[ Page 4661 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Visibility of historic plaque. Mr. Levi –– 4661

Construction of Hasler Flats scrubbing plant. Mr. Skelly –– 4661

Midcoast cutting rights. Mr. Gibson –– 4661

Energy conservation incentives. Mr. Wallace –– 4662

Purchase of firearm ammunition. Mr. Cocke –– 4662

Disposition of Bill 5 1. Mr. Barnes –– 4663

Wage and price controls. Mr. Levi –– 4663

Inclusion of shoplifter's names in newspaper ads. Mr. Wallace –– 4663

Senior citizens paying sales tax on Pharmacare items. Mr. Wallace –– 4664

Dress in House during hot weather. Mr. King –– 4664

Residential Tenancy Act (Bill 86) Hon. Mr. Mair.

Introduction and first reading –– 4666

Assessment Amendment Act, 1977 (No. 2) Bill 31. Report stage.

Division on third reading –– 4666

Systems Act (Bill 44) Report stage.

Division on third reading –– 4666

Attorney-General Statutes Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 74) . Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 4667

Jury Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 72) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 4667

Mr. Lauk –– 4667

Mr. Gibson –– 4668

Mr. Wallace –– 4668

Mr. Levi –– 4669

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 4669

Jury Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 72) Committee stage.

On section 2.

Mr. Lauk –– 4670

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 4670

On section 11.

Mr. Levi –– 4670

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 4671

Report and third reading –– 4671

Summary Convictions Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 53) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 4671

Mr. Lauk –– 4671

Mr. Wallace –– 4673

Mr. Mussallem –– 4673

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 4674

British Columbia Buildings Corporation Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 66) .

Committee stage.

On section 1.

Mr. Barnes –– 4675

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 4675

On section 5.

Mr.Cocke –– 4676

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 4676

Mr. Wallace s –– 4676

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 4677

Mr. Barnes –– 4679

Mr. Nicolson –– 4680

Report and third reading –– 4681

Credit Unions Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 80) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 4681

Mr. Levi –– 4682

Mr. Wallace –– 4683

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 4683

Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 81) . Committee stage.

On section 20.

Mr. Levi –– 4686

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 4686

On section 28.

Mr. Levi –– 4687

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 4687

Mr. Lauk –– 4688

Mr. Lea –– 4689

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 4689

Division on section 28 4691

Report stage –– 4691

Credit Unions Amendment Act (Bill 80) Committee stage.

Amendment to section 2 –– 4691

Amendments to section 5 –– 4691

Report stage –– 4692

Companies Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 49) Committee stage.

On section 35.

Mr. Levi –– 4693

Appendix –– 4694

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, each day on the floor of this House the Queen's Printer sits silently but never wordlessly. On his behalf I would like to introduce to you and members of the House Mr. George Metcalfe from Ontario Queen's Printer, who is here with Queen's Printers from all across Canada to meet in Victoria with their association and learn how things are done in this province. I ask you to welcome him.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Mr. Speaker, with us in the gallery this afternoon are two individuals from my constituency of Omineca. These are two individuals who are representative of the hard-hearted individual enterprisers of the north, Mr. Mike Bond and Mr. Ray Abersek. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery this afternoon are my two sons, Jason and Christopher. Along with them is Irene Harrison from my constituency and she has with her her son, Michael. Michael was recently at the Pacific Coast Association for Magicians convention in Seattle where he was runner-up in his own age group. He won the best novel act of the convention, competing against magicians from Canada, United States, Japan and Hawaii. Michael is 12 years old. I would like the House to bid them all welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member for Kootenay (Mr. Haddad) wish the right of reply? (Laughter.)

HON. R.S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Mr. Speaker, visiting in the gallery this afternoon is a very distinguished guest, Dr. Giovan Battista Verderame who was recently appointed as Consul of Italy in Vancouver. I would ask the House to bid him welcome.

Oral questions.

VISIBILITY OF HISTORIC PLAQUE

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): This question is to the hard-hearted Minister of Highways and Public Works. Downstairs in the rotunda is a large display case depicting the B.C. Sports Hall of Fame. Immediately behind that case, hidden from public view, is a plaque which commemorates the initiating of the refurbishing of this building which started under his predecessor's regime, Bill Hartley. Is the minister prepared to remove that display case so the public can see the plaque? The plaque is part of the history of these buildings.

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Highways and Public Works): We are prepared to move it. It was done accidentally, I might say, by some workmen trying to get some better viewing for the case that was put in front of it.

CONSTRUCTION OF HASLER

FLATS SCRUBBING PLANT

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): I have a question for the Minister of Mines in his capacity as director of the B.C. Petroleum Corporation. Did the BCPC request Westcoast Transmission to build a scrubbing plant at Hasler Flats to service the gas fields in the northeast sector?

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): That being a technical question, I'll take it as notice and bring the answer back.

MIDCOAST CUTTING RIGHTS

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Forests. The Forest Service has offered cutting rights in the mid-coast region, contingent on the building of a pulp mill. That is my understanding. The minister's assistant yesterday said that this offer is aimed at a particular B.C. company which has indicated what it would be prepared to do in certain circumstances. I wonder if the minister could tell us which company that is and what it has indicated it's prepared to do in these circumstances.

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Forests): Mr. Speaker, to the member for North Vancouver-Capilano, what my executive assistant was reported to have said was not really what he said. He said that in most cases proposals such as this are brought forward at the request of various companies. In this case there is more than one company, or groups of companies, who have indicated interest in such a venture. It's for that reason that the bid proposed has been put forward.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the minister if in respect of this contemplated pulp mill any amount of government assistance or participation in any way is being considered by the minister.

