[ Page 2593 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Crown Corporation Reporting Act (Bill 52)

Introduction and first reading. Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2593

Societies Act (Bill 50)

Introduction and first reading. Hon. Mr. Mair –– 2593

Landlord and Tenant Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 5 1)

Introduction and first reading. Hon. Mr. Mair –– 2593

Companies Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 49)

Introduction and first reading. Hon. Mr. Mair –– 2594

Oral questions.

Port development at Prince Rupert. Mr. Lea –– 2594

Hardships imposed by ladies lavatory lockups. Mr. Wallace –– 2595

Eligibility for social assistance. Mr. Gibson –– 2595

Alleged amnesia of Minister of Economic Development. Mr. King –– 2595

Government funding of rape relief centres. Mr. Barber –– 2596

Appointment of B.C. Hydro directors. Mr. Skelly –– 2596

South Peace Dehy alfalfa contracts –– 2596

Motions and adjourned debates on motions

On motion 9. Mr. Cocke –– 2599

Mr. King –– 2597 Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2600

Travel Agents Registration Act (Bill 21) Committee stage.

On section 8. Hon. Mr. Mair –– 2604

Mr. Wallace –– 2602 On section 31.

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 2603 Mr. Wallace –– 2605

Ms. Sanford –– 2603 Hon. Mr. Mair –– 2605

On section 16. On section 36.

Mr. Wallace –– 2604 Ms. Sanford –– 2605

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 2604 Hon. Mr. Mair –– 2605

On section 19. Report and third reading –– 2606

Mr. Wallace –– 2604

Department of Housing Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 9) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2606 Mr. Barber –– 2606

Department of Housing Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 9) . Committee stage.

On section 1.

Report and third reading –– 2607

Mr. Nicolson –– 2607

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 35) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 2607 Mr. Cocke –– 2609

Mr. Stupich –– 2608 Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 2610

Mr. Wallace –– 2609

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 35) .

Committee stage –– 2611 Report and third reading –– 2612

Registered Nurses Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 26) Second reading

Hon. Mr., McClelland –– 2612 Mr. Wallace –– 2612

Mr. D'Arcy –– 2612 Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 2613

Greenbelt Act (Bill 29) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 2614 Mr. Nicolson –– 2621

Mr. Skelly –– 2615 Ms. Sanford –– 2622

Mr. Barber –– 2619 Mr. King –– 2623

Mr. Cocke –– 2620

Tabling documents

Reports on age schedule of court cases, criminal court disposition and court case activity.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 2624

Appendix –– 2625

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): I would like to introduce to the House and have the House welcome Alderman Dalton Jones and his wife, Vi, of Surrey.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome a very special guest today. He is a long-time Member of Parliament for Toronto-Greenwood and an outstanding Canadian who has given great service to the House of Commons - Andrew Brewin and his wife.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, with respect to Mr. and Mrs. Brewin, I would just like to say for the record that their daughter-in-law is giving marvellous service as a parliamentary intern.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): Mr. Speaker, it's a very rare occasion that I have the opportunity to introduce members from the great constituency of South Peace River, but I'd like to advise the House today that

MR. BARRETT: We know why. You can't remember their names. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: There are three constituents of mine in the gallery today: Mr. and Mrs. Clare Neste and Jeannie Petrick from the great South Peace River constituency, and I hope the House will bid them welcome.

MR. L. BAWTREE (Shuswap): In the House this afternoon there are some students from the Charles Bloom Secondary School in Lumby with their teacher, Mr. Doug Rusk. Accompanying them also are Mr. and Mrs. Larry Kozoris, representing the Crown Zellerbach Corporation, who have been most helpful in assisting these students to come to Victoria. I would ask the House to welcome them.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): It's the first time, Mr. Speaker, that I've had the opportunity of introducing people from my constituency this session. Even at that, I have difficulty gaining the floor. But I would like the members of the House to join me in welcoming to the Legislature today, Mr. Henry Newcomen of Invermere and Mr. Gerry Newcomen of Cranbrook.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Seated in the gallery today are 28 students from Camosun College, along with two most capable instructors, and I would like the House to bid them a very warm welcome.

HON. R.S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Seated in the gallery today is a political studies group from Victoria Senior Secondary School, accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Nesmith. I would ask the members to make them and anyone else who hasn't been introduced today welcome.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): I'd like the House to join me in welcoming one of my constituents, Mr. Ross Kimbal, from an architectural firm in my riding. I forget who his associates were, but I think they're still in business. There have been some problems, as you know, Mr. Speaker, with bankruptcies, I think it is, and he was over to see the Minister of Economic Development to try and see if there was any hope for his company. Anyway, please join me in welcoming him.

Introduction of bills.

CROWN CORPORATION REPORTING ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett presents a message from His .Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Crown Corporation Reporting Act.

Bill 52 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.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, because it's a companion to the bill just introduced, I wish to make the members aware of a notice of motion that I'll be placing on the table.

SOCIETIES ACT

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Mair, Bill 50, Societies 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.

LANDLORD AND TENANT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Mair, Bill 51, Landlord and Tenant Amendment Act, 1977, 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.

[ Page 2594 ]

COMPANIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Mair, Bill 49, Companies Amendment Act, 1977, 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.

PORT DEVELOPMENT

AT PRINCE RUPERT

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, a question to the hon. Premier. The signing of an agreement for northwest transportation between the province and the federal government has put in abeyance or has abandoned - whichever adjective is more fitting - the spur line between Groundhog and Terrace. One of the areas which the Premier said he was negotiating with Ottawa for was port development for Prince Rupert. Now that this argument is in place and the spur line between Groundhog and Terrace is now put in abeyance, could the Premier tell me what commodities will be shipped through the general cargo port at Prince Rupert, and where these commodities will originate?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The same commodities that have always been designated as potential for the port of Prince Rupert are still available - that is, mineral and forestry products, potentially coal, and potentially products from northern Alberta and Saskatchewan, should the continuing rail discussions on a northern transportation system be concluded successfully.

MR. LEA: A supplementary. The bulk loading facilities in Prince Rupert are quite different from the general cargo facilities at Fairview. The Fairview port terminal was put in place to handle general cargo originating from the northwestern part of the province. Could the Premier tell me how those products are going to get from the northwestern part of the province to the port of Prince Rupert and what commodities they will be?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, I can't speculate on that, but I can advise the member that the government last year actively let contracts for the completion of the Stewart-Cassiar road, which is into the northwestern region, and for the Meziadin Highway, which will be a link. But you know now that certain products are trucked over and do come down the Fort Nelson line. I'm hopeful that the pause until the royal commission and the BCR have concluded their inquiry will be of a short duration. With sufficient information on which to make the commitments for capital that are needed in all of the north, by both railways, perhaps by railways concerning Alaska, and by both the Government of Canada and British Columbia, the future of the north will be much stronger, indeed, and based on much more substantial information than we have at the present time.

MR. LEA: A supplementary to the Premier. The Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) has made a statement that it is the government's desire to develop the copper deposits in the Stikine and the Iskut.

Now that this new agreement has been signed, could the Premier tell me whether or not there have been discussions with the state of Alaska in regard to another transportation route down the Stikine from the Interior of northwestern British Columbia, with an outlet in the panhandle of Alaska?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEA: On a supplementary, how would the Premier then see those products going to market?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member is presuming that the pause in the construction of the Dease Lake extension would turn into something more permanent. I'm suggesting that what we have is a pause until we have the results of the royal commission. As such, I think the member is being presumptuous in assuming that this transportation link will not be concluded.

He does know that, of course, the construction has already been completed beyond the halfway point to a point called Connection. As such that line is in service, and the other rail transportation, of course, in to the other part of northern British Columbia - the Fort Nelson extension - is also operative, plus the highway access that is being constructed by this government into the northern areas. All would be feeder routes, plus, hopefully, the extension of the Dease Lake extension to its original concept. That is a rail line that would link through the Yukon and Alaska.

But of course this requires decisions by other governments and other railroads in concert with British Columbia. It's unfortunate that the period we've just gone through has made.... The CN and others have lost immediate interest. We hope to renew that interest.

MR. LEA: As a supplementary, is the Premier aware that the highway linkage will go from Meziadin east and not westerly down towards Terrace? Is he aware that that routing will not get the products to the port of Prince Rupert? Is he also not aware that the rail linkage of the of the Dease is not the point?

[ Page 2595 ]

It's from Groundhog to Terrace that's the point. Is he not aware that those are the vital links, and that it is not the Dease Lake extension per se? It's this other Groundhog-Terrace link we're talking about. Does he not realize that this agreement has literally killed port development for some time in the city of Prince Rupert? Does he not understand that?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, if that's a question instead of a statement, the member is in error. The initiative shown by this government in developing traffic on a northern transportation system is the best guarantee that there will be traffic through the port of Prince Rupert.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BENNETT: Initiatives with the government of Canada on a northern transportation system that would link more than B.C. products. Those of Alberta and Saskatchewan through the port of Prince Rupert are the strongest guarantees that there'll be traffic there. It's unfortunate that none of those initiatives took place when that member was a cabinet member in the former government.

MR. LEA: I would ask this final supplementary of the Premier. Would he go to his staff, both within government and Crown corporations, and please get briefed on transportation in the north? He doesn't know anything about it.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, if that was a question, Mr. Speaker, I've spent some significant time in the north - in fact, more than that member has lately since he's moved out of his constituency.

HARDSHIPS IMPOSED BY

LADIES LAVATORIES LOCKUPS

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): This is a real biggie. This is to the Minister of Public Works with regard to renovations currently being carried out in these buildings. With a view to the importance of preserving the health, welfare, comfort and productivity of the female staff, can the minister tell the House why it has been necessary to close the ladies washrooms on both the second and third floor stairwells on the opposition side of the building at the same time? (Laughter.)

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Resign!

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Highways and Public Works): Thanks to the member. I wasn't aware of that, but I'll look into it immediately.

MR. WALLACE: On a supplementary, would the minister, when instructing his staff to close a washroom, consider having a sign on the door reading "out of order, " since the practice of merely locking the door often causes considerable distress? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I certainly will look into that too.

ELIGIBILITY FOR SOCIAL

ASSISTANCE

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Human Resources. This was originally raised with the minister by the B.C. Civil Liberties Association on March 2. It concerns an individual referred by PREP to a job which, as a condition of employment, required him to sign a waiver agreeing to submit to a lie-detector test at the request of the employer, and to agree that if the he detector showed any positive results it would constitute immediate grounds for dismissal. He refused the job on the grounds that his civil rights could be encroached under these circumstances, and he was then disqualified from social assistance.

I ask the minister: under the government's present policy, if an individual refuses a job on the grounds it would infringe on his civil rights, will the individual be denied social assistance?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'll take the question as notice.

MR. GIBSON: Oh, you've had a letter on it for a month, and you signed a reply!

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

ALLEGED AMNESIA OF MINISTER

OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Mr. Speaker, I've written this out very carefully, and it's to the Minister of Health. Can the Minister of Health assure the House that over the Easter recess he will commit substantial medical resources to seeking a cure for the acute and chronic case of amnesia suffered by the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) ? (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: He can't recall!

MR. SPEAKER: Would you like the hon. member to repeat the question?

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Yes. Would you repeat that, please? (Laughter.)

[ Page 2596 ]

MR. KING: Gladly, Mr. Speaker. Can the Minister of Health assure the House that over the Easter recess he will commit substantial medical resources to seeking a cure for the acute and chronic case of amnesia suffered by the Minister of Economic Development?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'd like to thank the member for that question. I anticipated it, Mr. Speaker. I've already told the minister to take two aspirin and call me in the morning. (Laughter.)

GOVERNMENT FUNDING OF

RAPE RELIEF CENTRES

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): My question is also to the Minister of Health. As a result of the government's failure to provide a decision in time, the coalition of rape relief centres in the province of British Columbia is, at the moment, overdrawn at the bank on its account to the tune of some $10,000. They continue to provide a most important service. They have yet to receive a decision from this government on their funding. I wonder if the Minister of Health would care to announce today, on his own behalf and that of his colleagues who are also participating in this programme, whether or not they will state to the coalition of rape relief centres the funding, if any, which they might be granted in this fiscal year?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice.

APPOINTMENT OF B.C.

HYDRO DIRECTORS

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): This question is to the Premier. He stated that he plans to add three more directors to the directorate of the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority in order to give more depth to that board of directors. Does he intend to appoint a director from an environmental group in British Columbia?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the announcement was that we would be adding three additional directors to provide greater representation to the board. The member has put his own interpretation on what I said. People will be considered on their various merits as individuals, not as representatives of certain groups. Certainly there are many fine individuals who have strong concerns over the environment; there are also many who have many other concerns. But it will be based on the ability of the individuals themselves to make a contribution to the board.

MR. SKELLY: Has the Premier taken any steps to assess the abilities of people connected with environmental groups who have put their names forward to him?

HON. MR. BENNETT: All names that have been put forward to me have certainly been assessed.

MR. GIBSON: The Premier told the House that directors would not be chosen as representatives of groups. I would ask him to complete the assurance to the House by adding that one of the groups so concerned will not be Social Credit.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, it is not the practice of this government - it may be different in Ottawa - to assess the political background of any member of a group. People will be chosen as individuals.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, now that we have an announced statement of government policy not to assess the political background of employees, will the minister be firing Mr. Dan Campbell for forwarding a blacklist of employees because of political affiliation?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition knows there was no blacklist.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BENNETT: I know that just before the House adjourns tonight he is in a frivolous mood, and I hope he has a pleasant holiday.

SOUTH PEACE DEHY

ALFALFA CONTRACTS

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, on March 9 I asked the Minister of Agriculture whether anyone at South Peace Dehy Products Ltd. has the authority to sign contracts with the alfalfa producers. He replied to the effect that he thought they had but he would look into it. I wonder if he has looked into it and whether anyone does have the authority.

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture): The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the Premier claims to be interested in full-time MLAs doing their work. In order to plan our work, Mr. Speaker, will the Premier inform the House right now when the Easter recess will end?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, with leave I will respond to that statement.

[ Page 2597 ]

MR. SPEAKER: I think it would have to be by leave because it was not really a proper point of order. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed, hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, as the members are full-time MLAs, then naturally they will be available to work, either in their constituencies or in the Legislature. They certainly should be prepared, as I am, to return when legislation is first available and ready to attend to. At such a time, all members will be given a chance.... It will be announced when the session, will resume. It is anticipated, Mr. Speaker, that we will have the longest session in the history of the B.C. Legislature, which will give MLAs an opportunity to meet in this House. Also, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that those MLAs - those who still live in their constituencies and those who have moved out - have an opportunity to go back and listen to the complaints and the concerns of their constituents. That's a vitally important role of a full-time MLA, but as full-time MLAs, we're always ready.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, there has never been....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It is not a debate.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. McGeer files an answer to question 86 on the order paper. (See appendix.)

MR. KING: I ask leave to table documents relating to the organization of the agriculture committee, containing correspondence directed to my office by the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) , which I felt was erroneous to some extent. Therefore the response and all of the material should be tabled for the information of all members of this Legislature. I ask leave to table it.

Leave granted.

