. I emphasize that point: it deems Whistler to be a district municipality for purposes of the Municipal Act. It has to be tied to something.

Also, when the original Act was passed, it was intended that the resort municipality had the powers of a municipality under the Municipal Act, subject to whatever variations were made in the Whistler Act or by regulations thereunder. That is, Mr. Speaker, the powers of the municipality could be varied to meet the peculiar circumstances. However, it became very apparent to the department that section 3 of the present Act reads: "Except as varied by this Act or by regulations, the Municipal Act applies to the municipality." The difficulty is that the Whistler Act, as it appears in the statutes now, does not state which class of municipality. The Municipal Act also, as hon. members will know, Mr. Speaker, makes no reference to resort municipalities. It talks about cities, districts, towns and villages, but it doesn't have a category for resort municipalities.

Therefore the question has been raised by legal counsel for Whistler that it is a rather difficult situation. The question is asked: which powers of which class of municipality have been conferred? Indeed, because the Municipal Act does not provide for resort municipalities, there is some question at this point as to whether any powers have been granted.

Section 3 re-enacts section 9 of the Resort Municipality of Whistler Act. I draw particular attention of the members to section 9 of the Whistler Act. When that Act was passed it was unclear whether the municipality or the province would build the sanitary sewer system, which is a very important aspect of the orderly development of this delightful community. Therefore the minister was empowered by section 9(1) to construct and operate sewers and sewerage facilities and other services. Subsection (2) granted to the minister, where he has built the sewer, the power to define the area which could benefit from such service and impose the ordinary kind of charges imposed under the Municipal Act. Subsection (3) gave the minister special powers, where he has built the sewer, to define the benefiting area and provide a formula for imposing all or part of the cost of the works on property in the area by special charges or impost fees collected by the municipality but turned over to the province.

So, Mr. Speaker, the new section 9 which appears in this Bill 63 confers upon the municipality the same powers as were granted to the minister in the original section. You will note also that all Whistler bylaws are subject to approval. So again I emphasize that our new section 9 confers upon the municipal council the same powers as were previously given to the minister.

I think that covers all the points that really need to be mentioned at this point, Mr. Speaker. I move second reading of Bill 63.

MR. BARBER: I'll be very brief. As the minister has pointed out, Bill 63 has the effect of amending two different pieces of legislation, and it seems most appropriate to us that the questions we do have be raised during committee stage, and that's when we'll bring them up.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I just have one very short question. I appreciate that this is legislation to clean up some problems with the previous legislation.

[ Page 2642 ]

I would just ask the minister: has this been vetted or discussed with the Whistler council and are they in full agreement with what is being brought forward here?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I note the comments made by the two members of the opposition with respect to this bill.

Insofar as we could go, Mr. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), without saying here's a piece of legislation we propose, we have responded to the problems experienced by the council of the resort municipality of Whistler, and, of course, in the interval since the bill was introduced they have had an opportunity to examine it, as has anyone in British Columbia. Again, I'm not aware of any concerns which have been expressed by the council on this corrective measure.

It is unfortunate that the former government did not foresee these difficulties. They have been so quick in this session to point out what they believe to be our difficulties, but this has caused some concern in Whistler, some frustration, and indeed always the possibility that activities undertaken by the council in good faith and as the Municipal Act states could be open to challenge.

I now move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 63, Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act, 1976, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 73, Mr. Speaker.

STRATA TITLES AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, it is, I suppose, the nature of my portfolios that legislation which I have to bring before this session is that to amend major pieces of legislation already on the statutes. I believe quite honestly that this is a committee bill. I will be interested in any comments that hon. members may care to make today, but there is no central thread through this; it is, again, an amendment to a number of sections of an existing piece of legislation, and I look forward to the freer and easier type of debate which is possible in committee. I move second reading.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, the minister is quite correct that it will more readily lend itself to committee debate, but there is one principle in this bill which does seem to me to merit some preliminary discussion, at least prior to committee stage. I am referring to the principle of the bill which removes the right of condominium owners, through their council, to limit the number of condominiums in the building which will be available for rent.