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

[ Page 4662 ]

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the minister if this coast location will be able to make use of any of the interior wood chips where most of the current surplus exists~

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the surplus of wood chips is abundant throughout the province. If the pulp mill is established as a result of these initiatives, the standing timber will not be used directly in the pulp mill, but the byproducts will. There would not be sufficient byproducts from this particular offering to satisfy the demands of a mill of substantial size. Therefore it would bleed off chips from other parts of the province. If chips are taken out of the coast, then obviously chips from the interior could come down to replace some of those which have been bled off.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister if he would be prepared to table with the House or in the House all the conditions related to the special bidding on this particular project so that the total public has an awareness of the limitations and what access to forest resources is available.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, if the member were to read the advertisements in the newspapers he would understand that these documents are available from the Forest Service for anyone who wishes them.

MR. BARRETT: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I'm not referring to the advertisements; I'm talking about the special conditions that exist. I think they should be tabled with the House.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, if the member would listen, I stated that these documents are available from the Forest Service by anyone who' may wish them. It states so in the advertisement.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, do I take it by the minister's response that there are no other conditions, other than the ones that are specified, related to the ads, or the bidding available through his office, and that that's an absolute commitment?

ENERGY CONSERVATION INCENTIVES

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): To the Minister of Finance: since federal proposals to provide funding for citizens who wish to conserve energy by insulating their homes include a requirement that sales tax be removed from insulation materials, has the minister had discussions with the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis) to deal with this aspect of this proposed federal programme?

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would it be asking too much to have the minister tell the House what was the outcome of these discussions?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As this is a policy question dealing with the presumption of exempting sales tax on the purchase of insulation materials, it is a matter before the government at this time.

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I realize that involves policy, but could I ask the minister if in fact, in discussions with the federal authorities, he has been able to determine whether or not the removal of sales tax is an absolute and mandatory prerequisite to getting into the programme, a prerequisite which the federal government absolutely insists on before the province can get into the programme?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, as I recollect, it is a condition.

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. To the minister again. Since constituents are phoning their MLAs to try and find out about this programme, and having great difficulty getting information, could the minister tell the House, and indeed tell the people in the province, when it is likely that it will be within the power of the government to make a public announcement whether or not, in fact, it looks as though British Columbia will be able to enter the programme on September 1, which I believe is the date that other provinces are to begin in co-operation with the federal government to provide a grant of $350?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I think that the member is now, with respect, getting into the purview of the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) and that question should be, for any further policy regarding it, directed at him.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, has the minister protested to Ottawa this thoroughly improper federal intervention into provincial taxation powers by requiring a change in our sales tax?

PURCHASE OF FIREARM AMMUNITION

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Attorney-General. Would the Attorney-General tell the House whether

[ Page 4663 ]

or not he was consulted by the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) when her ministry purchased 1 million rounds of small firearm ammunition which is now stored in Esquimalt?

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): I am unaware of the matter, Mr. Member.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'll tell the Attorney-General where it is. It's at 931 Ellery Street in Esquimalt.

MR. BARRETT: Do you have a secret police force?

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Will the Attorney-General undertake to look into this matter and report back to see if the ammunition was bought in accordance with any statute or regulation of the province?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'll look into it.

DISPOSITION OF BILL 51

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of British Columbia, I would like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs for the umpteenth time what is going to happen to Bill 5 1, the Landlord and Tenant Amendment Act, 1977, which reduces the maximum annual rent increase from 10.6 per cent to 7 per cent, which the government introduced last April 6. There is great confusion in the province right now.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is out of order, hon. member.

MR. BARNES: The tenants are confused, the landlords are confused....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[Mr. Speaker rises. ]

MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. member please take his seat? The question is clearly out of order. Do you have a further question on another subject, hon. member?

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. BARNES: For clarification, I just wonder if it was out of order for the minister to announce that he was going to make the reduction last April and here it is August.

[Mr. Speaker rises. ]

MR. SPEAKER: The question is out of order and the member's conduct is out of order at the moment, hon. member.

[ Mr. Speaker resumes his seat. ]

WAGE AND PRICE CONTROLS

MR. LEVI: This question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. As a member of the cabinet committee on Anti-Inflation Board matters, can the minister indicate what position the government has now vis-à-vis the controls in view of the announcement last week that inflation is rising at 8.4 per cent, which is almost 20 per cent above what the federal government said they were going to hold down inflation at? What is the attitude of the government in respect to controls? Because the government has indicated that when controls go off they are going to introduce their own programme. Here we are at 8.4 per cent with the possibility of going to almost 12 per cent by the end of the year.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Well, Mr. Speaker, I had difficulty understanding the question, but the part I did understand seemed to me to ask for a question of government policy, which I am not prepared to give.

INCLUSION OF SHOPLIFTERS'

NAMES IN NEWSPAPER ADS

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Human Resources with regard to a statement by Mr. Gordon Stahl, the liaison officer for a project entitled "Shoplifting Affects Virtually Everyone." Mr. Stahl stated that he is considering newspaper advertisements which would include the names of shoplifters. Mr. Stahl is seeking one-third of the $200,000 cost of the advertising to be borne by the provincial government. Can the minister tell the House if, following his meeting with Mr. Stahl a week ago Friday, he has decided to ask the social services committee of cabinet to approve the proposal that the government enter into cost-sharing on this programme dealing with the problem of shoplifting?

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, I did meet with Mr. Stahl and I've promised to forward material to the social services committee of cabinet.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister, regardless of the report that he submitted to cabinet, tell the House if he will, in fact, support the request by that organization if it insists on buying newspaper advertisements which would publish the names of shoplifters?

[ Page 4664 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, it's all very presumptuous. I don't know whether the request would be considered favourably, in the first place; and secondly, I have no knowledge of these newspaper ads or suggested newspaper ads.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, there are no fewer than eight ministers absent from their seats.

MR. SPEAKER: What is your question, hon. member?

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: My question, Mr. Speaker, is to the House Leader. Question period can be totally emasculated by these absences of Crown ministers.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: If the Crown wishes to continue this session ...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! State your question, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: . .. then we need ministers in their seats to ask them questions with respect to their departments. This is a deliberate attempt to avoid question period by the opposition.