Orders of the day.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, by leave, I move we proceed to adjourned debates on motions.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Adjourned debate on Motion 9, Mr. Speaker.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, this particular motion is one that should not be controversial before the Legislature. I think the general intent of this particular motion has the support of all members of this House. Certainly members of the official opposition, as well as members of the Conservative and Liberal parties, have endorsed the wisdom of sending House committees around this province to deal with various policy areas. We feel that this is indeed a useful exercise in terms of providing the opportunity for people in the community to participate in the formulation of policy surrounding any particular interest group in the province. With respect to agriculture matters, which this committee proposes to consider, this certainly could and should be a very, very useful exercise.

I would point out that in the long, 20-year tenure of the previous Social Credit government, I do not believe that one standing committee of the House ever did travel around the province while the Legislature was not in session. Indeed, that practice was established by our NDP government when we were in office. As one who traveled on a committee around the province - a committee that had representation from each and every political party in this House - I found the exercise most useful and most rewarding in terms of giving some focus to the policy direction which the government proposed to take, receiving the reactions of those people in the community who would be affected, and certainly in terms of involving the broad perspective of each and all of the political parties of the province in assessing and recommending ultimate policy as a result of those hearings and those representations.

The reason that this particular motion is controversial at this time is because of the policy of this government - which I can only describe as extremely petty - of refusing to provide a space for the leader of the Liberal Party and the leader of the Conservative Party to participate in the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I have just tabled documents which outline the position of the official opposition with respect to this question, and I want to outline for the .House, as clearly and concisely as I can, what the issue really is.

When the selection committee met on January 25 of this year to consider the structure of House committees and the representation on those committees, we agreed upon the ratio of government members to opposition members. The Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) at that time, in the absence of the Conservative leader (Mr. Wallace) , made dual representation to the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) , who was the convener of the committee. He pointed out that without advance knowledge of

[ Page 2598 ]

which of the nine committees would be activated and used, commissioned to go throughout the province, then it -was impossible for he and the Conservative leader, as single-man caucuses in this House, to ensure that they would be represented on the committee that was used. He pointed out that if they could only exercise their options without any advance knowledge of which committees would be utilized, they were, in effect, playing Russian roulette with the options that were available to them, a position which is totally unrealistic and totally unfair if the government is concerned about commissioning a representative committee to do a co-operative job on behalf of the people of this province.

At that particular point in time, Mr. Speaker, I supported the request of the hon. Liberal leader that in the event a committee was struck and commissioned to travel throughout the province, he and the one-man Conservative caucus should be allowed the flexibility of removing themselves from the dormant committee and placing themselves upon the active committee. I supported that position because they are in a unique minority position in this House. The Provincial Secretary and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) , who represented the government on that committee, did not give a definite commitment but they certainly did leave the impression that this request would be considered favourably by the government. It was a shock and a tremendous disappointment, I suggest, to all opposition members when we found subsequently that the agricultural committee was indeed being activated and the government, in a petulant and stubborn way, refused to give the hon. Liberal leader and the hon. Conservative leader an opportunity to have a place for themselves upon that committee.

Mr. Speaker, it has been pointed out by other members that whether we agree with the politics of the Conservative and Liberal parties is not the question. That's irrelevant. These members do represent a considerable body of political support and political attitude in this province.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I must draw to your attention, as I have to the attention of others, that the debate that is before us now is on a motion to refer certain responsibilities to the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture. It is not an open debate similar to that which would take place under the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) , and that would be a more proper place to debate it. It is not an open debate in which you can discuss the composition or make-up of all the select standing committees of the House. Certainly it's proper, I believe, to observe that a committee other than agriculture could be the vehicle to use, but to deal with the composition of the committee is not in keeping with the type of debate that should take place on this motion. While I do not wish to restrict you from debating, I would suggest to you, in all sincerity, that you make your remarks, in that respect, very brief. After all, it has been canvassed very fully and really it is a position that is borderline to being out of order each time it is mentioned.

MR. KING: Well, thank you for your counsel, Mr. Speaker. I do feel that the representation on this committee certainly does impact upon the ability of the committee to do the kind of job that it is being commissioned to do by this Legislature. I think if it is to be representative and if it is to have the confidence of the House, then this certainly is a matter that should receive consideration. From the other point of view, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that I was the representative for the official opposition on the selection committee and I think, as such, I have some obligation to set the record clear as I see it and as I understand it with respect to the formation of these committees. However, I do intend to be brief. I do not intend to belabour the point.

I do want to conclude by saying that the Provincial Secretary did contact me after the organizational meeting of the selection committee and requested agreement to expand one of the committees - I forget precisely which one it was; I think it was the resource committee, At that point, I presumed she contacted the other two parties. But when she contacted me, I readily gave approval. I agreed this should be done provided the same ratio of government members to opposition members was maintained.

That's a reasonable, rational kind of request, and a similar response was received from the opposition. That simply demonstrates, Mr. Speaker, that there is no problem in terms of expanding any committee in this House. When the government has chosen to do so for their own reasons, they have found co-operation from the opposition parties. Now we are simply asking that they reciprocate, Mr. Speaker, and expand the agricultural committee to provide for proper representation from two important areas of political thought in this province - those considerable number of people who voted Liberal and voted Conservative and sent two members to this Legislature to represent that particular political point of view.

I appeal to the government out of that sense of fair play. I appeal to the government out of the sense of making this Legislature work with some harmony and some co-operative spirit in the future. I think that is an important thing that should be recognized. The government should capitulate on this situation rather than digging in their heels in a stubborn way and creating a bad climate in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I have a final thought to answer the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) , who says: "Look, members should not be able to trade places

[ Page 2599 ]

on the committees." I agree. The official opposition has adequate members in our caucus to go on each and every committee. I agree that it would be unreasonable to ' ask the government to allow us to swap members back and forth. But that's a separate issue completely. We have a unique situation with two parties represented by one man. If the government cannot recognize the unique minority position that they are placed in, then I say it's either a lack of intelligence or a deliberate attempt to ignore and to thumb their nose at co-operation in this Legislature. I hope mature heads will prevail on the government benches and that something will be done to remedy this dilemma we find ourselves in.

Mr. Speaker, as far as the commission of the committee is concerned, I want to say that I do hope the committee is provided with the resources and the staff to visit each and every important agricultural area of the province, including all of the small points which very, very often are neglected in terms of an opportunity to participate in the decision-making of this province. I think of such places as Chase, a very, very small village, but nevertheless an area around which a great deal of ranching is undertaken, apiaries, beekeeping and so on. It's not exactly a hub of commercial or agricultural life, but it's an area that's important. What stability they have in terms of an economy in those areas is mainly agricultural.

I hope the committee will not zero in just on the major centres alone. I hope they will perhaps do a little bit more than simply sit in committee and listen to the representations of groups. I hope they will actually make some field studies and look at some of the types of farming operations that are carried out in the province to understand better precisely what methods can be undertaken by government to provide assistance and a greater opportunity for survival of these important economic units in our society.

I hope there will be no cutting back on the resources to undertake this kind of travel throughout the province. I hope the necessary technical staff will be provided to record the hearings and provide the base so information will not be lost but can be reviewed by the entire committee and some careful thought given to developing a final report.

I think it's important that as much unanimity as possible be obtained in this kind of exercise, and I think it's possible to attain a great degree of unanimity, even between the political parties, when there is a good understanding of what's needed in the community. Certainly that was my own experience from the committees that I sat on and traveled with before.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Name one!

MR. KING: The labour and justice committee. We had good co-operation from the official opposition at that time. We've now changed sides on the House, Mr. Speaker, but there was a willingness by the committee members to listen to the real problems of people and perhaps to be less political than we are inclined to be in this institution in coming to grips with some of the solutions they needed that were not based on a philosophical approach but rather on a practical solution to real problems. I think that should be the objective.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, if that kind of climate is to present itself to the committee, again I must say that climate can only be attained if there is a broad representative committee participating in this function. That committee has to be representative of the basic political parties in this province.

I think there is a willingness to co-operate, a willingness to find solutions and solve problems, rather than score political points. It starts with the government, Mr. Speaker. The challenge is up to the government. Will you recognize the need to have full participation from all the parties or not? If you will, simply by expanding the committee, which is a simple task, then I think this committee on agriculture can serve a very, very useful function throughout the province. If the government is intransigent and stubborn and fails to recognize that need, I suggest that this committee will be born in controversy, and the usefulness of the function will be impaired tremendously by the narrowness of the confines of political thought that' go into its construction.

MR. COCKE: I just want to speak for the farmers in New Westminster, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) .

Mr. Speaker, I've seen a number of terms of reference for committees come before the House, and I must confess that these are fairly wide-ranging terms of reference. They will provide a lot of freedom for movement. I do have some concerns over the overlapping that may or may not occur with respect to the dates.

I hope that they don't find themselves going back to the same places for the second bit of information, and that kind of thing. But I do see a wide-ranging opportunity here to really take a good look. I'm not sure that you can accomplish it within a year; I sure hope you can. But one of the ways that you could accomplish it more clearly and certainly to the satisfaction of more people would be if you broadened the base of the committee.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I've heard all sorts of discussion around this. I know that you don't like that to be touched upon, but there's a matter of principle here. We've discussed a number of matters of principle around this room from time to time, but the one that seems to escape the government is to do the things

[ Page 2600 ]

that might make the Legislature more efficient.

I brought a matter before the House a short while ago - talking in terms of efficiency, giving people access to what is naturally their right, knowledge of what we're to do and when we're supposed to do it -but even that was denied this House, Mr. Speaker. I suggest to you that denying people access to this committee is as much harming the future outcome of this committee's work as would be denying access of witnesses to appear before the committee.

Every side has to be canvassed, every position looked upon by as broad a section of MLAs as possible. The fact has been brought up that the Liberals and Conservatives do have a significant number, a significant following. If you add the Liberals, the Conservatives and the NDP together, it's 52 per cent of the province.

You know, the government walks around with their 48 per cent and thinks that they have all the cards. Well, they have, Mr. Speaker, just now. But with that kind of autocratic attitude, they're not going to hold all those cards. It's just as pure and simple as that. I would warn you, Mr. Speaker, that maybe your political life depends on the outcome of the direction that's set by this present cabinet and this present Premier.

The present Premier, in my view - and it would appear to me that the direction came from him - set this course himself. This marvel of administration we have in the West Wing now, the Messiah of B.C., who turns out to be a Simon Legree ....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member ...

MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Speaker, let's talk facts around this House.

MR. SPEAKER: ... I've granted you, as I have others ...

MR. COCKE: ... a good deal of latitude, and I appreciate that latitude.

MR. SPEAKER: ... latitude in discussing the motion that's before us. But unfortunately, when the Chair grants that latitude, there's a tendency to abuse it and override the cautions and suggestions of the Chair. As long as you relate your debate to the resolution that's before us and the terms of reference to the standing committee, I'm prepared to accept that line of debate. But you seem, like other members of the House, to want to stray into areas that have absolutely nothing to do with the motion that's before us. So I just caution you to keep your remarks within the ambit that we're debating now, and that is this resolution.

MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This resolution calls for setting up a committee to do a job of work. If the committee is set up in such a way as to deny it a good opportunity to do the job of work, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, very strongly that that is part of the debate. That really is part of the debate. It's all very well and good to have all these words, Mr. Speaker, before us - the four phases and the reporting times and the general areas that they're to report upon. I think we all agree upon this.

I'm a little concerned, however. If you want to really debate the first clause of this, and that's to evaluate the amount of agricultural land currently in production and to assess it and to suggest whether there would be future requirements and so on, I worry about that. I see the vast majority on this committee having at one time or another in their lives run a campaign in opposition to conserving agricultural land, and I say it biases the committee. But there's nothing we can do about that, Mr. Speaker. That government won the election with their biases, their warts and all, and so, Mr. Speaker, we live with that. But we don't have to live with the kind of autocratic attitude that has begun the work of this committee.

I have very little more to say, Mr. Speaker, other than to wish them the very best of good luck under the circumstances. Hopefully, something will come of it. But I suggest a lot more would have come of it if some more thought had been given to setting up this committee properly in the first place.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of questions raised during the debate last night and today, and I would like to have the opportunity to reply to some of the matters raised in the course of the debate. I therefore would ask to have leave to close the debate, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, as I pointed out to you earlier, rule 42 of our standing orders would prohibit the minister from closing the debate without leave, and for that reason he has asked leave. I now put the question to you. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, a number of the speakers in the debate have raised similar questions. Of course, most of them have dealt with representation on the committee. But I would like to touch on some of the concerns expressed by the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) and from the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) in regard to their comments about the timetable for the committee. Could it be extended? The terms of reference say that the reports shall come in at specific times. I think that matter would have to be dealt with as a technicality, depending on the amount of

[ Page 2601 ]

involvement that was experienced by the committee and by the research staff. But a lot of the work in the way of input from the commodity groups will be carried out by the research staff and by members of my staff in conjunction with the committee. They will have ample opportunity to make use of all the research people who are available to them.

I think to have those time restraints on the committee accomplishes two things. One, it keeps the committee active, recognizing that they do have a limitation of time. Secondly, we have the problem regarding the cost of food and the problems regarding the return to the producer in this province now, Mr. Speaker. If we allow the study to carry on for two years or three years, the circumstances change and the results of that committee's endeavours may not be as valuable as they would be within those time restraints.

The member for Comox raised the question in regard to sequence. I think there is flexibility in there in changing the sequence and setting the priorities. I'm sure the chairman of the committee and members of the committee will look at how they can accomplish the role of the committee in the quickest time possible, bearing in mind the restraints that I mentioned before.

The bill on assessments that was brought in and the effect on land and classification was mentioned. I think that matter is being researched and looked at with regard to farmland. I think it would be a matter of duplication if this committee was then to delve into the assessment situation.

Foreign ownership in regard to the ownership of what the member from Comox was mentioning - the retail level, supermarkets, et cetera - doesn't relate to the cost of food. What we're concerned about is what the price of food is when it hits the shelf, not who owns that.

Vertical integration is one thing I think the member might have meant, and that of course is covered in the terms of reference.

Implementation of any recommendations during Phase I, II or III - the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) raised concern there. I'm not the chairman of that committee but I would feel that the recommendations would be held until the overview was done so that the committee would have a total picture of the results of the various phases and the overview before they brought in recommendations to the ministers. The report to the House would include all phases.

The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) was concerned about the effect of subsidies as well as just the price of food in the marketplace. I believe that is covered under the overview in subsection (f): ". . . examination of any other factors considered by the committee to be significant in determining food prices." I think that gives the flexibility for it to be covered.

Mr. Speaker, there was a comment from the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) that the committee was not large enough. I would suggest to that member that this committee is made up of 10 MLAs. I grant to the member for Oak Bay that it is a challenge for that committee, but is bigness necessarily related to efficiency? I think the quality members on that committee can carry out the job.

As regards the sufficient resources, I feel that they have the ability to get that. Or for the unanimity of the committee that the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) mentioned, I agree. I think the members on that committee will work because they have a task to complete. If I can draw a comparison, we have an auditor-general committee which is working very well together. I do not believe there is any political involvement in that committee. We know that we have a task to do and we're going about our way in accomplishing that. I really feel that this committee can identify the problems with regard to agriculture and the cost of food, and I think they can find the solution.