Mr. Speaker, the concept of condominiums is fairly recent in this province, but it is certainly, in large measure, based upon a choice of lifestyle and a choice of residence for the individual purchaser and owner of a condominium. There can be, of course, many reasons why a person or a retired couple would choose to purchase a condominium — in many cases perhaps related to the associated chores in having a single-family dwelling. But that really isn't too relevant to the bill. The fact is that people do choose to buy condominiums because they wish at that point in their lives to choose a certain lifestyle which is based on ownership of a different type of residence.

I think it's quite clear that if various couples or individuals buy a condominium in a building on the understanding that most, if not all, of their neighbours will also be owning their condominium in that same building, the whole question of both pride and responsibility of ownership will be exhibited in that building, and the council of owners, which operates the building through the associated bylaws, will all have a common interest in seeing that the building is properly maintained, that it is operated in an efficient manner and, above all, that it will be likely that all the residents of that building, because they have this common interest in that type of lifestyle, will live together in harmony. It really boils down to the very important difference between ownership and tenancy. I am informed by many condominium owners in Victoria who are deeply concerned about this bill.... And I'm talking about perhaps 5,000 owners — 4,000 to 5,000 owners — who are very concerned that this bill will allow any number of condominiums in a building to be rented.

Experience has already shown, I'm told, that it can be very unsuitable in many cases where the tenant of a condominium shows something less than the same respect for the property which would naturally be shown by the person owning the property. In other words, Mr. Speaker, there's the real concept that persons who buy condominiums as an investment, or developers, are in fact exploiting the rights of the owner-occupier who bought that condominium on the clear understanding that ownership was the basic idea and that he or she would be living with neighbours who have the same goal and the same desire as to that kind and style of residence. By throwing out all the regulations to control the number of units that might be rented, these condominium owners in fact are having their basic purpose and right in buying a condominium in the

[ Page 2643 ]

first place exploited.

I don't know why this amendment is before the House, although I understand the market for condominiums is poor at the moment and that many condominiums are standing empty. And this bill can certainly be interpreted as an attempt by developers who are unhappy at having built condominiums and having failed to sell them...that this kind of greater freedom to rent condominiums will in fact bail out the developers.

I would hope that the minister would answer that comment of mine when he completes second reading, but I also know, Mr. Speaker, that the minister received a very clear and precise brief from many of the condominium owners on April 19, 1976. This brief points out the kind of concerns that I'm trying to articulate to the House at the present time.

I'd also add, Mr. Speaker, that I've received a letter from the chairman of the Greater Victoria Strata Corporations Association, Mr. L.W. Jones, dated June 2, in which he states that the brief of April 19 has not been acknowledged by the minister. As part of that brief, Mr. Speaker, the condominium owners had requested delay in changing the Strata Titles Act until sufficient time had been granted for them to meet with the minister and look at both the short-term and the long-term impact of what we now have before us in the form of a proposed amendment to the legislation.

I would like to quote from the brief by the Greater Victoria Strata Corporations Association. Mr. Jones, the president, states:

"We are sure you will appreciate that with the number of people involved, which number will certainly continue to expand in the coming years, any action taken to limit the manner in which control may be exercised over condominium complexes by the resident-owners thereof will be greatly to the detriment of these owners and to the condominium concept in general. We therefore urge upon you that no changes in the regulatory sections of the Strata Titles Act be made until sufficient time has been allowed to permit them to work in their present form, for all concerned to be able to form a judgment of their value.

"After the close of the present legislative session, when time is not as pressing, we are hopeful that representatives of our association will be able to meet with you personally and perhaps representatives of developers and builders to discuss further changes in the Act which we consider essential, such as the following...."

and they list other aspects of the same matter but not the same principle, namely the availability to condominium owners to have no limitation on the number of units that would be leased in the complex. This brief also pointed out, Mr. Speaker, the fact that many condominium owners are absentee landlords and that this, in itself, can create difficulties for the council operating the complex. In calling meetings to deal with some of the very real problems within the complex it may be difficult to obtain a satisfactory attendance by absentee condominium owners. This kind of difficulty can only increase if there is no limit at all as to the number of condominiums that can be rented rather than occupied by the owner.