[Mr. Speaker rises. ]

MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. member please take his seat?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask you a second time, hon. member, take your seat. When the hon. member has a question to address in question period, the Speaker will listen to the question.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

SENIOR CITIZENS PAYING

SALES TAX ON PHARMACY ITEMS

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that many senior citizens....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, the hon. member for Oak Bay has the floor.

MR. WALLACE: In view of the fact that many senior citizens are now no longer receiving non-prescription items under the provisions of Pharmacare, but in fact pay sales tax on these non-prescription items, has the minister given any consideration to removing the sales tax from non-prescription items provided in pharmacies?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, that question is not in sufficient detail to really prescribe an answer, but I can say that sales tax items are constantly under review in terms of approaches made by citizens and so on.

MR. WALLACE: How about megavitamins for a start?

DRESS IN HOUSE DURING HOT WEATHER

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Mr. Speaker, certainly it's not my wish to intrude into the Speaker's authority in the House, but I would ask leave of the House to give an indication to the Speaker of the House's consent with respect to authority for the Pages to remove their tunics during this extremely hot summer weather. I think that when the members of the House have been granted this right and because it is unusual for the House to sit during the hot summer, no less consideration should be given to the staff of the House. Indeed, I think the same consideration should be extended to the Clerks and to the Speaker of the House. I therefore ...

MR. BARNES: And the government!

MR. KING: If there are some members of the House who wish to remain stuffy, that's beyond my control.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The opposition is transparent.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous leave of the House as an indication to you that the House feels the Pages should have this right.

MR. SPEAKER: Speaking to the request of the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan, I would like to make two observations.

First of all, hon. members, there is no directive that says that members have been relieved of any duty with respect to dress in the House. As a matter

[ Page 4665 ]

of fact, I pointed out that the authorities that I have been able to consult are very mute on the matter. There is a matter of individual good taste and the conditions that we have at the present time which are warmer than usual.

With respect to those of us who are attendants and servants of the Legislature, including the Pages, Clerks and the Speaker, it is the custom of this Legislature that we appear in the appropriate dress. I believe the hon. member asked unanimous leave that the Pages be relieved of their responsibility of wearing their jackets in this House. It's not a motion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No! No! It's out of order!

HON. MR. GARDOM: The Pages are under the Speaker's direction.

MR. BARRETT: Punish the kids, eh?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

If it's to be a matter before this House, it would be, in my opinion, in the form of a motion, and the proper procedure would be for the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan to ask leave to move the motion; otherwise it would be put on the order paper, I presume, in the usual manner.

MR. KING: I thought we could get some informal indication of the House's wish, as we do on other questions, but if it is your ruling that it has to be put by motion, I ask leave to move the motion now.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you state the motion so that the members who are in the House know exactly what you're asking leave to do?

MR. KING: The motion is - and I'm writing it out, Mr. Speaker - that the Pages....

AN HON. MEMBER: On what authority can he stand on a motion now?

MR. KING: Do I have the floor, Mr. Speaker? The motion is that the Page people be relieved of the obligation to wear tunics during the course of the hot summer weather.

MR. SPEAKER: It will have to be on the order paper.

MR. KING: Did somebody say no? What is this? The end of the government? Let the kids take their jackets off! What a miserable place!

HON. MR. MAIR: Yesterday during debate I made an error in a statement I made to the House, and I would like leave to correct that error. It's not a substantial one, but I think it ought to be corrected.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed.

HON. MR. MAIR: Yesterday in answer to a question directed to me from the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) , I inadvertently referred to an article as being in B.C. Today. In fact it was in Monday Magazine, and I'd like the record to show that error as being corrected.

MR. LAUK: Under standing order 8, Mr. Speaker, every member is bound to attend the service of the House unless leave of absence has been given him by the House. I also refer, Mr. Speaker, to the Speaker's Inquiry Act in 1972-73, when that Act commissioned members of this House as a committee, and they reported back, and it was accepted by resolution that an oral question period would be instituted, and, in fact, has been. From time to time there is a total breakdown in question period if ministers cannot be here to answer questions in great numbers. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that only 10 executive council members here, with as many as eight and the Attorney-General out for a greater portion of the question period ...

HON. MR. GARDOM: Oh, come on!

MR. LAUK: ... make it nine key cabinet ministers, and almost the entire treasury bench, not present to answer questions of opposition members. I respectfully request Your Honour to review the situation, and provide guidelines to the executive council so that their attendance can improve.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's McGeer?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, if the Speaker is to provide guidelines for attention and attendance on the floor of this House, it will be to all hon. members, not just some.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, back on the subject of our apparel and our dress in the House....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. SPEAKER: It's not a debate, hon. member.

MR. COCKE: The Whips met, and obviously the government Whip (Mr. Mussallem) did not convey the feelings of the Whips' meeting to the members of the government side, because it was agreed that we would dress as we are now dressed six weeks ago. These people are trying to make something out of this whole question.

[ Page 4666 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It's an improper point of order, hon. member.

Introduction of bills.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCY ACT

Hon. Mr. Mair presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant Governor a bill intituled Residential Tenancy Act.

Bill 86 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. SPEAKER: I recognize the hon. member for Dewdney.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): I've tried to gain the floor before. I feel I should be given an opportunity to reply to a statement made by the hon. member for New Westminster, the Whip for the NDP.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I must point out that it is not a matter of debate before this House. I so observed when the hon. member for New Westminster made a statement which was supposed to be a point of order, and which did not turn out to be a point of order.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I would make no great issue, but he attributed words to me that were not correct, and I thought I should correct them. But if Your Honour feels that....

MR. SPEAKER: If you have a correction to make, then make it, sir.

MR. MUSSALLEM: We came to an agreement that if this room became untenable, which it has been anything but.... In fact, it's most comfortable. I don't know what they're talking about. I wish that most places were as comfortable as this. Mr. Speaker, it must be a real joke to imagine that this room is uncomfortable. I think we're just carrying this thing beyond the limits of reason. I bring it to Your Honour's attention.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well done, George.