One last comment, Mr. Speaker, regarding the selection of the members of the committee, and I feel I should have the opportunity to comment. It is, of course, out of the hands of the convener of the committee; it was done by the selection committee. I would only say that 1, as Minister of Agriculture, stated - the first time, I believe, was at the end of October or the first part of November - at the Federation of Agriculture annual meeting in Richmond that a food study or review of marketing boards, et cetera, would be carried on. It has been in the press and it’s been discussed. Alternative methods were mentioned, but the committee was one of them. The Liberal and Conservative members have expressed concern that they didn't have the opportunity to serve. I believe the selection notices went out on January 27, and then the selections were made, I think, on March 2. There was a lot of time to recognize that there was going to be a study carried out and they had ample opportunity to recognize that that committee would be activated.

Mr. Speaker, a final comment. I have the letters that were sent by the leader of the Conservative Party and the leader of the Liberal Party. I would quote the one sent by the leader of the Conservative Party in particular:

"I wish to confirm our telephone discussion to the effect that I wish to be withdrawn as a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, and have my name added to the members serving on the Standing Committee on Environment and Resources." That was March 2, Mr. Speaker - a month ago. I'm sure that the notice was certainly given that this committee could very possibly be activated.

[ Page 2602 ]

MR. WALLACE: Why didn't you tell us, for goodness' sake, instead of playing games?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I only point out there was a chance, as recently as a month ago, to recognize that that committee could be activated. But I would suggest in closing that I feel this committee will deal as a non-partisan committee, a committee which recognizes that we have to look at the cost of food in this province, and the effect on the producer in not getting a fair return. Hopefully, I would think that the recommendations that come before this House will be considered by all members. Bearing in mind that they will come before this House - all members will have the opportunity to look at them, to analyse them and to ask questions of that committee or members of that committee, or of me as Minister of Agriculture - I would hope that before any legislation is considered, everybody would look at the reports that are brought down and would make their comments and suggestions to add to the input of that committee.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 21.

TRAVEL AGENTS

REGISTRATION ACT

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

On section 1.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Corporate and Consumer Affairs): Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 3 as amended approved.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 5 as amended approved.

On section 6.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendments approved.

Section 6 as amended approved.

On section 7.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 7 as amended approved.

On section 8.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

On the amendments.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, this section represents one of the main reasons that we have this bill before us - namely the security of money paid by intending travelers in the hope and trust that when they want to start on the journey, for which they paid some time previously, that in fact the money will be there and the service will be provided. I'm well aware of the correspondence that has taken place between the minister and certain members of the travel industry expressing concern about the trust feature which was first built into this bill and which the minister is now amending under section 8, which is really being renumbered as section 7.

Since I'm not well versed in the handling of trust funds, I wonder if the minister would care to take a minute to tell us how effective it is to retitle this section "money deemed to be in trust" and under subsection (2) to say, instead of the original version --money deposited to the trust account" - to substitute for that the phrase "money held in trust."

[ Page 2603 ]

I'm a little puzzled because I presume that money held in trust is no more secure than the money which was to be deposited in a trust account for which the signatory of that account could be equally dishonest and sign away money from that account for dishonest purposes.

I know that the minister has said that this bill may not solve all the problems, but I'm wondering if he can tell us how this amendment to this particular section will in any way make the money any more secure against abuse by simply saying that it's deemed to be in trust and that the money paid by intending travelers will be held in trust, if in fact there's no real guarantee that the money will be there when needed.

HON. MR. MAIR: In answer to the member for Oak Bay, I don't think that the section itself will make the money any safer other than that the designation usually creates a greater sense of obligation in the person who receives it than it would otherwise.

The purpose of the section is to give the money a classification that has a particular significance in law, Mr. Member, particularly in terms of bankruptcy or receivership or anything of that nature. When the money is traced and is found, it has a designation as a trust fund or as trust money and cannot be used for another purpose.

The main safeguard to the money of the depositor, if I may use that phrase, is the fund itself which would be set up to care for the defalcation. I quite agree with, I think, the inference that you're drawing that this in itself does not create any particular safety.

MR. WALLACE: I appreciate the minister's comment. Could I then just ask if by changing the definition and designating the money as being held in trust, this is comparable to the situation of a lawyer who handles funds for clients which are supposed to be held in trust? If and when he spends that money otherwise, the capacity of the law to inflict a more serious penalty on a lawyer, or in this case on a travel agent, exists. Or would the penalty only be that that is included in this Act under section 31?

The section in general terms covering penalties covers either a fine or imprisonment. Could I just ask the minister if, from the kind of analogy I've tried to draw between a travel agent abusing the money and a lawyer abusing trust funds, the penalties in this bill are comparable to those that in practice have been applied, let us say, to a lawyer who, over a period of time, misused trust funds?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, the penalties are those as set out later in the Act. I think the member has drawn a very useful analogy. I hate to use a lawyer as an example, but if he did run away with his trust account and some of it was recovered, that part of the trust account that was recovered would be identified as trust money and would not be subject to attachment by the lawyer's creditors or some other source. In other words, it would be identified, would be intact, and that is the purpose of this section.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): I think that this whole bill, really, was brought about because of the recent bankruptcy of the Hawaiian-based travel agents' company. Although it may not have been brought about, it certainly was hastened and brought into the House because that particular company went bankrupt and many, many British Columbians were left without funds or with very little hope of recouping any of their funds.

I'm wondering if the minister can tell us if the British Columbians who were affected by the bankruptcy of that Hawaiian company will be in any way reimbursed. I know that his department has been doing some work on that and I wonder if he could give us that information now.

HON. MR. MAIR: Madam Member, the answer to your question is yes. The last word I have, and I have to guess a little here, is that the figure that comes to mind was about $70,000 that we have recovered which will be returned in the proper proportions to the people who put the money up.

Amendments approved.

Section 8 as amended approved.

On section 9.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendments approved.

Section 9 as amended approved.

Sections 10 to 15 inclusive approved.

On section 16.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

On section 16 as amended.

[ Page 2604 ]

MR. WALLACE: I have just a small point again. On second reading we discussed exactly how this fund would be contributed to by the travel agents. I wonder if the minister can give us any specific information on the formula that's to be used, or is this to be included in the regulations? Will we not know what the formula is until then? Whether we will know now or then, could you tell us what specific consultation or discussion he had with the travel agents? At least can we know what they were asking as to the method by which they would contribute to the creation of this fund?

HON. MR. MAIR: It is proposed that the fund be set up, based on a percentage of the gross sales of the individual wholesalers and travel agents. So of course the smaller outfit will pay considerably less than the larger one. Now we propose - although I don't want to make a commitment in this regard - to follow the practice, roughly, in the province of Ontario, because that's the best guide we could go on. I'm trying to recall a percentage but it seems to me it is something in the neighbourhood of 3/10 of 1 per cent.

Section 16 as amended approved.

On section 17.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper to section 17. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 17 as amended approved.

Section 18 approved.

On section 19.

MR. WALLACE: Again just a small point I raised in the earlier debate about recovery of funds and the fact that the amount which would really be recovered by the client or the traveler would suffer the deduction of the costs of recovery, including solicitor and client costs under subsection (c) . I wonder if the minister could give us any idea as to whether this is likely to be a substantial part of the original amount which the traveler paid.

After all, the traveler, or the intending traveler, pays the whole amount of the money in good faith. Because he or she then has to fight to recover money that is supposed to be in trust, I wonder whether it's reasonable to suggest that the traveler trying to recover that trust money has to foot the bill for the costs of recovering it. It would seem to me that it would not be unreasonable that the travel assurance fund would meet its main purpose of protecting the consumer, in this case a person purchasing traveling service, if in fact a travel assurance fund met the cost of recovering the money in a case where the traveler has been bilked or betrayed in a matter of trust.

I wonder if the minister could tell us if there's to be no ceiling as to the percentage, perhaps, that might be involved in the cost of recovery. I assume that maybe there could be occasions when the cost of recovery could be considerable, and the net amount of money that goes back to the intending traveler might be quite small. Should we not at least have a percentage ceiling of the money recovered that must go back to the traveler? After all, we've passed legislation in this House suggesting that when you sell your tax rebate, at least the taxpayer should be sure of getting 85 per cent of it himself. It would seem to me there's a very close analogy here.

HON. MR. MAIR: I think this must be read in its proper context, with respect, Mr. Chairman. This is money that the Crown has recovered itself in reimbursement, so it's money in excess of what the claimant would have been entitled to against the fund. In other words, the claimant is getting something back, apart from this Act, and insofar as that excess is concerned then the Crown may deduct something for costs. So this is over and above what he would have normally got.

MR. WALLACE: Well, maybe we're all just getting tired and I'm dumb, but how could the person possibly recover more than what he paid in? If I pay $300 to fly to Montreal, and that money is not there when it's supposed to be paid to Air Canada or whomever, it's my understanding that the Crown might act to try and recover the $300. Now how could it recover in excess of $300?

HON. MR. MAIR: Perhaps we can try to work out an example, Mr. Member. Like yourself, I'm also tired, so we'll try to be patient with one another. We always are in this House, of course.

But let us assume that the fund has paid out to Mr. Wallace in Edinburgh the sum of 300 pounds. But while bringing an action against the wrongdoer, it brings an action in general for the amount of damages which Mr. Wallace has suffered. Mr. Wallace gets back 400 pounds in the Crown's name, the Crown having taken all of Mr. Wallace's rights. He gets back 400 pounds. Mr. Wallace is entitled to 400 pounds. He's also entitled to 100 pounds after a reasonable deduction for the Crown's costs.

MR. WALLACE: Comprenez.

Sections 19 and 20 approved.

On section 21.

[ Page 2605 ]

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 21 standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 21 as amended approved.

Sections 22 to 25 inclusive approved.

On section 26.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 26 standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 26 as amended approved.

Sections 27 to 30 inclusive approved.

On section 31.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendments approved.

On section 31 as amended.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister had given any consideration to the points raised by one particular travel agent. He felt that there is always a tremendous temptation when you're handling somebody else's money - and in some cases in the large agencies very large sums of money are involved - and points were raised. First of all, should there be any different penalty for an individual as compared to a corporation? I thought that the argument which was presented in that letter to the minister was reasonable, and I don't see that there should be any difference, personally.

Secondly, has he given any further consideration to the adequacy of a fine of $25,000, when one of the agents suggested that it would not be unreasonable to make the maximum penalty $50,000?

HON. MR. MAIR: I think, first of all, we must recognize that the amounts of the fines are permissive, in the sense that they are not to exceed, and I think that makes something of a difference. The point I made in second reading, I think, is still valid, Mr. Member, and that is that, generally speaking, any company when it achieves size enough to really be guilty of a major fraud usually incorporates, and that's the reason that we have the bigger penalties for them as opposed to the individuals. I agree that we're playing with numbers; you could make it $50,000 or you could make it more and it certainly wouldn't offend my sensitivities. Suffice it to say, I suppose, that this is roughly in line - as a matter of fact it is in line - with all other similar sections in Acts similar to this in my ministry.

Section 31 as amended approved.

Sections 32 to 34 inclusive approved.

On section 35.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Section 35 as amended approved.

On section 36.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering if the minister can give us any sort of ballpark figure as to how much money will be required for this Act up until the date of March 31,1978, because until then, the money for operating under this Act will come out of consolidated revenue. In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to know what section 36 means when it says that only when the Legislature gives authority can that money be paid. Are we giving that authority now, when this Act is being passed? Or will the minister have to come back to the Legislature for authority in order to pay for, I would assume, the registrar and the board members and whatever else is required under this piece of legislation?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, first of all I'm instructed that the costs which we're looking at are something in the range of $40,000 in terms of administration costs. That's what I assume the member is referring to.

Secondly, I think that the thrust of the balance of that section is analogous to a question of a special warrant where you have to come back for a vote in due course for the money that is expended, and that's what that section means.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, one other question. The limitation is very clear here that it will be until March 31,1978. What will happen following that? Will it be as part of your estimates or will the costs then be collected through the various travel agents? Will that be part of the costs of operating under this Act?

[ Page 2606 ]

HON. MR. MAIR: It will be part of the vote of this ministry, Madam Member.

MS. SANFORD: Thank you.

Sections 36 to 38 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 21, Travel Agents Registration Act, reported complete with amendments.

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

HON. MR. MAIR: With leave, now.

Bill 21, Travel Agents Registration Act, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Second reading of Bill 9, Mr. Speaker.

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): This bill can best be described as a housekeeping one - an overworked word, but I think it does apply here. It is intended to resolve certain difficulties which have arisen in connection with the general administration of the Department of Housing Act and to clarify the intent of that Act. You will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, the very many documents of a relatively routine nature required to be executed by this ministry during the course of any month. The present Act restricts the minister's ability to delegate some signing powers to responsible ministry officials. This bill would make provision to expedite the ministry's business by allowing greater flexibility in this regard. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, and members of this House, that this does not address itself in any way to a delegation of the decision-making process but rather the administrative process.

If I may speak briefly, section 5 is being amended to make it clear beyond any doubt that the minister concerned has the power to make payments relating to housing from all moneys at the disposal of the ministry - that is, from statutory votes.

Mr. Speaker, it was the intention that section 5 (5) should empower the provincial government to borrow moneys from the national government for any purpose relating to housing. However, in practice, as some members will know, it has been found that the Revenue Act does not contemplate the kind of borrowings that are usually negotiated in connection with the development of housing in all its forms. Therefore the deletion of the words "subject to the Revenue Act" will remove any doubts which exist and ensure that the original intentions can be implemented should government policy make that necessary.

In the course of the administration of the overall Department of Housing Act with these amendments, Mr. Speaker, the ministry makes many payments which are repayable. Regulations have been passed to secure these moneys by filing in various land registry offices certificates of money advanced similar to those which have been in use for many years under the Provincial Home Acquisition Act. The purpose of sections 4 and 5 of the bill, therefore, is to ensure that these steps to protect public moneys are ratified by statute rather than by regulation, and to lay down clearly the conditions applying to the filing and cancellation of certificates of money advanced under this Act.

The words "money advanced" have been defined as including "money advanced in the form of a grant, loan, subsidy, or any other form under this Act." That is, Mr. Speaker, to reflect the various kinds of assistance payments made by this ministry relating to housing which may, in one form or another, require a certificate of money advanced. I now move second reading.

MR. BARBER: The opposition has no objection to this bill and intends to vote for it.

MR. SPEAKER: It would appear that that is the conclusion of the debate.

HON. MR. CURTIS: These strenuous debates, Mr. Speaker, are a little more than one is prepared for. I move that the motion be put now.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 9 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 9, Department of Housing Amendment Act, 1977, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

[ Page 2607 ]

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

The House in Committee on Bill 9; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Chairman, I can't let this go by without commenting. Having had to sign land-use contracts at one time.... If anyone has ever seen them, I have had to sign responsibility for every shrub, sidewalk and so on -literally hundreds of pages - I wholeheartedly support this section as a great energy conservation move.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 9, Department of Housing Amendment Act, 1977, reported complete without amendment.

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

HON. MR. CURTIS: By leave now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 35.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Bill 35 is the Income Tax Amendment Act, 1977. To a great degree, the amendments included in this bill have to do with recent negotiations which took place between the federal government and the provinces which resulted in the change in tax points - moving from the federal government taxation structure to the province. Of course, the other matters included in the amendments have to do with requests of the government of Canada to assimilate our Act with the federal government's Act.