This brief points out that it's often difficult to obtain enough owners willing to serve on the strata council because of the fact that there are already many non-resident owners. It points out that the problem is compounded when those who are willing to serve find out that they're doing a lot of work for absentee owners who really have little interest in the affairs of the strata corporation.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, the very essential point that I'm trying to make is that the legislation applicable to condominiums is based on a very fundamental concept of lifestyle and the kind of abode in which the owner chooses to live. The fact that some persons choose to buy a condominium as an investment or that developers choose to construct them as part of their way of earning a living should not hide the other very fundamental principle, that people buy condominiums basically to live in them and to do so because of the neighbours who will be living in that building for the same reasons that they choose to live in a condominium.

In other words, very often, as I said earlier, they would prefer a single-family dwelling but the demands and gardening and upkeep and many other chores compel them, or persuade them, that they would still want to own the residence in which they live but under certain conditions which we all generally accept under the definition "condominium."

Now if, in fact, legislation like this is to amend the present Act and make it possible for nine-tenths of the condominiums in a complex to be rented or, for that matter, 100 per cent or 99 per cent, it nullifies, or at least it makes extremely difficult, the carrying through in practice of the principle which underlies condominium ownership.

Regardless of the point I've made about the fact that certain tenants might be less respectful of the property or might not pay the rent and be difficult to evict, or many of the other factors which can apply, there is the question of management of the condominium complex itself which is very much contingent upon having a very substantial number of owner-occupiers participate in the day-to-day and week-to-week administration of that building.

It is a comparatively new concept in British

[ Page 2644 ]

Columbia and it involves not only the living together of people but it certainly involves harmonious cooperation by owners, investors, developers and builders. I think that in this particular principle in the bill, that in fact there need be no limit to the number of condominium units that can be rented in a complex, we are, in fact, seriously damaging or making it difficult for owner-occupiers to carry out the legitimate hopes they should have when they make that decision to buy a condominium in which they intend to live.

I would be very interested to ask three or four specific questions. First of all, why does the minister feel there is haste to implement this principle, because the request has come from condominium owners that they meet with him prior to amendments? This has not been made possible.

Secondly, which particular group in society has asked the minister to make this kind of amendment? Was this a request specifically from developers or was it a request from investment groups or whoever? I just want to know why this request has been made for this amendment.

The third question is really the most important of all. With a lot of condominiums standing empty and this new amendment brought into play, how will owner-occupiers of condominiums find it practical to carry out their responsibilities as executive officers of the strata council when, in fact, 50 per cent or more of the residents in the building may be tenants who have no great interest in how the building is run, and certainly no sense of responsibility as to the state of the building?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. WALLACE: Also, if this amendment is implemented, what ancillary measures has the minister in mind to make the administration and functioning of condominium complexes practical? One of the points that was made in the brief was the fact that there comes a time in managing the complex when substantial control is needed over the situation in deciding about substantial expenditures for repainting or repairs or matters of this nature. If, in fact, there's an inadequate number of owners taking part in even looking at that decision, let alone attending a meeting to carry out the decision — and that has already happened — then this principle to amend the bill would seem to make that difficulty 10 times worse.

The other point that has been brought to my attention is that individuals who look upon condominiums as essentially an investment usually resist any effort to build up reserve funds which will be used at a time when major repairs or upgrading work is involved on the building. This, again, is unfavourable towards the owner-occupier who would much prefer to have an ongoing and consistent level of management so that when a large financial outlay becomes required, some measures have been taken in the preceding months or years to have that reserve fund to draw upon than all of a sudden to assess each individual owner for a large sum of money to meet a repair or an upgrading expense which was quite predictable. So for these various reasons, Mr. Speaker, there is a more far-reaching principle in this bill than perhaps is being appreciated. Without wishing to sound in any way facetious, I will again repeat that I, personally, do not own a condominium and I am not in any way associated with any group or corporation or company that has the remotest connection with condominiums.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the member for Oak Bay, which he summed up in a few hundred thousand well-chosen words, (laughter) but I would still like to associate myself with those remarks, not out of any sense of pride of authorship or anything, but I think he has made a very valid point. It is ironic that a government that is.... And I don't object to the majority of the amendments here. I think there are some good amendments, and some which I would have expected had I remained in charge of this Act...