Orders of the day.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mirabile dictu, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to call first of all report on Bill 31.

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1977 (NO. 2)

Bill 31 read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS - 23

NAYS - 14

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 44, Mr. Speaker.

SYSTEMS ACT

Bill 44 read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS - 23

NAYS - 14

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I would like

[ Page 4667 ]

to move second reading of Bill 74.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

HON. MR. GARDOM: As is customary, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of specific items contained in the bill and they would be better debated individually in committee. Accordingly, I move second reading.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on Bill 74 - we agreed to debate in committee stage on this omnibus bill.

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

Motion approved.

Bill 74, Attorney-General Statutes Amendment Act, 1977, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 72.

JURY AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

HON. MR. GARDOM: One of the'fundamental principles of our justice system is the right of an individual to be tried by a jury. Indeed, the majority of our citizens welcome the fact that such an option is available to them, should they ever be a litigant in the court. Yet in many cases the very same people often feel as though it is the job of some other person to take on juries. It's a great and historic concept, but let George do it and not me.

The reluctance, I think, of an individual to become involved in the trial process is perhaps also aggravated by the low rate of jury pay. Indeed it is true that it is a citizen's responsibility and a citizen's duty, and a responsibility of citizenship itself. But I think at the same time, Mr. Speaker, society has its own responsibility to share a proportion of the burden. The existing compensation rate of $10 per day was instituted in 1964. That is unrealistic at the present time, and what the Act will do is to double the daily jury rate from $10 to $20 per day for the first 10 trial days, and from $20 per day to $30 per day for each day after that, to better reflect current values.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I would mention to you that the recommendations of the Uniform Law Conference of Canada for uniform qualifications for jurors in all provinces have also been embodied in the bill. We find that there are certain provisions that are new to British Columbia, but ones that are going to be followed or are being followed in other provinces in the county. A person is disqualified from serving as a juror who is not a Canadian citizen, or a resident of the province, or who happens to be a member of the parliament or the legislature, or a judge, or solicitor, or a court official, or in any way connected with the justice system. So you see, Mr. Speaker, we have expanded the category of people who may not serve on juries to rule out their presenting, in the eyes of the litigant, any likelihood or possibility of partiality or them having preconceived opinions by virtue of being closely related to the judicial system.

Thirdly, the terms under which a person may apply for exemption from jury duties have been expanded and clarified. A person can "apply to the sheriff to be exempted from serving as a juror on the grounds that he belongs to a religion or a religious order" that makes his service incompatible with his beliefs, or that "serving as a juror may cause serious hardship or loss to him or to others." That application is to the sheriff. If the sheriff rules against the request of the prospective juror, then he has an opportunity for an application directly to the court.

As I have said, Mr. Speaker, the terms under which a person may apply for exemption from jury duty have been expanded to cover illness, hardship, loss, or religion. Also, a person over 65 years of age can apply to the sheriff to be exempted from serving as a juror.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, and I think perhaps the third most important point in the bill, is that we have developed a more efficient procedure of panelling, which will permit the establishment of one large jury panel to serve several simultaneous sittings of both the county court and the supreme court. This will result in some cost savings. It certainly has been welcomed to a great extent by those who are involved in the justice systems.

So in moving second reading, I would say that the proposals that I have before the House this afternoon will certainly be an aid to the justice system. It will be more responsive to the needs of the average citizen who's called upon for jury duty and will certainly better value the contribution that such a citizen makes. Accordingly, I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: I haven't too much quarrel with the bill. It's not what it says that causes some concern; it's what it does not say, and I'll deal with that in a moment.

I notice that the new section 5, Mr. Speaker, says that "a barrister, solicitor, court officials, Department of Justice officials, warden, correctional officer, blind, deaf or any other person who has a mental or physical infirmity, cannot serve on a jury." Perhaps I'm misreading that section.

In any event, it seems to me that a very serious problem is occurring in jury trials these days, particularly the criminal jury trial. But it can affect

[ Page 4668 ]

the laws affecting jury trials and civil actions. That is, is a person really tried, if you like, by his peers? There is no provision for challenging the [illegible] for cause because of a general non-representation of a person's peer group, if you like, on that jury. I wonder if the Attorney-General in closing debate can make a comment on whether any official of his department is looking into that, if he would, because it is very difficult for lawyers to challenge the array for cause. It's almost impossible.

I'm thinking particularly of jury trials that take place in the north, sometimes when Indian persons are brought before the court; they are most often tried by all-white juries. I know that every effort is being made by county sheriffs to try and increase the array and we cannot have an all-Indian jury try an Indian. But we can make every attempt to add Indians to juries where Indians are being tried and so on. After all, that's the provision of law. "Tried by your peers" means someone who knows your cultural background, understands your situation in life and is going to apply that life experience in judging your case, be it civil or criminal.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I generally support this bill. I think it's a good move and long overdue. The amount of compensation which jurors have been paid up until now has been completely inadequate in the inflationary times in which we live. I have made that representation to the Attorney-General on several occasions. At what level the compensation should be put is a difficult question. Some people are on a jury and can find that quite an enjoyable and memorable experience. Others will be on a jury and it will cost them a great deal of money and be a miserable experience. There's no way that compensation for this civic duty can be made to fit the circumstance in every case, but the move the government is making in this bill has gone some distance to remedy what has been a very serious burden on a lot of people in the case of trials which have dragged on for many months.