Hon. members will recall that in the budget speech I referred to meetings which were held between the provincial and federal governments regarding the financial arrangements for the established so-called shared-cost programmes, which covered post-secondary education, hospital and medical care. The agreement reached involved the federal contribution to these programmes being altered, Mr. Speaker, to approximately one-half in cash and the other half in additional taxing authority for the provinces by way of a transfer of federal income tax points.

For British Columbia, this transfer results in our tax rate moving from 32.5 per cent to 46 per cent, effective January 1,1977. The 46 per cent is only a reflection of the increased share of the tax dollar which comes to the province. It does not mean a comparable increase in tax to the taxpayer. Apart from some small changes in amounts of tax due to the mechanics of converting the points from the federal rate to the provincial rate, I would emphasize it will mean only a minor change in tax payable by the individual taxpayer.

An amendment is proposed to assist low-income taxpayers. This provides that any taxpayer whose 1977 taxable income is $1,678 or less will pay no provincial income tax. This means that for these low-income taxpayers, no provincial or federal tax -I repeat, no provincial or federal tax - will be payable.

For example, in the case of a married couple -husband on pension, both aged 65 years or older -this will mean an income in 1977 of $9,878, or almost $10,000, will be exempt of tax. If their income includes interest or dividends, - a further exemption of up to $1,000 is available, for a total of almost $11,000 not subject to income tax in this case.

For a married man with two children under 16 years of age, the income not subject to any tax will rise in 1977 from $5,220 to $6,898. Mr. Speaker, an amendment is proposed here to allow the Credit Union Reserve Board the small-business income tax rate of 12 per cent. The board, consisting of five members appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, is set up as a deposit insurance corporation which guarantees all deposits which have been made with credit unions.

A problem has arisen with the small-business tax rate applicable to credit unions. Unlike other small Canadian-controlled private businesses who are able to keep within the $150,000 a year, or $750,000 cumulative business limit, or a net income by the payment of dividends, any payment of dividends by credit unions is deemed interest and cannot be used to reduce the business limit. To correct this unfavourable position for credit unions compared to other eligible corporations, an amendment is proposed to allow the small-corporation tax rate of 12 per cent to continue to apply to credit unions after the $150,000 a year or the $750,000 cumulative

[ Page 2608 ]

total business limits have been reached.

Mr. Speaker, also effective November 1,1975, the province paid an additional 15 cents per thousand cubic feet of old gas incentive to gas producers. The federal income tax have ruled that this additional payment is not considered income subject to income tax. Since' when the 15 cent extra payment was introduced it was considered to be subject to income tax, an amendment is proposed here to clearly state such payment is income subject to provincial income tax in the hands of the gas producers. The effective date of the amendment, November 1,1975, will cover the whole period when the additional payment was made.

Mr. Speaker, it is a condition of the agreement under which the federal government administers our Income Tax Act that the regular provisions of our Act be compatible with theirs. The federal government has submitted four amendments with the request that they be included in our Act. These proposed amendments involve foreign tax credit, employers' obligation to withhold tax, farmers' and fishermen's five-year averaging, and corporation income tax instalments for small businesses.

An amendment on foreign tax credit is to protect the foreign tax credit, which the taxpayer is eligible for, from the indirect effect of the $1,000 deduction from income that taxpayers are allowed in respect of their interest and dividends from Canadian sources. This amendment is made effective January 1,1976, to give taxpayers with foreign tax credits the benefit of the provision for the 1976 taxation year. The change in the employer's obligation to withhold tax is to correct complaints. from recipients of unemployment insurance benefits, adult-training allowances, payments from a registered retirement savings plan, or payments from an income-averaging annuity contract who, on filing their tax returns, found they had substantial but unexpected tax liabilities. The person paying the above allowances or payments will now be required to deduct income tax before making the payment.

Mr. Speaker, the amendment to the farmers' and fishermen's five-year averaging provision is to correct the non-allowance of the averaging for provincial tax purposes if the farmer or fisherman moves between provinces. The amendment will allow the farmer or fisherman to be eligible for averaging for federal tax purposes. Also at present, small business corporations eligible for the small business rate of tax in the preceding year have a month longer than other corporations to pay their tax after the end of their taxation year. The amendment here extends the extra month for settling their tax liability to small businesses eligible for the small business rate in the current year as well as in the preceding year. This provision is to be made effective January 1,1976, so that such small corporations will get the benefit of it for the filing of their 1976 returns.

The only other proposed amendment, Mr. Speaker, is a housekeeping one simply to correct the wrong placement of a bracket at the end of a phrase in the existing Act. With that, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the minister has read into the record some rather detailed remarks about the various sections of the Act or the bill before us. I would have preferred a more general discussion of the negotiations between the provinces and the federal government on this whole tax-sharing agreement. I know there were some remarks at the time the minister came back from the conference. I can recall something to the effect that this was going to cost the people of British Columbia something in the neighbourhood of, I believe, $60 million. I don't know whether that was the final position or whether that was an interim position as a result of the negotiations - if I can call them that - that were going on between the provinces and Ottawa. What was the final position? Is the federal government going to be ahead at the expense of the provinces? I'm wondering what effect this had on this year's budget with respect to the services. I can recall at the time the minister expressing some concern that it might mean curtailment of services in health, in education, in human resources. I'm wondering whether the new agreement with Ottawa did indeed have that effect on our budget - that it did mean cutting back on some programmes because British Columbia was going to be worse off as a result of this new agreement.

I'm wondering, too, what the future holds for us. Does it mean a possible deterioration of these services throughout Canada; that the federal government, in getting out of these shared-cost programmes, is just moving one step forward at this time, or perhaps it's a second or third step; that it intends to move further out; that eventually it will get out of these shared-cost programmes completely and the provinces will be levying their own taxes for these programmes; and that it will, to some extent, have a very harmful effect on the level of services offered throughout Canada? With the shared-cost programmes, of course, some of these programmes are transferable when one moves from one province to another. I would have hoped the minister would have told us something about that possible impact of the agreement as well.

As far as the legislation before us is concerned, we have little option than to accept at this time. It has happened; the federal government has done it. The provincial government, presumably, has negotiated in the best interest of the people of British Columbia. But I would Eke some more general overall analysis as to the effect of this on today's budget, on tomorrow's budget and somewhere down the road as

[ Page 2609 ]

to the effect of this and what we can expect in the future with respect to these agreements.

As far as the other sections are concerned, it's possible that I or some other members of the opposition will have some questions about the specific sections. But I think at this point perhaps we'll gain more from a general discussion of the federal-provincial negotiations, of the whole cost-sharing programme and of the effect of this on people services in British Columbia, in the other provinces and in Canada as a whole.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, in the budget debate, this subject was explored and not all the answers were available at that time for some of the reasons which the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) has pointed out.

I wonder if the minister could tell us now, with the passage of another couple of months, whether the financial picture is clearer as to the net effect of the transfer of points and the cash settlement that went along with it. As I recall, it was $2.5 billion which in future was to be tied to what Mr. Trudeau described on December 14,1976, in the House of Commons as being related to the gross national expenditure.

The simplicity which is reputedly attached to this transfer of tax points has been emphasized at both the federal and provincial levels. We're simply, as Mr. Trudeau said in his typically euphemistic way, making room for the provinces painlessly - I might say he had the gall to use the word "painlessly, " as if any taxation is ever painless - by 12.5 tax points to allow the provinces to move into that same degree.

But what he did not acknowledge, or refused to acknowledge, was that the cash settlements in future years would be related to this figure or term which he described as the gross national expenditure. At that time, the Minister of Finance made a public statement after the conference in December last year that he felt that our net financial position in regard to the cost-sharing of health services would be impaired. The member for Nanaimo has suggested, I think, that the figure quoted was $60 million. I'm not in any way trying to pin down the Minister of Finance on $60 million or $50 million or any figure. I want to talk, as the member for Nanaimo suggested, in more general terms and in principle to the effect that, depending on how future cash settlements are calculated, the very serious and clear net effect is that the federal government will be paying a smaller percentage of the total provincial costs of hospitals, medicare and other health services.

Again, I don't expect the minister to give me a precise dollar amount or maybe even a percentage, but could he give us some approximate idea, as a result of this agreement with Ottawa, as to the transfer of tax points which went along with a cash settlement? Can the minister give us some idea, say, in the 1977-78 fiscal year and maybe even in years ahead, how far below the previous 50-50 sharing the province of British Columbia will fall in receipt of federal money?

The federal government took the position that the 50-50 sharing, let us say, of operating costs of hospitals was too open-ended and that they were stuck with the bill for half of whatever B.C. chose to spend on hospitals. While there may be some justification for the federal government's wish to move the goal posts, I think it's quite clear if you read federal Hansard that they moved the goal posts all right. They moved them first and told the provinces later. The provinces were left scrambling around, trying to make the best kind of deal they could. Prime Minister Trudeau threw a crumb to the provinces at the end of the conference by agreeing to one more point as part of the cash settlement.

What I am trying to find out, so that debates in future in this chamber will be based on facts and figures, is: can the minister give us some idea of the net diminution of federal funding that we can expect, based on the cash settlement which went along with the transfer of the 12.5 tax points?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the federal government originally got the cost-sharing programme for medical-hospital services, and to some extent, for secondary education - but particularly for medical and hospital services.

They went across the country indicating that the way we could get a medicare scheme for Canada and a hospital insurance scheme was through a cost-sharing programme. Once into it, and down the road a bit, the federal government found that there were some rather major concerns over the escalation. The escalation of costs was such that the federal government thought, well, we have to put the brakes on for two or three years.

I spent some time going backward and forward to Ottawa. We agreed. We said:

"Look, the province isn't any happier about this escalation than you are. However, we feel that if there's to be a system where we control costs, if there's a system that will work for both sides of the situation, then let's do it together. Let's provide alternative services. Let's provide for incentives to save, and let's do it together. We're partners in this thing."

The federal government maintained a fairly rigid position, and introduced a formula, first with Munro, then a sort of a recalculated approach under Marc Lalonde. I remember one of the major controversies we had was with all the heavies there - Lalonde and Turner, in those days, and others. And, Mr. Speaker, the provinces were very reluctant to give this particular area away without the federal government agreeing to continue in the partnership in other areas.

[ Page 2610 ]

Well, Mr. Speaker, I guess they finally had their way to some extent. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) came back with his tail between his legs, screaming at the top of his voice, "we've lost $60 million, " and saying that we're going to have to cut back on this and cut back on that. In standing up today and introducing the bill, he didn't say very much about that $60 million that went down the tube. I, as well as the two other members who spoke, would like to hear him develop that just a little bit.

If he got stung by those mighty fighters, and wheelers and dealers in Ottawa, tell us all about it. I hear the Premier getting up in the House all the time and telling us how well he's doing - a magnificent relationship with Ottawa! That wasn't quite the story we heard when the Minister of Finance came back. No, he just talked about getting stung to the tune of $60 million. The only person who spoke out louder than our Minister of Finance was the Premier of La Belle Province, Quebec. He had plenty to say about it. I don't think probably we can use all the words that he said in this House. Maybe those words are acceptable in other jurisdictions, but I know that our Speaker would have his hair standing on end to the point that it would probably lift his hat.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think anybody should be too terribly pleased with the turn of events. I'm certainly no expert on taxation, as my colleague for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) is, but I do know the net effect is this: they're bailing out. They're dumping it on the heads of the provinces. They're letting the provinces take the whole load, and it's up to us to curtail any escalation.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Yes, except for the tax points, which have, naturally, a tendency to rise, but not to the same extent, Mr. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) , as the escalation of medical and hospital costs.

Mr. Speaker, the main point of what I want to say is this: since you've accepted this new formula, this new direction, don't you dare curtail to any further extent than you have already medical care and hospital care in this province. I'm terribly concerned about this whole area. I saw an example the other day where I felt it was being curtailed, and, as usual, in a way, Mr. Speaker, that I find totally unacceptable, because it costs us more money in the long run.

Two people in New Westminster, quite old and quite seriously ill with flu with home care could have been kept at home and cared for for maybe $20 a day. What do we do? There was no home care available until they get out of the hospital. Now isn't that the craziest thing you ever heard of? No home care available! They go into the hospital for seven days at $100 a day for two people - $1,400 will be the net effect of that - and home care is available when they go home.

When we were talking to the federal government about all these kinds of programmes, we were suggesting from the Health department in those days that this was one of those ways, those alternatives, that they could share in. But, Mr. Speaker, we see this present government not taking advantage of some good ideas; we see the federal government ignoring proper sharing in these areas.

Mr. Speaker, we have no alternative but to pass this bill. It's a fact accomplished. The minute the Minister of Finance came back and waved the surrender flag saying "they've nicked us for $60 million, " that was the end of the line. Now we can only just pick up the pieces, smile wistfully and hope somehow or other that we can develop some alternatives. I'm not too sure I have too much hope with that kind of a government, but maybe they'll lumber along and do some good work over the next couple of years. But in any event, Mr. Speaker, it's a fact accomplished. Hopefully we can bail out the people in the province the best we can.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Most of the comments made by the members regarding these amendments show interest in the federal-provincial arrangements and the conclusion of those, which ground we did go over to quite an extent during the budget and during the estimates of the Minister of Finance following this.

Incidentally, I must apologize that I didn't bring much of this information to do with the details of those negotiations with me today, but I'd like to say this. As we all know, those negotiations were directed at changing the formula and responsibility for medical care, hospital care and post-secondary education on to the provinces and making a satisfactory change in the financial arrangements to cover that change.

I think it should be appreciated that prior to these negotiations, the federal government, although initiating these programmes on a 50-50 sharing basis, had indicated they were going to start putting a ceiling on what they would share in the cost. Instead of there being 50-50 sharing as time went on, it became 45-55 and 60-40. So there were initiatives being generated where no longer would the federal government indicate they were going to share 50-50 in these programmes which they originated some years ago.

So as we're all aware, this resulted in a series of many meetings during the year 1976, culminating with a discussion amongst the Premiers and the Prime Minister of Canada which resulted in the formula that brings about the amendments in this Act. To summarize those, I think it should be said that the province of British Columbia perhaps put up about the toughest stance of any province in Canada in the final agreement which evolved. As a matter of fact,

[ Page 2611 ]

our own Premier was the last one to agree to concede to the arrangements that were arrived at.

In the course of which, I think it should be said that perhaps one extra point of income tax and/or cash was agreed to by the federal government in the final arrangements. In fact, if you go back to some of the earlier meetings during the year, the federal government's proposals to transfer the responsibility for these programmes were such that they were going to transfer, let's say, 8.1 tax points in the final resolution of these, wrapping up the revenue guarantee - the hospital, medicare and other arrangements. I think the compromise was somewhere halfway between the final demands of the provinces, which were made collectively, and the initial stance of the federal government some months before that.

So it seems to me most of the animosity which was created in these discussions surrounded the revenue guarantee, which covered a period ending in 1976 protecting the provinces for the changes in the Income Tax Act of 1971.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WOLFE: No, 1971. The revenue guarantee covered a period following the change in the tax Act, effective in 1972. In any event, the formula for this was changed during the course of a five-year period. The provinces took exception to this change without notice, so to speak, in the formula which cost many millions of dollars to the provinces. I n the final resolution of the tax-sharing arrangements, the federal government agreed to concede that one further point would be conceded for this misunderstanding. So when the smoke cleared in the final stages of the inter-provincial meetings this one point was changed in effect to two points.