MR. MACDONALD: You'll be back.

MR. NICOLSON: ...and would have been a necessity when such a major overhaul is made to the Strata Titles Act.

I think the point being made here is a very germane one for a government that believes in private ownership, and which has spent such a great deal of energy as a political party trying to convince everyone that we were against it. It's rather strange that this NDP opposition, who when government brought in this protection toward property ownership...it appears to be one of the things which is being reversed.

It's often stressed, the difference between the pride of ownership and the amount of effort that people are willing to put into maintenance and improvement. I don't think it can be overstressed that there are great difficulties in the operation of a strata council, that strata councils have banded together in order to discuss their problems mutually. We tried to facilitate that dialogue because we recognized the problem in strata management.

I think it is very incumbent upon the minister to explain — I would hope at the end of second reading — the problems that might have been presented that led to this change. Is it the fact that there are, I think, about 2,500 vacant units in greater Vancouver, a large majority of them being strata units? Is it felt that this

[ Page 2645 ]

can get them into the housing stream as rental units? Is this a temporary answer to the rental-housing crisis? Is this seen as a temporary measure? — because I don't think that this should be done on the facts of people.

I was informed, and I believe it might still be the case...well, certainly tax deferments can take place under this section. Persons, professionals for instance, can perhaps help to defer the payment of income taxes by purchase of these units. I believe that continued even during the time in which loopholes were plugged up in the federal income tax legislation on rental properties. But I believe — and I've been informed by fairly learned sources — that some persons were still able to take care of excess earnings and defer paying taxes on them to other earning periods by using and renting strata title units. I don't think it can be overemphasized the difficulty that this places upon the people who think they have home ownership.

There are other sections in the bill on which I would like to have some indication of philosophy. I do agree that it should be discussed basically in committee, but I would wonder if the section 3 explanatory note is a misprint. It says: "At present support structure strata plans could be used as a method of subdividing for single-family lots with subdivision approval." I wonder if that should mean "without subdivision approval" in the explanatory note of section 3. I find some difficulty in understanding that.

Section 7 is also to be repealed. This provides that the strata corporation may pay on behalf of the owner any taxes, assessments, rates and charges required to be paid by the owner — and, I believe, goes on to say that these charges can be filed against the title. Again, this is one of the ways and one of the powers I think a strata corporation must have if they are to exert power to enforce decent standards of maintenance and assessing charges, and making sure they will be paid.

This was, I believe, done for a very good reason, and if it's being repealed I would want to know what types of transgressions might have occurred, or abuses of this section, how strata corporations abused it, and might there not be some other remedy, still recognizing the problem that you can have people who abuse property, who tend to devalue adjoining properties in a strata corporation, and that the whole is marred by any one of the parts.

Also I see that section 21(1) is to be repealed. It says: "Where an owner defaults in the payment of his share of common expenses, the strata corporation may, upon resolution passed by the majority, and after seven days' notice to the owner, authorize the termination of the utilities services...."

Again, this gives some teeth to the corporation. And the corporation must have power, especially if it's a corporation which is operating voluntarily or maybe on the advice of professional strata management.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, section 8 which would repeal section 21(1), Mr. Minister.