There is one representation I would like to make to the Attorney-General and he might wish to comment on it in closing debate on second reading or in committee stage. It is on behalf of a constituent of mine who makes a point which I think is a good one. That concerns the exclusion, per se, of blind persons from jury duty. My constituent, who is blind himself, makes the argument that, particularly when the case relates to the marshalling of spoken evidence, blind persons are often superior at that particular job that are sighted persons. It seems rather an unfair stigmatization of several hundred people in the province of British Columbia to exclude them from duty simply because of this fact. I would be very glad if the Attorney-General might give some thought to this. He may wish to comment in closing second reading or we can take the matter up again on committee, but it is a representation by a constituent which seems to me to be a reasonable one.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I just want of support the bill and make two points. The raising of the payment to jurors is obviously long overdue and I think the Attorney-General is to be commended for moving on this point.

The second point - it is of some concern to me as a layman to read the reason why the bill expands the range of persons who will be exempt from jury duty. It's on the basis that they might be biased. It really amazes me. Some of these people who are exempted fill the professional role in our society that they do because they are considered by their peers to be able to judge issues objectively. I'm thinking particularly of judges, justices of the peace, court referees - or a barrister or solicitor, who, admittedly, would be acting for the defence or the prosecution if he were fulfilling his daily professional role. But I would have thought that a barrister or solicitor as a member of a jury would perhaps be one of the best kind of people to have on a jury, because of his professional background and the fact that he spends a great deal of his professional time trying objectively to reach a decision on evidence presented. Now I realize that perhaps judges and justices of the peace, for other reasons, would find it difficult to serve on juries. But the bill in the explanatory notes makes it quite clear that the reason these individuals are to be exempt is that they might be biased.

I would just like the Attorney-General to perhaps touch on this point when he winds up second reading because the large categories that are included in this bill - many of them; perhaps a third of them - are people who, by virtue of their daily calling, are in fact constantly evaluating evidence and taking an objective view of the matters that their work involves every day. It would seem to me that if I were in some of these categories - a judge or a justice of the peace - I frankly, Mr. Speaker, would think it a bit of a slur to be told that I shouldn't serve on a jury because I might be biased. I can't think of anybody who's supposed to be less biased than a judge. If this bill leaves the implication that a judge can be unbiased when he's sitting in the judge's chair doing his professional job but he cannot be unbiased if he were serving on a jury, then I find this an incredible paradox.

Now admittedly I've chosen the most extreme example, but the judges are covered in this section. There are others. For example, it includes any employees of the Ministry of the Attorney-General, barristers and solicitors, court officials, sheriff's officers, peace officers. While this matter is one of degree, I admit, I wonder if it does not seem highly contradictory to suggest that a judge, of all people,

[ Page 4669 ]

shouldn't serve on a jury because he might be biased. It just seems to be almost a total contradiction of the inherent meaning of the word "judge." If the judges are to be excused because they have a heavy schedule and cannot predictably be available for jury duty, t hat's an entirely different matter, but the explanatory notes with the bill make it very clear that the bill expands the category of persons who may not serve because of their presenting, in the eyes of the public, a likelihood of bias. I find that just a staggering explanation of the bill - that in the eyes of the public, judges, if they were to serve on juries, might be considered to be biased.

I just ask for the explanation, Mr. Speaker. I also feel that not only is the explanation necessary, but also, if in fact this is the way in which the public might view a judge, then indeed it's a matter for the Attorney-General to reconsider whether this might be a category which should not be exempt. Indeed, maybe we should have an amendment to this bill to delete the particular part which exempts a judge from jury duty.

MR. LEVI: I just want to make two points. One is on the amended section which deals with the amount of pay. It seems to me it would have been far better to delete the section and do the thing by regulation. The last time this amount of money was increased, I gather, was in 1964.

The other thing is that there is a degree of discrimination here, I think, in terms of the amount of money. They're suggesting they're going to pay $20 a day up to the first 10 days, and then go to $30 afterwards. Well, $20 a day, for the average working person, is something less than the minimum wage. In this day and age, where counsels are getting anywhere from $350 to $400 a day and up, judges are making $52,000 a year, and most people working in the courts are making in excess of $1,200 to $1,500 a month - that is, the staff people - I don't see why it is there should be just this nominal kind of fee that is paid to people who have to go to jury duty.

Now there is the question in here where people can be excluded. Many people Wish to be excluded in terms of the hardship factor - if they have to go away from their business for three or four days, they lose money; if they have to go away from their work, they lose money. To suggest we go from $10 to $2 0, as the minister said in introducing the bill, with current inflation rates.... I don't know what he has calculated it on, but it's ridiculous to suggest that to pay somebody $20 a day for jury duty somehow reflects current rates. It's absolutely ridiculous. If it's going to reflect current rates, it would have to be $40 a day.

The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) talked about people who want to be judged by their peers. This excludes an unusual number of people, particularly on the basis of cost. People are scared off by the fact that there is a tendency, particularly in drug trials, for trials to last an exceptionally long time. We have the government spending, in one particular case, pretty close to three-quarters of a million dollars, and those jurors who sat, I understand, for something like 60 days were being paid $10 a day. The suggestion is that once they have got past the tenth day, they'll get $30.

Now that's a completely unacceptable amount of money in view of the fact of what is being paid to everybody else connected with the court process. There has to be something that is much more realistic than this amount of money.

In any case, it would seem to me that the Attorney-General would be much better advised to have deleted this section from the bill, and to have done it by regulation so that it could be at appropriate times increased as inflation takes place. Otherwise, you're going to have to come back to the House to bring in another amendment.

Perhaps the minister, in closing, might tell us how he arrived at going from $10 to $20, and $30 after the tenth day, when in reality those amounts should~ be twice that.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to respond to the remarks that were made by the first member for Vancouver Centre. He indicated that he was sort of suggesting, I think, that we take the American route of challenges to jurors and questioning them as to their bias and so forth, and so on. This is not the practice in our country.

It certainly is a matter that is worthy of study and consideration, but I think that most of us in the system of jurisprudence that is followed in the Commonwealth countries will agree that we have a superior method of empanelling juries than the American method. Sometimes it takes as long to get a jury on board as it does for the trial itself. I would certainly like to say to the first member for Vancouver Centre that within the province we have a most fair method of empanelling, and the sheriffs are doing a first-class job in that respect, and I would indeed very much like to commend them.