The provinces had collectively asked for four points of either cash or tax points to transfer, instead of which the final resolution was two points. So it surrounds the difference between the two and the four. I explained the fact that we had in fact suffered by some $60 million, including certain other more minor elements in the final arrangements, one of them being the cutoff on the medical plan. For instance, the medical plan ceases to be federally shared as of March 31, so that any bills submitted after that point, even though incurred prior to that date, are not acceptable under the sharing arrangement and become the full responsibility of the province. We did not think the cash cutoff of the medical plan arrangements a fair method of cutoff. Obviously, there is a cost to deferred accounts not submitted by the end of March which we're going to be receiving now in April, and will have to bear the full responsibility for.

So wrapping all that together, as I say, with the difference between the initial demand of the provinces and other items, we come up with an estimate at that stage of some $60 million. That's still a rough estimate, I would say, of what the initial loss might be from the initial demands of the provinces. Furthermore, the new budget introduced on the 31st has a number of elements changing the tax revenue which will affect the provinces. We're waiting for an analysis of the impact of this. From a quick look, it would appear that there is a $400-million reduction in the federal government income tax revenue from some of these changes. If you were to take one-tenth of that as being the province's share, you could assume from that, very roughly, that we will suffer by $40 million, from an initial look at the budget changes. But this will require more careful analysis to really come up with the effective impact.

The member opposite from New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) indicated that we're all concerned over the eventual impact of this curtailment and the responsibility of the provinces in being fully responsible for these programmes in the future. It's impossible to know at this stage what impact this will have. After all, our formula of cost-sharing is associated with the growth in tax points for the other half. It's to the extent that our expenditure growth can fit within those limits as to whether we will be ahead or behind in future years in those programmes. I think you have to realize that we're showing more concern and effort in trying to control inflation -growth in payrolls, et cetera - which will bear very heavily on the exposure we'll have on these programmes.

So beyond that, Mr. Speaker, I don't think I could comment further on these very complicated arrangements which took place over the entire period of last year. Since they bear on the change of tax points which are confronting every province, I think that pretty well concludes the comments I could make on the bill at this time.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

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

Leave granted.

Bill 35, Income Tax Amendment Act, 1977, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

The House in Committee on Bill 35; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

[ Page 2612 ]

Sections 1 to 10 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 35, Income Tax Amendment Act, 1977, reported complete without amendment.

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

HON. MR. WOLFE: With leave, now.

Leave granted.

Bill 35, Income Tax Amendment Act, 1977, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 26.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. To the members, the hon. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) was absent from the chamber momentarily. I had to pass by Bill 26, so we have not covered that.

REGISTERED NURSES AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the amendments proposed in this bill relate to three separate issues, namely: a minor change in the composition of the board of examiners; the provision of a category of student membership in the Registered Nurses' Association; and an updating of the disciplinary procedures connected with the professional conduct of registered nurses.

The amendment relating to the board of examiners is essentially a housekeeping matter. The Act presently requires that the board shall consist of at least seven persons, and specifies that five of these shall be members of the Registered Nurses' Association, one a member of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, and one a member of the faculty of UBC. The amendment provides for more flexibility in the latter two appointments by removing the requirement that the appointees come from the specific agencies named, permitting them to be drawn from any walk of life. The dropping of the mandatory UBC appointee recognizes the fact that there is more than one university in. the province now, and the College of Physicians and Surgeons agrees that there is no overriding reason why the college must be represented on the board of examiners.

The establishment of a category of student membership in the Registered Nurses' Association has been advocated by both the Student Nurses' Association of B.C. and the Registered Nurses' Association. Such membership would be voluntary but it would provide the students with an opportunity to participate in the business and the activities of the association, which would lead to broadening of the understanding of, and the insight into, the profession, and increase the preparedness to assume duties and responsibilities later.

The third objective of the bill - to update the disciplinary procedures under the Act - is necessary both to improve the protection of the public from unprofessional or improper conduct on the part of a nurse, and also to safeguard the rights of the individual nurses as well, and to allow them a more proper appeal procedure. The existing provisions were enacted many years ago and experience has indicated that they are, in some instances, unclear, inadequate and quite often cumbersome. The bill will, we hope, remove these shortcomings and will bring the control of the discipline more into line with that in other professions.

MR. C.A. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): I rise in support of the bill. I don't believe there is much to add to what the minister has had to say. I support his remarks completely. I think it's a good bill and I think it brings up to date some provisions of the old Act, which were very much out of date. There is certainly no professional objection to it, or even lay objection. I think it is completely in keeping with what has been requested by these associations. I support it fully.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I wish to support this bill also. There are one or two points, however, which I would like some clarification on. The idea of having student members of the association is good in the manner that the minister mentioned - it brings the students into closer communication and functioning with the registered nurses. But I would just like clarification regarding the role of the student nurse at the time of the withdrawal of service or strikes or situations which arose for the first time, as far as hospital employees are concerned, for example, last year. I realize that the Hospital Employees Union does not include the nurses, who have their own representation. But I would just like the assurance that student members will not be members of the bargaining unit for the registered nurses and therefore, if the registered nurses should choose to withdraw service, this would not in any way affect the ongoing activities of the student nurse.

The other point I am interested to enquire about is

[ Page 2613 ]

how the student member would be likely to pay the fee for registration in the process of joining the Registered Nurses Association. I presume the fee would be less than that paid by a registered nurse, for obvious reasons. But I just wonder if that's been clarified in discussions. I understand that the RNABC had ongoing discussions for about two years before they came forward with their proposals, and I would like to be assured that the student nurse would not find it any great financial penalty to be a part of this organization.

I think there's one issue that is worth mentioning very quickly but it is important. The nurses are having the same problems that doctors have with some of their professional colleagues in relation to drugs, alcohol and mental problems. On inquiring I find that there has been an average of one nurse per month who has been disciplined under the terms of the existing regulations prior to the ones we are now introducing under the form of Bill 26. I understand the nurses feel that the proposals in this bill will streamline the procedure of discipline that has been used until now.

I wonder if the minister could tell me, in regard to the constitution of disciplinary panels, to what degree the regulations will or will not spell out lay membership on these panels. The board of discipline is described as setting up discipline committees and panels of three members. I presume there will be quite a bit of flexibility there, but I wonder if the minister could comment in winding up second reading in regard to the involvement and the flexibility of lay people or a lay person on the panel of three.

The other point that I would like to raise.... Incidentally, I'm sorry that the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) isn't in the House, because there is one interesting fact in the way the bill is written, in that it assumes that the nurses are mainly males. It talks about the applicant under 29 (e) whose conduct is under inquiry and it talks about "his" rights to appeal. I would have thought that we might have broken new ground, Mr. Speaker, in writing this bill, that maybe all the words should have been "her" rights, since the vast majority of nurses are still females. Anyway, it's a small point and I know the legal member of the House, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) , knows that constitutionally the word "his" is regarded as "his" or "hers." But I think it would have been a nice breakthrough if....

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That's not the way it is around my house!

MR. WALLACE: The Minister of Labour says that's not the way it is around his house.

The point that I wanted to make, Mr. Speaker, is that the nursing profession has some problems in the whole realm of disciplining members involved in the use of drugs or alcohol and who have mental problems. I'm well aware of that, but I'm equally conscious of the tremendous power that is placed in certain sections of the bill, particularly where a nurse can be suspended without a hearing.

We walk a very fine line when we invest in professional people this amount of power to interfere with the professional activities of their colleagues. There is one particular section which we can discuss perhaps in greater detail in committee. This is the section dealing with suspension or termination without hearing. It uses words such as "on proof that a member is suffering from a mental condition" and "on being satisfied about certain other factors." The nurse can be summarily suspended; this can be done without a hearing. I know there is the subsequent right of appeal, but this is a very clearcut extensive degree of power which is being given to the nursing profession. It is the same kind of power that presently is afforded to the medical profession. I think it would be wrong if we just did not stress in debating this bill that I would like to hope that this kind of authority would be used with the greatest of prudence and only in the most justifiable of circumstances.

In winding up second reading, perhaps the minister could tell the House to what degree this particular part of the bill providing power to suspend without a hearing compares with existing regulations under which the RNABC has been functioning. Is this an increase in power or is it merely rephrasing, in clearer language, the power which they now have? The minister mentioned that the purpose of the bill is to modernize, update and make more appropriate the capacity of the nursing profession to discipline its members.

I would just suggest that in section 29 (m) there is no doubt about that; it's very clear. It's there in the very clearest of language. It certainly is the kind of authority which, under a new bill with new ground rules, could, even with the best of intentions, result in, not as the minister suggested, more protection to nurses, but the greater chance that a nurse might be suspended and put through a certain amount of difficulty and trouble trying to prove that the suspension was not justified in the first place.

I happen to have a great deal of confidence that this section will be used prudently, but I do think that we must emphasize the tremendous authority which is given there, albeit with the best of intentions. I wonder if the minister feels that this is an increase of authority and power to act, compared with the regulations as they now are.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I missed part of the last remarks of the member for Oak Bay

[ Page 2614 ]

(Mr. Wallace) , but I assume he is speaking basically on section 29 (m) . Is that correct? It's a variation of the powers that the nurses have had. They have considered it necessary and the regulations under which they may use this section are very strict, only in terms of a person who has been convicted of an indictable offence or a person who is obviously suffering from a severe physical or mental disorder which would render them incapable. That power is then put into the hands of the board of directors.

I'm assured, Mr. Chairman, that that section will be used very sparingly and only after the greatest deliberation on behalf of the board of directors who, we assume, will have some people of diverse interests as well as registered nurses.

As for the matter about lay members per se on the disciplinary committees, I haven't really discussed that with the nurses, but I will in our next meeting. I will ask them if they'll consider a lay member. I expect that if we can have that diversity on the board of directors, it may give us what we're after anyway. I'll certainly discuss that directly with the registered nurses association. I'm assured that the student nurses will not be a part of the bargaining unit of the RNABC. Recently regulations were amended, you'll recall, to split the RNABC into two parts - one the administrative part, the other the bargaining part. I'm assured the student nurses won't be involved there.

Finally, with regard to the financial penalty, it's voluntary. The student nurses I assume will pay the same fee as the registered nurses, but only if they wish to do so. It's completely voluntary on their part, so unless they want to assume that financial burden themselves, they won't be asked to. Many student nurses, you know, have also asked us to consider this opportunity for them to become part of the association.

I hope I've answered your questions. I thank the members for their support and move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

Bill 26, Registered Nurses Amendment Act, 1977, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Second reading of Bill 29, Mr. Speaker.

GREENBELT ACT

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the Greenbelt Act, Bill 29, is basically to provide an avenue of acquiring lands and identifying lands which are already owned by the Crown to be preserved as greenbelt areas. As members of the House would know, the Green Belt Protection Fund Act of 1972 provided for the acquisition of land from a $25 million fund and restricted the use to parkland without camping, forest reserves, and land for lease for farming purposes.

The proposed new Act would broaden the use and also provide for management of the lands acquired and identified. Increasing public pressure which is directed to government for the use of certain lands, particularly access along river banks for fishing or recreational pursuits or to protect the river estuary, suggests this Act could provide a very strong alternative toward a solution in particularly critical cases which are not provided in other Acts. The intention is to add greenbelt areas of quality to urban settings and to provide for a wide range of uses not included in other Acts which could complement the management programme of the land management branch and be in keeping with the overall objectives of the Ministry of the Environment.

I have some information which may be of interest to members of the House. The first reserve for greenbelt purposes was established over an area between Vancouver and Hope in late 1971. Action followed the realization by the government of the day that the government held very little land in the Fraser Valley to meet public building requirements, park use, and the opportunity to provide greenbelts adjacent to towns or continuous buffer strips on highway routes. These were being consumed for other purposes.

The Greenbelt Protection Fund Act was assented to in March, 1972, with $25 million to establish the fund. The 1972 Act, however, did not provide for management of the lands acquired. The new Act will provide for management of lands acquired for environmental reasons - the public interest - and the appropriation of funds, when justified, through the Legislature will permit long-range planning and continuity of management to be carried out.

The Greenbelt Act within the Ministry of the Environment would also provide lands for specific uses and permit purchases in urban areas for aesthetic reasons or other reasons, such as protection of suitable bluff edges or unstable slopes, where environmental and other reasons justify them.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

Additionally, very important areas where the Ministry of the Environment could purchase lands or make lands available, should they be Crown lands, would be for school use, for environmental and outdoor study programmes, or for the construction of trails and walkways which could be tied in with physical fitness.

Following acquisition, it's obvious that the major

[ Page 2615 ]

problem and major concern will be management. It's proposed to delegate management responsibility for greenbelt lands, in some instances, to other government departments, agencies or municipalities, or even suitable societies provided they're registered under the Societies Act and meet certain requirements. Such delegation would be made following submission of an acceptable development or management plan for that particular greenbelt area. Where interested individuals or groups are able to advise and assist with management, provision is made to add such assistance in the way of an advisory group. In this way the public may be involved, particularly relative to a municipality or regional district.

It's the belief of the Ministry of the Environment that the greenbelt purchases would fill a need somewhere between parks - parks being used for people - and ecological reserves, which are generally for a very restricted use, usually for scientific purposes or studies. Any purchase would be selective. We are interested, as well, in the identification of Crown lands so no purchase would be necessary.

One area of need for greenbelt purchases ties in with the function of the water resources service, and this involves the desirability of being able to acquire certain lands and floodways and flood plain areas when in the public interest there should also be provision for purchase of greenbelt strips adjacent to rivers to protect fisheries interest.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to add that a facet of an Environment department role that can't be overlooked is that of education. In order to have industry and jobs for people within acceptable restraints, without alienating the support of the public and those other persons who are oriented toward environmental concerns in particular, it will require that more socio-economic-factor information be explained to the public. Provision of space for outdoor environmental study, both for school and adult-education programmes, would be and could be a fitting part of any such programme that we envisage at this time.

I think an important aspect of this Act as written and before the members of the House is that we will be able to identify areas of land which are under Crown jurisdiction and identify them and protect them for the purposes cited in the bill.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of the bill.

MR. SKELLY: This is one of the most important bills from the point of view of the environment to come before the session. It's unfortunate that the cabinet and the government benches are almost empty at this time with an extremely important bill. The official opposition intends to vote against the bill as it's presently drafted. It's drafted so sloppily and incompetently that it's totally unacceptable to us.

The minister's comments to the press when he tabled the bill were that this bill provided for acquisition of greenbelt lands out of the consolidated revenue fund. It's obvious to me that he was trying to throw sand in the eyes of the press and in the eyes of the members. Last year we changed the Green Belt Protection Fund Act to allow for that very thing. But those were the remarks of the minister as they appeared in the press on the day that the bill was tabled.

We do welcome the statements of the minister that there were some shortcomings in the previous Green Belt Protection Fund Act. One of those was that it didn't permit the management of greenbelt lands for some of the purposes for which the land was intended and for some of the purposes which he mentioned in his opening comments on this bill. But in fact, Mr. Speaker, this Act repeals an Act which protected greenbelt land more strongly than the present bill that's under consideration. There are several elements in the Green Belt Protection Fund Act which protected greenbelt land which will be removed should we pass the present bill.