Another repealed section, 28, allows a separate organization to be formed within a strata corporation to regulate a designated group of strata lots. I could really leave that for committee, but I would be interested to note that there have been abuses there. It is a rather innovative section which does make certain things possible within a strata corporation, because, Mr. Speaker, a strata corporation could actually comprise several different types of units. It could be maisonettes and townhouses all within one unit. Perhaps the people affording the townhouses might also want to afford some common property over and above the value of their units. Persons in the maisonettes or some other structure might want to have something less. For instance, this would maybe allow a certain group within the strata corporation to build a swimming pool or a heated swimming pool or add some facility which they might enjoy as a subsection of the corporation.

Another section which is repealed....

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, that's not so much. Another section which is repealed is one which gives authority to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to approve other than leases from the provincial Crown and, with approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, would give this authority to municipal councils, to federal government and other forms of government. I would like to know if the concept of leasehold Crown strata titles is still to be continued and encouraged by this Act. I would also like to be reassured that this is not going to be a privilege extended to the private sector. I think it could lead to abuse in that area.

There are sections of the Act which I think are fairly good improvements, but I would sum up by saying that I feel the removal of powers from strata corporations is something that.... You are removing powers that they did not have when strata titles were first brought in in 1968. There were many abuses, many problems, created which were evidenced between 1968 — I think it was about 1968, the first Act, or 1969 — and the passing of the present Strata Titles Act. So in this respect, in removing a lot of these powers — you might say policing powers — from the strata corporation, I think it's a backwards

[ Page 2646 ]

step, because the problems will still be there if we allow investors to buy up lots for strata units and I turn them into a mixture of rentals and ownership. I think there will be confusion if we allow some of t those owners, particularly investorr-owners, not to a keep up maintenance. That can lead to further problems, as I see it. I welcome such additions as maybe one oversight which enables the minister to appoint an interim strata council if it isn't done under the time limits, if somebody just doesn't comply with the Act, an obvious oversight. I say that things such as that and other similar changes are welcome.

I find that there were problems which we tried to remedy. I don't think that removal of some of these powers will serve the best interests of what I hope are the majority of strata-title owners, and that is people who are resident owners. I think the rights of resident owners must be protected. We can't go using or abusing the rights of those people as maybe some expedient to get rental accommodation out of the existing vacant units which we know abound in Vancouver and Victoria.

MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to add a few thoughts to this discussion concerning that portion of the bill which deals with the question of renting condominium units. I would like to put to the hon. members a case which is becoming increasingly a commonplace in regard to this. That is the case of the individual who for one reason or another wants to sell his unit and move on. Now I think it's a mistake to view condominium accommodation as something in another world from the rest of us in this society, in that we are essentially a fairly mobile society. We move quite frequently, as an average, throughout society. In the particular price bracket at which condominiums have been available in recent years, a a number of younger people have bought condominiums as an interim stage pending perhaps a more favourable price for a conventional family home, pending perhaps raising a family.

Now those people find themselves at present in a situation where there is indeed a glut of condominium units on the market in the two principal urban areas in the province. In that circumstance, they may well have to take a loss to dispose of their condominium in lieu of being able to rent it. In other words, they would be pushed to a distress sale.

In terms of forcing someone who's just bought a condominium unit within the last six months...one individual in our press gallery, Mr. Speaker, is in a position, for example, where he's going to take a bath if he has to sell his condominium now.

MR. WALLACE: The press can look after themselves.

MR. BAWLF: Yes, I'm sure they can. But over all, if we're to insist that these 3,000 or 4,000 units, which we have an excess on the market now in the two principal urban areas, are to remain accommodation which cannot be rented, or if we're to allow some arbitrary level to be placed on that, we may well be forcing people into distress sales. Now what happens then to the rights of the individual if he finds himself just one apartment too many on the wrong side of the line that's arbitrarily been imposed to how many can be rented or not rented?

Interjection.

MR. BAWLF: Well, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that these people have a right to their mobility. They have a right to lease or rent their apartment in the event that they cannot sell it for a reasonable price. I suggest to you also that we had a hue and cry not too long ago from many quarters that there was too much condominium development and too little rental apartment development. Now we see the potential of shift back, which I think is socially beneficial in many respects, and we're getting a different kind of hue and cry.