The member for North Vancouver raised the question of why a person who suffers from blindness is excluded from the Act. The reason for that, Mr.

Member, is that he or she would not have the opportunity to observe the demeanor of a witness or consider the physical evidence, the clothing, articles that were stolen, fingerprint * s, and so forth and so on.

That's the purpose behind that.

The hon. member for Oak Bay referred to the question of bias, I think in the context, hon. member, bias really means influence. The word "bias" should be replaced with the word "influence." Not that

[ Page 4670 ]

these people who are excluded would lack objectivity, but they could perhaps be in the position, by virtue of their specific and particular knowledge, of being endowed with greater powers to sway jurors than other people, through being connected with the justice system.

What is proposed here is not new, and furthermore, as I have mentioned to you, this is recommended by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada. The judge, justice of the peace, and court referees have exactly the same provision as under the former statute, as have court officials, sheriffs, and peace officers and the infirmity situations of the blind and deaf, which your seat colleague from North Vancouver referred to.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, dealing with the remarks from the member from Burrard, I have to say this: it is not meant as indemnification, these dollars that are provided, and that's just a fact of life. It is a continuing responsibility upon people as citizens to accept the duties and tasks of being on juries. Unions, of course, in some cases are building this matter into the union contract wherein the employer pays the full pay for the juror, and I certainly think that would be something that should be encouraged, perhaps with a remission back for any amount that was received by the juror.

I would certainly like to say to you, and to hon. members, that there's a highly significant section here, and that is that an individual may apply to the sheriff to be exempted from serving on the grounds that it would cause him serious hardship or loss to himself or to others. This is the first time that this has been put into the Jury Act of the province of B.C. I think that we have developed something in this statute that will be indeed beneficial and workable for all concerned.

Before I sit down I would like to say that we are, as far as I know from the most recent information that I have received, leading Canada in this respect. Alberta, according to the last notes that I received, is at $10; Saskatchewan at $15; Manitoba $18; Ontario $10; Quebec $25 a day; Prince Edward Island $10; Nova Scotia $15; New Brunswick $15.

In Newfoundland they have the distinction as to whether a person is employed or self-employed. An employed juror receives $12, and a self-employed or unemployed individual $24. So I think we have come a long way here, Mr. Speaker. I do very much consider that it is a good bill and I thank the hon. members for their remarks and their support.

Accordingly, I would move that the bill now be read as second time.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, as this is not a contentious bill, Bill 72 to a Committee of the Whole

House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 72 ' Jury Amendment Act, 1977, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

The House in committee on Bill 72; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the current voters list....

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's not being used any longer.

MR. LAUK: I was just wondering what the procedure is now for a sheriff running around and collecting a panel to empanel a jury.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Under the new bill?

MR. LAUK: Yes.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Utilizing the voters list has indeed proven to be a complication. Under the former arrangement the sheriff had to advise the registrar of voters if he discovered the person on the panel was dead or had moved and so forth and so on. It was a complete waste of time and an unnecessary bureaucracy. So at the present time the sheriff is free to seek people. I suppose he can consult telephone books; he can consult directories. As long as the people are not disqualified within the provisions of section 3, that does it.

MR. LAUK: I thank the Attorney-General. I have one other question so that the public can be satisfied that the sheriff and the sheriff's officers are operating in an unbiased fashion. It should be known just exactly how they do collect these people for juries.

Section 2 approved.

Sections 3 to 10 inclusive approved.

On section 11.

MR. LEVI: I frankly found the minister's remarks about the expense money a little fatuous. I think that we've entered a day and age, Mr. Attorney-General, where we don't expect that people are going to do things in terms of their civic duty. On the court level, will we pay them an indemnification? If it's not an

[ Page 4671 ]

indemnification, what is it? The other thing is that we have many people today who do things in terms of public life where they do not take any money, but they take just the basic expenses. Now perhaps the minister would tell us exactly what this amount of money is, if it's not an indemnification. What is it a recognition of?

The other thing is if we're paying for going from $10 to $20, where does that put us in relation to Quebec, which is at $25? It certainly doesn't put us first, unless....

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, we go up to $30. They don't go to $30.

MR. LEVI: Oh, you go to $30. What are we looking forward to - some trials that are going to go longer than 10 days? We're going to have another Fillippone case and that kind of thing. The general thing is not to go longer than 10 days, surely. We are not leading the country, as you suggest. We are not paying $25, we are paying $20. The average jury trial does not go more than 10 days. It's very rare that they go past that. So perhaps the minister would tell me what he means by saying "it is not an indemnification." If it's not that, what is it?

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's an allowance, Mr. Member. I would also mention to you that this thing has been around since 1964. You had a great opportunity to bring an amendment in yourself.

MR. LEVI: The standard answer from that group over there is: "You didn't do it, we're doing it." All right. If you're doing it, do it properly! Don't go from $10 to $20. On what basis did you go from $10 to $20? Then you say in the same breath that you're leading the country. You're not leading the country.

Now what is the basis on which you pay this money? If it's expenses, and you look at the kind of money the government pays in expenses to other people, it's below that. Let's not talk about what the other government should have done, or how long it's been in. We want to be able to be fair to people. We want to make it possible for people to serve on jury duty without it being harmful, and not have to go to the section which gives them an exclusion. Now again, Mr. Chairman, perhaps the minister would tell us on what it is based, because he hasn't told us.

HON. MR. GARDOM: On an allowance. I've said it half a dozen times.

MR. LEVI: It's an allowance. Well, allowances in the government work out quite differently. If you make allowances to public servants or you make allowances to people who do work for the government, they are considerably higher than this.

How do you arrive at going from $10 to $20?

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's a 100 per cent increase.

MR. LEVI: A 100 per cent increase, and the cost of living has gone up far more than that. It's incredible. It's a very stuffy way of looking at the thing. You don't seem to care that it should be something much more realistic than what he's arrived at here.