The first is the definition of greenbelt land. The minister mentioned several reasons for setting aside land as greenbelt land in his opening statement. The first was to protect river estuaries, riverbank lands, walkways, trails - but these purposes are not specified in the Act itself. The Act doesn't define greenbelt land, one of the advantages of the former Act. The minister mentioned two purposes that were specified in the former Act that will be repealed by this bill: parklands without camping, and forestry reserve. Also, the Green Belt Protection Fund Act provided for land to be leased for farming purposes or for any other purpose which the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may decide. Definition of greenbelt land was specified in the previous Act, but it was an open and a flexible definition. So there's no increase in the flexibility of definition of greenbelt land. But we in the opposition would like to see some stated definition of what constitutes greenbelt land in this Act before we're willing to approve a bill such as this, before we're willing to pass an Act.

Would the minister be willing to place as an amendment on the order paper a definition of what constitutes greenbelt land? Are we talking about riverbank land? Are we talking about shoreline management? Are we talking about trails and walkways for physical-fitness purposes? If that's the intent of this legislation, Mr. Speaker, then we would be in favour of it and we would welcome an amendment from the minister in committee stage that would specify a definition of the greenbelt land.

One of the first weaknesses that we see in the present bill is that it removes any definition of

[ Page 2616 ]

greenbelt land. All it says is: "Greenbelt land is land that's designated by the minister as greenbelt land." it specifies no purpose whatsoever and, in fact, it's less definitive in that way than the previous Green Belt Protection Fund Act, which was more protective of greenbelt land than the present Act.

The second thing in the former Green Belt Protection Fund Act which was changed effective April 1,1976, was that greenbelt land at that time was set aside in perpetuity. That was the difficulty, I believe, with that Act, which was passed by the former Social Credit government, because to set aside greenbelt lands in perpetuity is not good land management, Mr. Speaker. We would accept some kind of a change which allowed the government to have some discretion in the management of greenbelt land. Once you purchase land you shouldn't be obligated to keep it forever, even beyond the time that it's served its purpose as greenbelt land.

So we would accept a change that eliminates the perpetual section and which would allow the government to remove land from greenbelt use. For example, a municipality may request the government to set aside certain areas as a buffer zone as greenbelt land so that the municipality can then direct development in certain areas, set aside land as greenbelt land as a buffer zone between the municipality and other lands and direct development in certain areas. Then at some time in the future when that municipality seeks to extend development into greenbelt lands, they can approach the government, have land deleted from greenbelt reserves and thereby assist that municipality in extending their development out into those buffer zones. We would be prepared to accept that kind of a proposal for managing greenbelt land so that it's not set aside in perpetuity.

Also there's some problem with lands that were acquired by the former Social Credit government under the Green Belt Protection Fund Act. There were some real dogs purchased: land purchased on highway junctions that was set aside as recreational greenbelt when nobody could get access to it; land set aside as greenbelt for agricultural purposes that wasn't suited for farming; land set aside as forestry reserve that wasn't even suitable for forestry reserve. So there were some real dogs set aside as greenbelt land under the former Social Credit government. I think it would probably suit the purpose of the government to delete those lands from the stock of greenbelt land we have in the province because they're really not suitable for some of the purposes for which greenbelt land is traditionally understood to be set aside.

One of the problems we see in this Act, Mr. Speaker, is that it allows deletion from the greenbelt reserve by application under the Land Act and by approval of cabinet. So in the secrecy of cabinet and through the secret administrative procedure that's allowed under the Land Act, people could apply for that land, have it deleted, get the approval of cabinet and the land would be out of the greenbelt reserve and into some other use. So we would like to see in committee stage some change made in this Act.

It's a very sloppily drafted Act, very poorly drafted. I don't think the Act was drafted by the Ministry of the Environment. I don't think the Land Commission had an opportunity to look at it; I don't think the staff of the government had an opportunity to look at it. I think this Act was drafted in cabinet and it was drafted for some purpose other than setting aside land as greenbelt land. So in committee stage, Mr. Speaker, we will be looking at amendments and proposing amendments which will give the public more say over the deletion of land from greenbelt reserves or from the greenbelt register. Rather than having land deleted under the ordinary application and disposition procedure which is provided for under the Land Act, we would like to see mandatory public hearings held before land is deleted from the greenbelt reserve. Because this simply provides for the government, as the Act is presently written, to set aside land as greenbelt land and then have it deleted by the simple Land Act application and disposition procedure.

MR. KING: Do you think the Fonz drafted it?

MR. SKELLY: No, I don't think it was drafted by the minister. I think it was drafted by cabinet in consultation with certain developers throughout the province, and I don't think the staff of the provincial government of British Columbia had anything to say about the Act until they saw it tabled in the House, Mr. Speaker. I think it's an extremely dangerous Act. I think it's very hastily and sloppily drafted. I think it was an attempt by the government to slip one over on the people of the province, and I'll be getting to that in a few minutes.

The third problem we see in this Act is that it provides for establishment and designation of greenbelt land and it provides for designation of Crown land, or acquisition of land, but there are some inconsistencies in the Act. It says "the minister shall establish a greenbelt register" a register of all the greenbelt land in the province but it doesn't specify what he has to include in the register.

It says he may include a description of the land, or the name of the owner if it's held in fee simple, but it doesn't provide anywhere in the Act where he can designate fee-simple land, privately owned land, as greenbelt land.

And yet it says in another section, inconsistent with the first and second sections, that certain greenbelt lands can be included in the register that are fee simple private lands. In other words, he can

[ Page 2617 ]

designate privately owned land as greenbelt land, put it in the greenbelt register, and yet there's no method of acquisition or there's no method to designate or set aside this land or whatever. It's very sloppily drafted, Mr. Chairman, and very poorly prepared. I think it was prepared in cabinet rather than by the advisers to cabinet, and I think it was not prepared for the reason which the minister says it was prepared.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: No, it's not an attack against the legislative counsel. As I stated, it was drafted in cabinet, in the absence - possibly - of the legislative counsel.

So another concern we have, Mr. Speaker, is section 10. I mention this concern a week and a half ago.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: I'm talking about the principle of this bill. The principle of this bill is exactly what I'm getting to, Mr. Speaker. This bill was designed to subvert the Land Commission Act; it was designed to give government the power to take land out of the agricultural land reserve, and to use it for whatever purpose....

I would like the record to show, Mr. Speaker, that the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) applauded when that was expressed - that he wanted a way in which the government could take land out of the agricultural land reserve without going through the due process, established by the previous government and supported by some of the members of the party opposite.

The original purpose of this Act was to subvert the Land Commission Act - to blacktop the Land Commission Act - so that the government could take land out of the agricultural land reserve under the guise of setting it aside as greenbelt land.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Are you serious?

MR. SKELLY: Dead serious.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Who did your research -Bob Williams?

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, that was the original reason for the presentation of this Act. The government attempted to slip one over on this House and on the people of British Columbia; to allow themselves to designate land as greenbelt land and thereby remove it from the jurisdiction of the Land Commission; to do anything that they saw fit with that land, because there's no definition of what greenbelt land is to be used for. When the minister was questioned on that, he said: "Well, you know, I require some flexibility."

Well, he had flexibility under the old greenbelt land Act. He had flexibility, because land could be used for farm reserve, for forestry reserve, for parkland without camping, or for any other purpose that the Lieutenant -Governor may prescribe.

But that old Act was covered by the Land Commission Act. The Land Commission Act superseded the old Act, Mr. Speaker. They attempted to slip this one by the House and the people of the province by excluding it from the jurisdiction of the Land Commission Act.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, you're repeating yourself several times. This comes under standing order 43; I hope you realize that.

MR. SKELLY: I think it bears repetition, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, you're being repetitive, and the Chair is simply warning you.

MR. SKELLY: As I said, Mr. Speaker, it bears repetition that this was a sneaky piece of legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. SKELLY: It was drafted in the secrecy of cabinet. The staff of the Ministry of the Environment and the Land Commission had no knowledge of this Act before it was presented.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: How do you know?

MR. SKELLY: In fact, I believe that a Greenbelt Act had been prepared by the staff of the provincial government, that it went to cabinet, and that the result was the abortion which the minister tabled in the House last Friday or Friday a week.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Withdraw!

MR. SKELLY: The minister attempted to subvert the Land Commission Act by using this legislation.

Only when it was drawn to the attention of the -public and when it was drawn to the attention of the press and when an amendment was placed on the order paper - only then - did the minister come through with an amendment of his own, placing it under the jurisdiction of the Land Commission Act.

But there are many other inconsistencies. There are many other problems in this Act. We cannot support this Act on second reading, Mr. Speaker, as it's so sloppily and incompetently drafted. It does not protect greenbelt land in the province; it does not

[ Page 2618 ]

state any purpose for greenbelt land.

The minister, in getting up and opening his speech and moving second reading on this bill, stated that it could be used for shoreline management along streams, for recreational trails and for a number of other reasons; why wasn't it stated in the bill? The reason why it wasn't stated in the bill is that it tied his hands. What could he do with this bill as it's presently written?

For example, the Brett Chevrolet property, Mr. Speaker, in Chilliwack - rather than going through the embarrassing due process which was established by the previous government whereby a person would have to appeal land out of the land reserve and go through the Land Commission, appeal to cabinet.... This allows the minister to subvert that appeal procedure in the secrecy of cabinet, to designate that eight acres in Chilliwack as greenbelt land, remove it, and create a Cadillac dealership on it in repayment for a political debt.

The Lieuwen farm in Omineca....

MR. KEMPF: That was an absolute tragedy. You should hang your head in shame.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. SKELLY: I'm sure the member for Omineca will have an opportunity to get up and debate this bill.

The Lieuwen farm in Omineca, Mr. Speaker: the government could simply designate the land on which the Lieuwen farm was located, allow a sawmill to be built on that land once it has been designated greenbelt and taken out of the land reserve, and then allow it to be alienated back into private ownership to the people who wanted that land in the first place - Weldwood-Eurocan, the people who support that member for Omineca.

MR. KEMPF: Tragedy!

MR. SKELLY: This is the reason, Mr. Speaker, that we can't support this bill on second reading.

What about Captain Terry's ranch down at Meadow Creek farm in Surrey? There's even a provision....

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Was it Maple Creek you called it?

MR. SKELLY: Oh, you can get up and straighten it out, Mr. Minister. Meadow Creek, Meadow Brook, or whatever.

This allows a person like Captain Terry, without any kind of approach to the Land Commission, to have his land designated as greenbelt land. There's a section in this bill, section 6....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, if you're going to deal with the bill in sections, please deal with it in committee.

MR. SKELLY: Well, this is part of the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: All right. Speak to the principle, hon. member.

MR. SKELLY: This bill allows a person like Captain Terry to follow the purposes which he intended to follow in the first place - that is, to do harness racing, quarter-horse racing, or whatever on his property down in the Hazelmere Valley in Surrey, without having to go through the Land Commission appeal process, without having to go through all those due processes which were established under the Land Commission Act which was passed by the previous government. Simply by having that land designated as greenbelt land, he could then take it out of the jurisdiction of the Land Commission and follow up whatever activities he intended to follow up on that land, because this bill allows non-conforming uses, and it also allows the government to designate management of those lands.

It's interesting, Mr. Speaker, that when the minister got up to address the motion to second reading, he said they could designate it to non-profit societies and service clubs and this kind of thing -people who were interested in physical fitness and preservation of the environment. But it doesn't specify that. It doesn't limit it to service clubs and non-profit societies, as the minister attempted to lead us to believe in his opening statement. It allows him to designate it to anybody he pleases to designate it to without any public hearings, without any process whereby there would be public involvement to decide how that land could best be used. Instead, it's an attempt to subvert the Land Commission Act and to subvert the process by which the public could have input into how those greenbelt lands are used.

As I said before, Mr. Speaker, we cannot accept this legislation the way it's drafted. It's sloppy; it's incompetent. It's designed to subvert the Land Commission, and for no other reason. We would accept, in the second reading, provided amendments are made to this bill that would specify the uses of greenbelt land, specify a process of public hearings and appeal procedures by which land could be taken out of greenbelt use, and specify that the land is subject to the Land Commission if it is now subject to the Land Commission Act. I understand that the minister has presented such an amendment following my initiative in presenting an amendment a week earlier. Only under those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, can we accept a bill like this. We cannot accept it on second reading as it is presently drafted.

[ Page 2619 ]

MR. BARBER: I've some questions to ask of the minister which I hope he might answer.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, if you are going to ask questions, I hope you will do it in committee, and speak to the principle of the bill.

HON. MR. CHABOT: It's not question and answer period; you know that.

MR. BARBER: I'm well aware of that, and I'm hoping that the minister in his remarks, debating the principle of the bill, as I most certainly intend to do, might be willing to answer a few of them. What better proof do we need, Mr. Speaker, of the charges made by my colleague for Alberni that this bill is a hoax, a fraud, and an attempt to subvert the Land Commission, than the applause and the pounding of his desk made obvious by the member for Omineca when he made the charge?

MR. SKELLY: Before he left the House.

MR. BARBER: Before my colleague form Alberni had even finished saying that this was clearly an attempt to subvert the principles and the purposes of the Land Commission, the member for Omineca was pounding his desk in delight and glee, and grinning in agreement with the suggestion.

Maybe it's the member for Omineca who wrote the bill. It most certainly was not the department. It obviously was not the Land Commission. Hopefully it was not Keith Frew.

My questions on the principle are these: who was consulted in the drafting of this bill? Was anyone in the Ministry of the Environment itself involved in the drafting of the bill? It is our information that there was another bill presented some three months ago which the minister rejected, and the final product that cabinet saw was nothing like the bill that the minister received from the department. If that's not correct, I'm sure the minister will correct it.

We would like to know who was consulted, Mr. Chairman. Who in the department - naming names -was involved in the drafting of this legislation? What technical, professional or expert competence was involved and employed by the minister when this bill was drafted?

The principle of the bill is clearly this, Mr. Chairman: it's an attempt to pull the famous wool over the eyes of the people of British Columbia and to make them think that somehow this is an improvement when in fact, as the applause from the member for Omineca proved most certainly, it's an attempt to subvert, to diminish and finally to destroy altogether the Land Commission. You know why the member for Omineca applauded and we know too.

Who was consulted? Who was involved? What professionals, if any, offered their opinion and had it taken into account when the bill was drafted? When were they consulted?

HON. MR. CHABOT: This has nothing to do with the principle of the bill.

MR. BARBER: It most certainly does. The principle of the bill is to avoid the Land Commission and to avoid the Ministry of the Environment and to attempt to persuade the people of British Columbia, as it will certainly fail to do, that this is somehow a commitment to the environment and somehow an improvement over the present status of it. It is no such thing. We know that, and one of the proofs of it is that no one was consulted except the minister's political colleagues, because the bill's principle and purposes are entirely political in nature and origin.

If he was active in consulting anyone, we'd like to know the names of those people. We most certainly would. We would like to know whether or not the Land Commission itself was consulted. Did they have an opportunity to examine the principles of this bill before it became a bill? Were they checked? Were they questioned? Were they consulted? Were they asked their opinion? Were they involved? Did they make a comment? If so, where is that comment? Will the minister table those comments and table whatever documentation might be available?