I don't think that this is a black-and-white issue. I think that this is a very difficult issue to adjudicate, and I suggest to you that we've got to be very mindful, above all, of the individual's rights in all of his, and the individuals who suddenly find they have to move off to Ottawa because they have a job in some other part of the province, or some opportunity or some need arises, or their estate is forced to sell heir accommodation; they have in effect a forced sale because they're restricted from renting or leasing that accommodation. I leave you with that thought and thank you for your attention.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): I'll be very brief. It really is wonderful to find that the first member for Victoria (Mr. Bawlf) is now beginning to see that the free market system does threaten the rights of the individual. It really does, and I'm really pleased to see that he is standing in this House, Mr. Speaker, and castigating the capitalist system.

It would have been worth all the hours I've had to sit here and listen to a lot of other things to see the first member for Victoria finally come to his senses on this issue — as somebody mentioned, after he's made his money. But he's quite right and I certainly support his statement insofar as he said that the free market system does threaten the right of the individual, and it is certainly one of the reasons why his little opposition over here is struggling so hard to replace a government that insists on supporting that system.

I have a really very short question that I want to ask the minister, dealing with this same section,

[ Page 2647 ]

section 6, Mr. Minister, as I'm one of the people representing one of the ridings that has those more than 2,000 empty condominiums sitting there at a time when there is no rental accommodation.

What I'm wondering though is that in the event the strata corporation is allowed to rent these condominium units, does this change in the section also mean that if that unit becomes sold eventually, the person purchasing a unit which has been previously rented is eligible for your homeowner assistance programme? Because the way it's presently situated....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: No, no. If the price is right, I recognize that. But the way the Act is presently constituted, the condominium unit cannot be rented, because once it's rented, a purchaser loses the right to the first mortgage money which is subsidized by the government.

Does this repeal of section 6 mean that it is now possible for the strata corporation to rent the condominium and if a purchaser comes along the condominium can be bought and the purchaser would be eligible for all of the supports from the government through either your Bill 49, which you're bringing down today or any previous or other kinds of subsidy programme?

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I can hardly believe my ears in listening to the words of the first member for Victoria (Mr. Bawlf) who just spoke.

MS. BROWN: Neither could 1.

MR. GIBSON: It appears, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard just said, that he doesn't seem to appreciate the operation of the free market system.

MR. BAWLF: I'm against controls on it.

MR. GIBSON: He's talking about the possibility that an oversupply of a certain type of housing actually might control the prices in that sector of the housing market. Just imagine the free market system operating in that way, to keep prices down in a sector of the housing market. That is absolutely incredible nonsense from a member of a party that calls itself a free enterprise party, Mr. Speaker.

Doesn't he believe in free deals freely arrived at? You go along to a strata corporation and you make a deal, and the deal says that x-number of units in this strata corporation can be leased out, and that's all. And that's the deal he made. Don't you believe in keeping the deals you made?

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: I'm absolutely astonished at that.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) was right on with respect to this question, and the hon. member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) as well, because this portion of the bill, and this principle of the bill, would withdraw from persons in strata buildings the right to say what kind of an association they're going to have, in terms of owners versus the right to lease units. In other words, what percentage of the building shall, as a minimum, be owner-occupied.

It seems to me to be a retrograde step. It's not discrimination, Mr. Member, in terms of any kind of discrimination we would talk about under the human rights Act. What it is is an ability for people to say: "This is the kind of place where I want to live."

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. GIBSON: You can have all kinds of different sorts of arrangements on the market. You can have a strata building that can be 100 per cent investor-occupied, with no owner-occupied units at all, if you want. You can put that in the ground rules, and then if you're an investor, or if you want that kind of mobility, you can come along and say: "That's the kind of building I want to go into."

AN HON. MEMBER: You keep the option.