Sections 1 I and 12 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 72, Jury Amendment Act, 1977, reported complete without amendments.

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

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

Leave granted.

Bill 72, Jury Amendment Act, 1977, read a third time and passed.

MR. LAUK: I wonder if the Speaker could advise why it was necessary for the Attorney-General to gain leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Because we moved from second reading through committee by leave, it would be customary to proceed by leave into third reading also, hon. member.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 53, Mr. Speaker.

SUMMARY CONVICTIONS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

HON. MR. GARDOM: Essentially, there are two specific points in this bill. There are some housekeeping situations wherein the terminology is modernized; and secondly, Mr. Speaker, there is a clause wherein the specific penalties that are applicable under the Act are increased. The maximum fine is increased from $500 to $2,000; this maximum

[ Page 4672 ]

fine of $500 was set prior to 1936 in the province. The increase will bring it into line with the maximum that is, applicable in some other provinces in the country.

There is a need to continue, at the present time, the general offence aspect in the bill, and that is to the effect that where a person commits an offence by contravening the terms of a statute or a regulation or other enactment and it is not covered within that specific piece of legislation, then this omnibus provision in the Summary Conviction Act applies.

This is a provision that has existed in the province for over 40 years. But as I said, there is a need to discontinue this side of the coin, Mr. Speaker, and we are desirous of moving to eliminate this general offence provision and replacing it by a specific offence provision wherever appropriate. I would say that the problem with reliance upon the general offence provision is that individual statutes and other enactments may not sufficiently warn a citizen in all cases of the possible consequences of the failure to comply fully with the law. So the bill sets December 31,1978, as a deadline for the repeal of the general offence aspect. It will take until then - and we're hopeful that it can be done by then - to have the necessary provisions put into the various specific enactments. The rest of the bill is housekeeping, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: Well, speaking on the last point first, Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope that the hon. Attorney-General is very careful in not providing for a penalty in each and every situation where an offence can be....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Right on.

MR. LAUK: Yes. I think that has to be covered very carefully. If we find an anomalous situation where this House has created an offence and there's no penalty for it, it's embarrassing, to say the very least.

The most important point in this matter is a point of very serious principle. That's the question of when we are going to find a better way under penal statutes to avoid the difference between rich people and poor people before the courts. You've heard this, particularly from this side of the House, for many, many years. There is a difference between rich and poor before the courts. The poor people who cannot afford to pay a fine, go to jail. Rich people paying the same fine do it in many cases with little difficulty and really suffer very little penalty. What is the most equitable way to do this? Why can't... ?

AN HON. MEMBER: Read the law.

MR. LAUK: The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) says: "Just obey the law."

AN HON. MEMBER: He said: "Read the law."

MR. LAUK: Well, you know, Mr. Speaker.... Well, people who are fined can afford it in some cases and can't afford it in other cases, Mr. Speaker. That's what I'm saying. There are poor people in this province who may have committed an offence under a provincial statute, who cannot pay the fine and go to jail because they are poor.

AN HON. MEMBER: The former government should have changed that.

MR. LAUK: The former government did not change it. This government hasn't changed it and the previous administration before that did not change it. That's not the point. The point is, when are we going to come to grips with that problem? We have people sitting there who are sitting in jail for no other reason than they can't pay fines. That's a bad, unhealthy situation in this society. As the hon. Conservative leader has stated, very many of these people are native Indian people. But they are poor people in most cases, you see. I've heard of people - very rarely - who will not pay a fine as a question of principle and go to jail on that basis. This is a different situation. People choose to do that as a form of civil disobedience and suffer the penalty for it either as an attack on the law or on a question of principle. No, I'm confining my remarks, Mr. Speaker, to those people who are sitting in jail today for the mere fact that they are poor. They don't have enough money. They are there most often because of their inability to pay these fines. I think there should be a provision whereby the Attorney-General can do a complete examination of this situation.

Is it not possible- to have a percentage kind of fine? I've heard this proposed but never really refuted. Why cannot our penal statutes encourage judges to levy a percentage fine - a percentage of one's income. In other words, there would be a requirement that your income tax form be filed, or a declaration be filed with the court as to your income by your employer, and a percentage of that income would be the fine for particular offences. It is cumbersome and it's not as simple as a flat rate, but if the hon. member for Dewdney is fined $500 for chewing gum on the streets of Haney, let's say, as opposed to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, a poor poverty-stricken person such as myself, it's obviously clear who can afford the fine better than the other. If we could fine....

MR. MUSSALLEM: Not if you sell your Mercedes.

MR. LAUK: Sell my Mercedes? Mr. Speaker, if I

[ Page 4673 ]

sold five Mercedes that I have, it wouldn't be a down payment on one of the cars that the hon. member has on his lot.

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to make light of the situation. I'm serious. There are people suffering jail terms because of defaults on payments of fines, and a lot of them under the Summary Convictions Act. It seems to me that if there was a percentage situation and the hon. member for Dewdney would pay, let's say, a fractional percentage of his income and 1, if I were convicted of the same offence, would pay the same fraction, I'd probably pay $50 and he would pay $50,000. Nevertheless, it would make it more equitable and the penalty would be the same.