It's our view, Mr. Chairman, that this bill is wholly political in creation, design and execution, and no professionals in the field were consulted at all. Who in the department was consulted and who in the Land Commission was consulted? Name names, indeed! We'd like to know who was consulted.

The member for Omineca agreed, proudly and grinningly, that this bill was an attempt to subvert and diminish the authority of the Land Commission. Tragically, but hopefully not permanently, Mr. Chairman, he's obviously correct.

We think it's disgusting that he should be correct on that kind of issue. Subverting the Land Commission, diminishing its authority, making it into a neuter, taking its power, doing what they intend to do for political purposes - it's a disgraceful Act, Mr. Chairman. Anyone who understands this bill will oppose it because the motivations are so transparent and so political.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Well, I hope he stays in his chair today, anyway.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask the minister, therefore, when concluding second reading, to tell us who was consulted and when, to table in this House the names of those who were consulted and to table in this House their written opinions, if any were offered, on

[ Page 2620 ]

the merit and the purpose of this bill.

If he can't or won't do that, then by more than just the applause of the member for Omineca and by the obvious conclusion that his silence forces us to draw, we will know that the origin and nature of this bill is political from beginning to end. We cannot possible support it.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, we sure know it's the minister's bill. He said right at the outset: "I don't know anything about it. I don't know anything about the environment. I don't know anything about the ministry. I don't know why I'm being given the portfolio." Now he brings in a bill, and he obviously doesn't know anything about the bill. If he did, he'd be ashamed of it because, if nothing else, the drafting is so confusing.

I smiled a while ago, Mr. Speaker. I watched a bill being put through the House by one of the legal beagles of the House, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) . There was a change in virtually every section - amendment after amendment after amendment. That's what is needed in this bill, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SKELLY: It should be withdrawn.

MR. COCKE: It would be far better if it were withdrawn, but I am sure that if it were amended and amended and amended something could be produced that might provide for some of the needs of our province. It strikes me, Mr. Speaker, that what we're playing here is a shell game. Do you remember the old sleight-of-hand people? Well, here we are playing the shell game with land - now you see it, now you don't.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: We are moving it into the Land Commission, out of the Land Commission, into the greenbelt - now you see it, now you don't. Fasten your seatbelt, young man. Mr. Speaker, that's really what the minister has done. In the first place he has wanted to confuse us with a piece of very badly put together legislation and, in the second place, he is trying to confuse the public by giving it a nice parenthood name - I won't be sexist at all -greenbelt. Then, Mr. Speaker, he began the sleight-of-hand with the land of our province. We don't trust that minister who secured a great deal of his support from people who now have "for sale" written on their land in Richmond. It was a strange thing to me, driving along the Westminster Highway through that constituency to get from my constituency to the ferry or to the airport. During the election I saw Social Credit signs on every field.

MR. SKELLY: For sale, Jim Nielsen.

MR. COCKE: Now I see "for sale" signs on those same pieces of land. They have confidence, Mr. Speaker, that the government will find them a way to put tarmac on that land, to put asphalt on that land ultimately. Today we are dispatching a committee of this House to go out and take a look at farmland, among other things - not only prices but land. I wonder what they are going to say, when they come back, about the need for farmland in this province. We took a position - a hard-line position - that we had none to spare, no more to give away to developers, no more to give away to the "entrepreneurs" to slice up and pave....

MR. KAHL: Like Bob Williams.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, that member has no etiquette and never will have any etiquette, but at least get into your own chair before you start throwing cracks around.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that will confuse and ultimately will mislead, to the extent that we're going to lose more of our valuable resource, more of our farmland through - of all things - a bill called Greenbelt. Well we saw the minister at least amend the section that made this bill senior to the land bill.

MR. SKELLY: A week after an amendment was already in.

MR. COCKE: After the member for Alberni embarrassed the minister to the extent that he had to do that. But I still don't trust that minister to do the right thing with land in this province - of all people to be guiding a bill like this through the House.

MR. SKELLY: He may not even call the amendment.

MR. COCKE: No, Mr. Speaker, it is a shell game. It is the minister's bill. His signature's on it, just by the way it's so confused, so beaten up. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that by the time this government's term of office is over there will be a lot more incidents like those that we've seen: moving land around; moving it out for the convenience of friends; doing the kind of favours that we do on so many of the bills that have been produced to this Legislature this particular year.

HON. MR. CHABOT: We know all about that.

MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we've learned all about favours watching the Socreds devastate this province for year after year after year, watching that Minister of Mines now, watching him when he was

[ Page 2621 ]

Minister of Labour before, getting all walloped and confused. But, Mr. Speaker, he's never been one of those decision-makers over there. He never has been, never will be. He's a Social Credit member, one of those few Social Credit members....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now back to Bill 29, hon. member.

MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'd be delighted to come back to Bill 29.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, that confused Minister of Mines is almost as confused as the minister that's carrying this bill through the House.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this is development-oriented government giving favours to those that they love, those that support them, and, Mr. Speaker, I believe that this bill is going to aid in that purpose, so therefore, Mr. Speaker, there's no way we can support it. We'll not support their shell game, and we'll certainly not support the kind of support that the Minister of Mines is giving the Minister of the Environment. What a happy-looking couple they are. They've been deserted in the House, Mr. Speaker. Everybody else is ashamed. Everybody else is ashamed of this bill, this shell-game bill, this con-game bill.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Speaker, not only are we concerned at what was to be the exclusion of the Land Commission Act from the other Acts to which this bill was to be relegated, but I really am concerned, Mr. Speaker, that the minister probably doesn't even have any idea of how many different bills there are which have an environmental and an ecological purpose.

This particular Act allows by the act of order-in-council the disposal of particular lands. I agree with my colleague from Alberni (Mr. Skelly) that land should not necessarily be held in one use in perpetuity, but certainly ecologically sensitive areas and environmentally important areas should be held in perpetuity to the extent that they should not be allowed to be taken out of that by mere act of an order-in-council, an act of cabinet behind secret, closed doors, at which time it's a unilateral decision, a one-sided decision without the chance of intervention, the advice, input or discussion. It's not publicized before the fact. It is done, it is signed and then it is made public and it is a fait accompli. Mr. Speaker, land that is environmentally important or ecologically significant should only be taken out by an Act of this Legislature, not in an all-en co m passing manner, but if it is indeed something that should be done, if it is a buffer zone that has outlived its usefulness, it should receive the scrutiny of this Legislature.

The minister might not even be aware of chapter 14 of the statutes from Volume 1. Has the minister even heard of the Creston Valley Wildlife Management Area Act? Is he aware that that area has, up until the introduction of this Act, been protected from the disposal of lands and that the only way by which lands could be disposed from that area would be by an Act of the Legislature?

Section 5 of that Act is a section which has the spirit of the type of regulations which I think would be encompassed in any Act which was truly intended to protect the environment and to truly create a greenbelt that was not to be subverted.

This Act allows the addition of additional land; it allows for acquisition; it allows the minister, on behalf of the Crown in right of the province, to purchase or otherwise acquire land for the enlargement of the management area and the boundaries of the management area. But in terms of restrictions on dispositions, it says: "Except as provided, no grant or disposition may be made by the Crown, or under any other statutory authority, otherwise within the land of the management area." And: "No land may be pre-empted or staked or acquired by any process of accretion within the area." In other words, this legislation has a ratchet provision in it - you can move it forward, but there is no turning it back.

This minister, by bringing in this piece of legislation, will now be able to declare the Creston Valley Wildlife Management Area as a greenbelt. Having done so, the Crown will then be able to dispose of this. But the original intention of this Act, in 1968 when it was passed - it was brought in by the former Social Credit government and passed unanimously in this House - was that it would be forward-going: additions could be made but no dispositions could be taken out.

It also restricts:

"No grant or disposition may be made by the Crown or under any statutory authority or otherwise of any right, interest, licence or permit under the Mineral Act, the Coal Act, the Placer Mining Act or the Petroleum and Natural Gas A ct, 1965, exercisable within the management area, and no person may exercise any right or authority to explore, prospect, search for, claim, mine or win minerals, mineral oils or natural gas under any of those Acts, within the area."

This Act will obviously not restrict exploration, mining, staking, trapping and many other types of activities which are subject to licensing and regulation of many other Acts. In other words, there is a serious doubt. It's almost certain, for any but the most naive, to assume that this Act can only have a hidden

[ Page 2622 ]

motive, a motive which has not been included here. Certainly, if this had been prepared by the professional staff of the many agencies under that Ministry of the Environment - people from the Land Commission Act, consultation from the Department of Recreation and Conservation, consultation from the Environment Land Use secretariat and others -it's inconceivable that such an obvious omission would be made in one of the most ecologically important and sensitive areas in the province of British Columbia, an Act that was dedicated to what is really a greenbelt use by a special Act of this Legislature, following an extensive report by Pearse and Bowden in 1968, and an Act which by comparison to this Act goes on for some 14 pages and a schedule.

This is the stuff of which protective legislation is made, and it certainly isn't the hastily kitchen-drafted piece of legislation that we see here. This looks like either it was deliberately sloppily drafted or perhaps it was a well-meaning attempt. But there are so many glaring omissions in this Act, so many things that have not been considered. The obvious lack of knowledge of the legislation that's contained in the statutes, the legislation with which that minister after all of these months should be intimately familiar. Because of those omissions, because of the obvious loopholes that are being created by this legislation, this legislation should be withdrawn from the order paper, and that's no crime.

I believe that was done with the original version of the Landlord and Tenant Act. I shouldn't say the original version, but the one which was brought in by the immediately previous government. The legislation was withdrawn. There were so many amendments that had to be made after second reading, things that had been pointed out - the whole slant of things -that it was better to withdraw it, do the redrafting, include these things, do a little bit more homework and then let's do it right.

In this present form, I certainly cannot support this bill.

MS. SANFORD: I share the concern of my colleagues on the particular Greenbelt Act that is before us now. I am wondering why the minister chose in this new bill to omit any reference or any description of what greenbelt land is.

How can the minister ask us to support a move by the provincial government to designate land as greenbelt land when he doesn't even tell us in the bill what he means by greenbelt land? At least the old bill that is now being repealed by this bill or being replaced by it had some definition as to what greenbelt land is so that members of the opposition could have some idea of what the minister is talking about when he talks about greenbelt land.

How can he expect the opposition to support a bill which doesn't even define the purpose for which the whole bill is established? The bill is established to set aside greenbelt land, but it doesn't tell us what he means by greenbelt land. Mr. Speaker, it's impossible for the opposition to accept and support a bill which leaves out a very essential portion - that is, the definition of what we're talking about.

He hasn't indicated, even in his opening remarks, what he might mean by greenbelt land. How much does it include? Will it be forestland? Will it be only the areas that are close to the riverbanks? Will it be foreshore areas?

Are we going back to the practice which was adopted by the previous Social Credit government of buying land along highways on which they could set up signs saying, "Look at what good boys we are by purchasing this land."? That's what happened, Mr. Speaker. They purchased land before on which they could set up billboards, trying to convince the people of the province that they were environmentally concerned and that they had purchased this land in the interests of the public. But we know that the main purpose for the purchase of that land was to erect billboards on which they could tell the people that "Our government has purchased greenbelt land." Is this what we're doing again? We don't even have it defined. That's an omission we just simply cannot accept in this opposition.

I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that this is mostly window dressing. This bill is being introduced with the hope that the newspapers and the news media will tell the public that we have a new Greenbelt Act. I don't think that the public will realize that the word "greenbelt" is not even defined. But I think it's window dressing in an attempt to have the minister gain some credibility out there among the public. He doesn't have very much. Most people do not regard the Minister of the Environment as a very effective minister in terms of protecting the environment.

Now on this bill I think we have a Greenbelt Act which, as I said, is window dressing, an attempt to convince the public that the minister is in fact concerned about the environment and is doing something about it. The minister admitted when he was first appointed to his position as Minister of the Environment that he knew nothing about the environment and couldn't figure out why the Premier would appoint him to that position.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: My colleague points out to me that another comment he made at a time was: "Environment - it's new, isn't it?" At least, that's the way he was quoted in the press, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was Frew.

[ Page 2623 ]

MS. SANFORD: Since then we have seen the Minister of the Environment at work. He summarily fired four or five members of the Land Commission. He has never, to my knowledge, given any reason why those....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, back to the principle of Bill 29, please.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, but, Mr. Speaker, this relates directly to the principle of the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please relate it.

MS. SANFORD: What I am saying is that this bill is window dressing, that it is attempting to convince the public that the Minister of the Environment is concerned about the environment. I am trying to point out to the House that his actions since he became minister do not indicate to us or to the public that he is concerned or that he is actively involved in doing anything to improve the environment of this province. He has fired all those land commissioners. Why? Mr. Speaker, if he was concerned about the environment and the preservation of agricultural land, he would have given us reasons why the commissioners who were serving on the Land Commission were not doing an effective job.

All right, Mr. Speaker, I'll leave that and move on. Then we had the situation where the whole racetrack episode came before the House. I know you are going to rule me out of order -on this as well, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, you are out of order. Would you kindly return to the principle of Bill 29?

MS. SANFORD: What I am trying to do, Mr. Speaker, is to cite various instances, various actions that have been taken by the minister which indicate to me that he is not that concerned about the environment and that this bill is an attempt to gain some credibility. What will it do? How much land will he set aside? What's it going to be set aside for? He has not even defined greenbelt land under this Act. That's completely unacceptable.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, the other thing that makes me wonder about the Minister of the Environment relates to the Oyster River issue. He gave permission for a private company to build a huge breakwater and to dredge out a channel right near the mouth of the Oyster River. The next moment we have a bill before us which talks about saving greenbelt land. Now once he has made a decision to allow a private company to go ahead to dredge and to build a breakwater to cross over recreational land, land which has already been set aside through order-in-council as recreational land, he comes along and asks us to support a bill called the Greenbelt Act which is supposed to set aside areas for greenbelt purposes. Mr. Speaker, it doesn't make very much sense.

The minister told us during his estimates that he would file the engineering report on the Oyster River, but to date he has not done so. Is he trying to bide something there? Did he not recognize, or does he now recognize, that there is something contained in the engineering report that he does not want the public to know about?

Mr. Speaker, until the minister defines greenbelt land in this bill, and until he gives us some indication that he is, in fact, concerned about the land and the environment in this province, we are not prepared to support it.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, many of the comments which my colleagues have made, I think, are valid ones and should be considered by the Minister of the Environment. I think he might be well advised to withdraw the bill until he could clean up and get into place the drafting of the proposed statute.

I think the concern which the opposition members have is that there are myriad loopholes in this bill which exclude the Land Commission, which is an agency that I think the public of British Columbia developed some confidence in in terms of preserving proper priority use of land in the province of British Columbia. We saw how the minister dealt with that commission, and we have no reason to believe that the tender mercies of the minister give any great assurance to the public that proper respect for the preservation of farmland and greenbelt land will be guaranteed.

There's another concern we have, Mr. Speaker. The holes in the bill that have been drawn to the minister's attention are partly covered by amendments which he proposes to make, amendments which he has copied from amendments introduced by the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) . However, until we arrive at committee stage, the House has no way of knowing whether the minister intends to proceed with those amendments or not. What we are dealing with is the principle of the statute before us now, and certainly it provides very little assurance that the proper respect for the preservation of the greenbelt land which is now in the hands of the Crown will be preserved. Certainly we have no reason to feel assured that additional lands will be acquired in the future to act as greenbelt properties in the province of British Columbia, for beautification and protection of waterways and lakeshores, and to assist in the beautification, perhaps, of highways, and so on.