MR. GIBSON: Alternately, you can say: "I'm looking for the kind of a strata building that is going to be occupied predominantly by the people who actually own these units, because I believe in my own mind — I may be right or I may be wrong as a prospective purchaser — but I believe in my own mind that it's likely that it will be a different kind of a building community and it's one that's more congenial to me." This purchaser alternately might say: "I might just as well live in a rental apartment situation, so I'll go into one of those strata situations where you can lease out 100 per cent if you want." It's a question of you get your choice on the market.

AN HON. MEMBER: If he wants to change his mind, does he have a right?

MR. GIBSON: There should be a range of housing opportunities available to people, and the range should go from 0 to 100, and that range should be done voluntarily.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's called freedom of choice.

[ Page 2648 ]

MR. GIBSON: It's called freedom of choice; it's called right of association. That's a very basic right in our society, and, to me, this proposed amendment infringes upon right of association.

Mr. Speaker, there's no question here about the right to deal freely with your property under law, because that exists right now. It's under the existing law. What we're proposing to do is to take away, by this amendment, some of the rights of people who thought that they were entering communities — in terms of strata buildings that they were entering communities of a certain degree of owner-occupation.

MR. BAWLF: What about the rights of a guy who changes his mind?

AN HON'. MEMBER: You can sublet.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: The hon. member for Victoria interposes a question across the floor: what about the right of a person who wants to change their mind? That person has every right that anyone has, under the law of our province, to change their mind — under the existing law. They knew the deal they were getting into, and that was the deal they wanted to get into, and that was a deal that most of the people in that building wanted to get into, and I don't think it's up to this House to change that, unless the minister can give us a lot of very good reasons, which I don't see at the moment.

Let the free market operate, Mr. Speaker; that's what we're telling that group. And let the right of association continue, and let's not take away that hard-won freedom by this funny little amendment.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, there's another thing that I would....

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Sold? This is dealing with renting. Selling? You're perfectly free to sell; you know that, Mr. Member.

This strata amendment Act does not cover something that I had very much hoped it would, and I will allude to it only very briefly, naturally. But at the present time, if I understand it — I'm talking now about strata conversions — we have the legal situation where on existing buildings a council can approve or disapprove of conversions, but on buildings that were....

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you mean municipalities?

MR. GIBSON: Yes, municipal councils. Isn't that what I said?

But on buildings where a building permit was issued for the building of rental accommodation, and the building is then completed or reaches some stage of construction, and the person putting up the structure can say "I now would like to make this a strata operation instead of a rental operation," my understanding is that the municipality does not have a right to pronounce upon that kind of change, even though it is a change in the kind of use that was originally contemplated and originally advanced and certified to the council at the time of the issue of the building permit.

That to me is an important and regrettable omission in the power of councils, and I make a representation to the minister that that be speedily redressed.

Another important omission is evidenced recently in a North Vancouver city just outside my riding, where a conversion of this kind was made perhaps legal under the first loophole that I've mentioned, but also legal because it's a building being put up by Dunhill Developments. My understanding is that Dunhill Developments as a Crown corporation does not require this kind of municipal approval.

Whether it can be made a matter of law I don't know, but I hope the minister would take under advisement the suggestion that as a matter of policy Dunhill should invariably cooperate with the wishes of municipal councils in this regard.

The final big omission I would allude to perhaps falls more under the purview of the Attorney-General, and I never have really received the answer on this. That's the loophole relating to cooperatives as opposed to strata title, but that doesn't directly fall under the ambit of this bill. I'll simply raise it once again in the hopes that action will be forthcoming.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the many comments made by members participating in this debate, and frankly, when they were flipping from section to section — it's a bill without any main principle, as I tried to indicate at the outset, but that did not prevent certain members from running through from section to section — I made a great many notes, and I'm not sure I can find them all in order.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would think that a new visitor to the gallery here might wonder what's happened with respect to the party in power and the party in opposition, because the contentious section is with respect to elimination of the ability of a strata council to restrict the number of rental units in a strata plan — that really is the contentious part of this bill. I would have expected, having secured the endorsation of my colleagues, that the official

[ Page 2649 ]

opposition would have welcomed a move, whether it is in place for a year or for two years, for longer, for less, Mr. Speaker, but a move which is designed as part of our total plan to assist the housing problems in this province.

We're prepared, obviously, from the legislation before you today, to put up with criticism from some owner-occupiers in order to take care of this situation in the interval. How long the interval will be we don't know. But I really would have expected the official opposition to say: "Right on! It's a good move." I wonder if the suggestion was not made to the former minister, because this situation started before the change of government on December 11.

It's our view, Mr. Speaker, recognizing that it is unpopular, that restricting rental of a condominium unit creates a hardship on an individual who has purchased the unit for the purpose of living in it and then finds, for a variety of reasons, beyond his or her control, that he or she is required to be temporarily absent. A transfer, the need to move to another community, the need to move out of the province: a variety of situations will arise, and have arisen. In addition, as some speakers have observed, with a very much softer real-estate market, we are concerned, this party is concerned, this government is concerned with persons faced with a permanent move. They're leaving Vancouver or Victoria. They are leaving and may not be back, and we have to assist them. They can't sell, or if they do sell, they have to sell at a very significant loss, and they also should have the right to rent. In our view, we have to provide every possible encouragement for the creation of rental units.

Now if the market changes in the next little while, if we see the programmes which have been introduced and which are the subject of other legislation not at the moment before the House, not being debated, then it will be possible, it would be desirable, I would think, to make a further change in this legislation. But we are not legislating for the next 10 years or the next 15 years. We are responding to an immediate and very urgent problem. It's our feeling that the market at this moment is not in a position to provide sufficient rental accommodation with the purchase of strata lots if the right to rent is arbitrarily withheld.

Now so much for the main point which has been dealt with by speakers....

MR. GIBSON: Why did Dunhill convert then, Hugh, in North Vancouver? A hundred units....

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, we're debating the principle of this particular bill — or we are debating this bill in second reading. My estimates aren't up yet, and we can talk about that a little later.

The member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), Mr. Speaker, spoke about a brief submitted by the greater Victoria association. I'm frankly puzzled, because, while he received a copy of the first one, he may not have received a second communication which indicated to the department, to my office, that the first one wasn't unanimous. I think we acknowledged the first one. If they indicate that it was not acknowledged, then I'm mistaken but I believe it was acknowledged. Certainly there was a second communication which said, "Hold it," in effect, because the first submission was not unanimously supported.

I appreciate the member for Nelson-Creston's (Mr. Nicolson) comments with respect to the difficulties in the operation of a strata council. We recognize that. We recognize that it is not easy to ask individuals to serve, because it is a thankless task, no question about it, with or without the particular section that is the subject of debate. It is a thankless task.

The member for Vancouver-Burrard spoke very briefly with respect to the repeal of section 6, and here we do, Mr. Speaker, stray into Bill 49, but if latitude was given to that hon. member, then I hope similar latitude is given to me in responding very quickly.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. CURTIS: The answer to your question is yes, the appropriate provincial assistance would be in place. In fact, it is better under the terms of Bill 49 because the $5,000 second mortgage is in place, and it was $2,500. So I trust that answers your question.

I note the comments of the second member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson)....

MR. GIBSON: The only one!

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'm sorry, the member for North Vancouver–Capilano. It was with respect to a couple of omissions, in his view, in the bill. I can't really speak about omissions in the bill. I can only speak about what is in the bill.

I will look forward to and welcome spirited debate on this particular bill in committee stage on a section-by-section basis, Mr. Speaker, and I now move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 24

[ Page 2650 ]

NAYS — 18

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

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, in response to comments I made in the debate on the bill just passed and under standing order 42, I would like to correct or explain a material part of the speech which the hon. minister has denied was accurate, namely that Mr. Jones, who is the president of the Greater Victoria Strata Corporations Association, sent a second brief pointing out that the first brief was not unanimous. I want to reaffirm the fact that Mr. Jones, as the president, has not yet received a reply to the original brief of April 19,1976.

Bill 73, Strata Titles Amendment Act, 1976, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.