[ Page 2624 ]

One of the things we did witness over the years in this province was exploitation of lands adjacent to key highway intersections, and so on. I think members of the current cabinet who were formerly Liberals certainly participated in, if not coined, the phrase of the "roadrunners" who, it would appear, had some foreknowledge of the, development of key routes for transportation corridors in the province and acquired land on the perimeters thereof, and benefited very, very handsomely from that foreknowledge.

That's the kind of thing we're concerned about. We are not content to see the authority and the powers vested in the minister alone and the Lieutenant-Governor-in-council to control that kind of thing. There were charges in the past levelled by members who are now in the cabinet ranks of the government that political influence-peddling played a role in the disposition of land adjacent to key arterial highways and key highway systems throughout the province.

We're not very happy . . . and we don't really have a great deal of confidence in the dispassionate and impartial treatment of land through strictly a political process, through strictly a political venting of what is in the best interests of the province. We would like to see a statute laid down with clear policy guidelines, and an independent agency, such as the Land Commission, charged with the authority of administering and delivering on the policy guidelines enunciated in the statute. That's a much safer way to do business than providing the opportunity for any interest groups to influence, in a political way, the decision-making of government.

Mr. King moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) I would like to table documents, with leave. On January 17,1977, the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) posed certain questions to the Attorney-General in oral question period relating to computerized records dealing with provincial courts in this province.

Therefore I am tabling three sets of reports: one dealing with the age schedule of cases over 180 days; the second one, criminal court disposition report; and the third, court case activity report. There is with this set of documents, Mr. Speaker, a code to enable one to read the computer language. I ask leave to table these reports.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm files answers to questions. (See appendix.)

Hon. Mr. Williams moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.,

[ Page 2625 ]

APPENDIX

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

21 The Hon. K. R. Mair to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 21) intituled Travel Agents Registration Act, to amend as follows:

Section 1:

(a) by deleting the definition of "scheduled travel service" and substituting the following:

"scheduled travel transportation" means travel transportation supplied on a regular basis at certain fixed times and for which advance booking is not mandatory;

(b) in the definition of "travel wholesaler", by deleting "non-scheduled travel services" and substituting "his own non-scheduled travel transportation to the public".

Section 3 (1 ) (b) , line 1: By inserting "subject to the regulations, " at the beginning.

Section 5: By renumbering section 5 as section 5 (1) and adding the following as subsection (2):

"(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) , where the person whose registration has been cancelled or suspended serves a written notice of appeal under section 6, the registrar may permit the person to continue to carry on business, subject to such restrictions and conditions as the registrar may impose, pending the disposition of the appeal."

Section 6 (1 ):

(a) Line 2: By deleting "applicant or person registered" and substituting "person affected".

(b) Line 5:

(i) By deleting "applicant or".

(ii) By adding "or to the Corporate and Financial Services Commission" after "resides".

Section 6 (2) , line 2: Add "or the Commission" after "the court".

Section 6: Add the following subsection:

"(3) Where an appeal is made to the Commission, Part IV of the Securities Act applies to the hearing and review under this section and a party to the hearing and review may appeal the direction, decision, order or ruling of the Commission to the Court of Appeal as provided in Part IV of the Securities Act and that Part applies to the appeal."

Section 7: By deleting section 7.

Section 8:

(a) by renumbering section 8 as section 7,

(b) by deleting subsection (1) and substituting the following:

"(1) Money received by a travel agent or travel wholesaler carrying on business in the Province shall be deemed to be held in trust for the person who paid it."

(c) by deleting subsection (2) and renumbering subsection (3) as subsection (2) ,

(d) by deleting subsection (4) , and

(e) by deleting the marginal note and substituting the following: "Money deemed to be in trust."

Section 8: By adding the following as section 8:

"Joint and several liability.

"8. (1) Where a person purchases a travel service in the Province

(a) through a travel agent, or

(b) directly from a travel wholesaler

[ Page 2626 ]

and he is entitled to the repayment of money paid for or on account of that travel service, a travel agent or a travel wholesaler who received the money or a part of it is liable jointly and severally with any other person liable for the repayment, to the extent of the amount received by the travel agent or travel wholesaler.

"(2) Subsection (1) does not apply where

(a) the travel agent or travel wholesaler has properly disbursed the money received,

(b) the travel agent or travel wholesaler has acted in good faith and at arm's length in respect of a person with whom he would, but for this subsection be jointly and severally liable under subsection (1) , and

(c) the person who is entitled to repayment of the money is eligible to make a claim against the fund

to the extent the person entitled to repayment is reimbursed by the fund.

"(3) The onus of proving that a travel agent or travel wholesaler has complied with subsection (2) (a) and (b) is on the person alleging it.

"(4) Subsection (1) does not apply to a travel agent or travel wholesaler where the person entitled to payment is a director, officer, or employee of that travel agent or travel wholesaler."

Section 9: By renumbering section 9 as section 9 (1) and adding the following as subsections (2) and (3):

"(2) For the purpose of subsection (1) ,

(a) in the case of a proprietorship, a change in the proprietor, or

(b) in the case of a partnership, a change in the members, or

(c) in the case of a corporation, a material change in the beneficial - ownership of its shares

shall be deemed to be a transfer of registration.

"(3) A travel agent or travel wholesaler shall, within 14 days after the event, notify the registrar in writing of

(a) a change in his registered address, and

(b) in the case of a corporation, a change in the officers or directors."

Section 16 (3) , line 1: By deleting "and interest paid under section 8 (4) ".

Section 17:

(a) Subsection (1) , line 9: By adding "up to the amount permitted by the regulations" at the end.

(b) Subsection (3) , line 2: By striking out "2 years" and substituting "one year".

Section 21 (1) , line 3: By deleting "including the trust account required by section 8".

Section 26 (1) (a) , line 8: By deleting "of law" and substituting "or law".

Section 31 (1) (a) , line 1: By deleting "7, 8 (1) and (2) " and substituting 19 (3) ".

Section 35: By deleting paragraphs (a) and (b) and substituting the following:

"(a) exempt any person or class of persons from the application of this Act or the regulations or any provision of them,

(b) define 'direct economic loss' for the purpose of section 17."

[ Page 2627 ]

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

19 Mr. Levi asked the Hon. the Minister of Human Resources the following questions:

With reference to the cost-sharing formula between the Provincial Government and the municipalities-

1. What was the total amount paid by the Government for 1975/76 and to date in 1977/78?

2. What was the total amount paid by the municipalities for 1975/76 and to date in 1977/78?

The Hon. W. N. Vander Zalm replied as follows:

"1. Shareable costs 1975/76, $257,046, 793; 1977/78, not available.

"2. Amount paid to municipalities: 1975/76, $28,142, 782; 1977/78, not available."

21 Mr. Levi asked the Hon. the Minister of Human Resources the following questions:

With reference to the Minister's answer to question No. 36,1976, relating to fees paid to pharmacists-

1. Has there been any change in the $2.75 per prescription fee in payment in March 1976?

2. If the answer to No. 1 is yes, what is the present fee?

The Hon. W. N. Vander Zalm replied as follows:

"There has been a change in rates relating to fees paid to pharmacists. The present fee is now $2.90."

22 Mr. Levi asked the Hon. the Minister of Human Resources the following questions:

With reference to social assistance fraud-

1. Were any persons formally charged with defrauding the Government of social allowance payments in any of the fiscal years 1971/72,1972/73,1973/74,1974/75,1975/76, and to date in 1976/77?

2. If the answer to No. 1 is yes in the case of each year, (a) how many persons were charged, (b) how many, if any, were convicted, and (c) what was the total amount involved in cases where conviction was obtained?

3. With reference to "fraud investigators" in the ministry, what are the names, salaries, previous occupations, and locations of the investigators?

4. What is the total number of administrative staff, excluding the investigators?

5. What is the total cost and number of months covered for the investigators and administration in 1976 and to date in 1977?

The Hon. W. N. Vander Zalm replied as follows:

"1. Yes, there were persons formally charged with defrauding the Government in the years mentioned.

"2. Statistics have been maintained by the calendar year, and are so provided.

[ Page 2628 ]

"3. The following information is background on the departmental inspectors:

* Bi-weekly.

"4. Roy Johnson is the Acting Co-ordinator of the program.

"5. The total cost of the program for 71/2 months in $87,432.69.

23 Mr. Levi asked the Hon. the Minister of Human Resources the following questions:

With reference to the Minister's answer to question No. 39 in 1976, giving the total number of social assistance recipients placed in employment in 1973,1974, and 1975-

1. Were any placements made in 1976?

2. If the answer to No. 1 is yes, how many persons were placed in each month in 1976, and to date in 1977?

3. Were any of these placements made in ministries of the Provincial Government, and if so, how many, and in which ministries?

4. Were any of these placements made in ministries of the Federal Government, and if so, how many, and in which ministries?

5. Were any of the placements in private employment subsidized in any way by the Provincial or Federal Governments?

6. If the answer to No. 5 is yes, how may jobs were subsidized and what was the total cost to (a) the Provincial Government and (b) the Federal Government?

7. Were any of the placements made through Canada Manpower?

8. If the answer to No. 7 is yes, how many in each month?

The Hon. W. N. Vander Zalm replied as follows:

"1. Yes.

"2. Number of persons placed: July 15 to August 31,1976,687; September 1976,924; October 1976,844; November 1976, 1,122; December 1976,703; and January 1977 (only three weeks) , 575. Total number of persons placed in employment, 4,855.

[ Page 2629 ]

EXPLANATORY NOTE––Total number of persons placed in employment does not include those placed on training programs.

"3. Yes. Number of placements in Provincial ministries: Highways, 304; Human Resources, 6; Forest Service, 5; Health, 5; Provincial Secretary, 5; Transport and Communications, 2; Housing, 1; Labour, 1; Mines and Petroleum Resources, 1; Public Works, 1; and Recreation and Travel Industry (Parks Branch) , 1. Total placements in ministries of the Provincial Government, 332.

"4. Yes. Number of placements in Federal ministries: Defence, 32; Health and Welfare, 7; Post Office, 3; Transport, 2; UIC, 2; Canada Manpower, 1; Public Works, 1; and Revenue (Excise Branch) , 1. Total placements in ministries of the Federal Government, 49.

EXPLANATORY NOTE (Nos. 3 and 4)––A regular statistical record is not kept of the number of placements in Provincial or Federal ministries. In order to obtain this information the PREP offices had to research their client files, job orders, and incentive program records, which proved to be a heavy task.

"5. Yes.

"6. A total of 282 jobs were subsidized with a total cost to (a) the Provincial Government of $1,100 (2 jobs) , and (b) the Federal Government of $480,362 (280 jobs) .

"7. Yes.

"8. Number of Canada Manpower placements: July and August 1976,197; September 1976,168; October 1976,126; November 1976,235; December 1976,179; and January 1-21,1977,156. Total Canada Manpower placements, 1,061."

24 Mr. Levi asked the Hon. the Minister of Human Resources the following questions:

With reference to the Provincial Rehabilitation and Employment Program (PREP) -

1. What are the names, salaries, previous occupations, and locations of the "Job Finders" in the program and the Provincial Co-ordinator?

2. What is the total number of administrative staff, excluding the "Job Finders"?

3. What is the total cost and the number of months covered for the program for 1976 and to date in 1977?

The Hon. W. N. Vander Zalm replied as follows:

"1. The names, salaries, previous occupations, and locations are:

[ Page 2630 ]

"2. Administrative Staff: One Provincial Co-ordinator and 21 secretarial staff (administrative support) .

"3. The total cost for the eight months (May 1 to December 31) covered for the program in 1976 was $273,058." 25 Mr. Levi asked the Hon. the Minister of Human Resources the following question:

What was the total number of social workers employed in 1976 and to date in 1977?

The Hon. W. N. Vander Zalm replied as follows:

"1976: January, 507; February, 503; March, 499; April, 498; May, 500; June, 488; July, 485; August, 488; September, 495; October, 490; November, 493; and December, 480. 1977: January, 549."

60 Mrs. Wallace asked the Hon. the Minister of Human Resources the following

[ Page 2631 ]

questions:

With reference to children in care of the superintendent of child welfare-

1. How many children are in foster homes in British Columbia?

2. How many children are in homes served by the Ministry of Human Resources office in Duncan?

3. What are the minimum and maximum foster-home rates paid in British Columbia?

The Hon. W. N. Vander Zalm replied as follows:

"l. As of December 31,1976, there were 5,998 children in paid foster care under the Superintendent of Child Welfare.

"2. In Duncan 123 children are in care.

"3. The minimum is $92.89. The maximum is $155.89."

76 Ms. Brown asked the Hon. the Minister of Human Resources the following question:

How many "sponsored immigrants" were given assistance in 1975/76 and 1976/77 before they were legally qualified for assistance and what was the total costing each year?

The Hon. W. N. Vander Zalm replied as follows:

"No statistical data is available on the number of 'sponsored immigrants' given assistance before they were eligible for assistance and on the costs involved."

77 Ms. Brown asked the Hon. the Minister of Human Resources the following questions:

1. How many "transients" received social assistance in 1976 and what was the total amount paid to them?

2. What was the breakdown by province of origin of these transients?

The Hon. W. N. Vander Zalm replied as follows:

"No statistics are available on the total number of 'transients' who received income assistance in 1976, nor the amount of money involved. No records are kept on the provincial origin of transients."

82 Mr. Stupich asked the Hon. the Minister of Finance the following question:

What amount did the Government have in cash and temporary investments on December 23,1976; January 31,1977; and February 28,1977?

The Hon. E. M. Wolfe replied as follows:

"December 23,1976, $135,571, 049 (includes $35,154, 983 trust funds) before deducting outstanding cheques estimated at $59,000, 000; January 31,1977, $162,026, 543 (includes $66,368, 207 trust funds) before deducting outstanding cheques estimated at $54,000, 000; and February 28,1977, $273,629, 529 (includes $63,030, 315 trust funds) before deducting outstanding cheques estimated at $53,000,000."

85 Mr. Stupich asked the Hon. the Minister of Finance the following question:

Since the inception in 1966, what has been the total amount made available to the Province of British Columbia from Canada Pension Plan funds and how has this been allocated?

The Hon. E. M. Wolfe replied as follows:

"To March 31,1977, $1,597, 121,000. Funds allocated as follows: British

[ Page 2632 ]

Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, $787,893, 000; British Columbia School Districts Capital Financing Authority, $493,566, 000; British Columbia Regional Hospital Districts Financing Authority, $203,711, 000; and British Columbia Railway Company, $111,951, 000."

86 Mr. Cocke asked the Hon. the Minister of Education the following question:

What are the names of the companies who have received short-term loans from ICBC and what are the amounts of the loans?

The Hon. P. L. McGeer replied as follows:

"Insurance Corporation of British Columbia short-term investment portfolio summary of position as at February 28,1977:

* New borrowers added to list during 1976/77.

[ Page 2633 ]

* New borrowers added to list during 1976/77.