To bring it into a more practical and real situation, a person on welfare might be penalized in a different way. A person who is on another low-income situation would pay a small fine, but $5 or $10 to a poor person with a small income is the same penalty to a rich man who would be fined $1,000. It's the same penalty. It has the same deterrent effect. The same hardship will prevail on that person and/or their family. That's what the Attorney-General should be looking at in this kind of a statute, not just increasing these fines.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I just briefly wish to support the point made by the member for Vancouver Centre that if justice is to be evenly dispensed, then it would seem that perhaps more by tradition and precedent than by any indepth review of our present system we've perpetuated a system that is far from just. This is particularly so when we know that the jails of our province are in very bad condition. We're always hearing about such problems as mixing up remand prisoners with prisoners who are already convicted, as we've heard so many times at the Wilkinson Road jail. Many of these prisoners on remand are there because they can't pay bail. Here's another element where the person with financial assets can at least remain free until he is tried whereas another person, without means, is on remand sometimes, I am told, at Wilkinson Road jail for as long as a year. It does seem to be an excellent point the member for Vancouver Centre has made. I also particularly feel that the plight of the Indians in the province who, I believe, in the younger age group, comprise something like 70 per cent of all the inmates in our institutions When in point of fact they are a relatively small percentage of the total population, surely speaks for itself. I wonder if the minister would care to comment, when winding up second reading, on whether this particular issue has been given some consideration and is perhaps something we can anticipate in the not-too-distant future, or is it not a matter which is actively receiving the consideration of this government while they're pondering the kind of changes that are needed to this particular type of bill?

I notice the minister is busy in discussion with others.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm hearing you.

MR. WALLACE: I feel one of the difficulties in our society today is lack of respect for the law. We hear a great deal about the need for greater law and order, but I think that at the other end of the system where someone is finally convicted and sentenced, public respect would be enhanced if it appeared there were a more even-handed form of punishment dispensed, regardless of the financial assets of the individual convicted.

As I say, Mr. Speaker, I think that all sides of the House recognize, from a great deal of the work that has been done, that offenders or accused members of the Indian population in particular quite frequently wind up in jail, not because of the seriousness of the offence but because of their inability to raise bail or pay a fine.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I couldn't let this opportunity pass without a word or two - it's just a matter of a minute. The question of fines is a very onerous one, and there is no way that it can be worked out fairly.

I had occasion to be in court not too long ago when a couple of young people were each fined $250 for a motor-vehicle infraction. We all know that those people had nowhere they could get the money legitimately. But no question was asked when they were given 24 hours to bring the money in. They brought the money in and no question was asked where they got it or how they got it. They were heard to say they would get it that night, possibly by improper means. The idea of fines is totally wrong. The only thing that will really work.... The stock is a good way. As a matter of fact, while we're at it ...

MR. WALLACE: Not stocks and bonds, is it, George?

MR. MUSSALLEM: ... a very good friend of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) whom we all know, the hon. Justice Mr. Manson, a very fine man....

MR. WALLACE: Bring back the lash! (Laughter.)

MR. MUSSALLEM: Bring back the lash. (Laughter.) No, I say that facetiously. I think we're past the lash a bit.

Justice Manson said - take it for what it's worth -that when parliament took away the paddle, the courts lost control of the criminal. That statement made by the hon. justice has never been refuted to this day.

[ Page 4674 ]

When I think of the question of fines, I think we should get work from people. The dollar fine has little value, especially to young people. They're not interested in dollar fines. They get the money somewhere or other, some way or other. But if you put them to work, no matter how high the executive is.... Even if hon. members of this House make infractions there should be no fine. Put them to work on the highways to do a job. Make them work for it. Then we know what value is.

MR. LAUK: Chain gangs?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I would like to thank the three hon. members for their remarks concerning this piece of legislation.

First of all, I would like to draw to the attention of the House that in 1974 legislation was passed unanimously, I recall, to the effect that the person is not sent to prison now as a result of not paying a fine. It is very clear that a person cannot be imprisoned by reason only of the fact that he defaults in paying a fine. A judge, in making an order for a fine, has got to be satisfied that the person against whom the fine is imposed has sufficient means and ability to enable him to pay the fine forthwith. If upon being asked by the justice whether he desires time for payment the person upon whom the fine is imposed doesn't request time or if the judge has a special reason, which you give orally and in writing, the fine is required to be paid forthwith. There is really abundant authority at the present time dealing with this point.

Where a fine is imposed and it is not paid, a prosecutor may file a certificate of non-payment of that order with the supreme court, the country court or the provincial court and, essentially, it becomes a civil judgment. It is then subject to the processes of collection for a civil judgment which could be attachment of wages or seizure and sale of chattels. The hon. member was a member of this House when the section came into being.

People in the province of British Columbia are no longer jailed for defaulting on payment of fines, unless it happened to be in the second stage of a contempt of court finding insofar as the civil collection is concerned. A contempt of court finding would be where the court reached the conclusion that without question the individual had the capacity to pay the penalty and refused to do so in a civil proceeding. Under those circumstances it's open to the court, if it deems fit, to find that individual in contempt of court and that individual would therefore have to stay sometime within a custodial facility.

Now insofar as fines are concerned per se, I think we have greatly eliminated the problem in British Columbia in 1974 by that which I have mentioned.

Of course it is open to the courts to give suspended sentences. There are abundant reasons set forth within the statute as to the jurisdictions that are available to the court under those circumstances. I've never considered the fine to be a good yardstick. There's no question or doubt that it isn't. But the problem that my learned friend from Vancouver Centre was articulating really has been cured. Notwithstanding that fact, in all good humour, sir, I thank you for your remarks, and I'll send you a copy of the Act.

MR. LAUK: I'll speak to you in committee.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Okay. The percentage fine situation is a matter that is under consideration in a number of jurisdictions.

Dealing with the remarks of the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) , I certainly do feel that we have made some very great strides in British Columbia in this regard as well, because we do have restitution programmes wherein the court will order an accused person to compensate the victim for the loss he or she may have occasioned, and further wherein convicted people are put into the community to do specific tasks under a programme known as community service work orders. They're working very, very effectively indeed.

I think for far too long, Mr. Speaker, we have paid really not enough attention to the victim of crime and we have been emphasizing the accused. We're going to continue to emphasize the rehabilitation of those who are convicted, but with the measures that we have in British Columbia, in which I think we are leading the country.... I'd say congratulations to the former administration in that regard, and in this one as well. We've carried on with some of them, we've improved some of them and we have also made some innovations. We're leading Canada, I think, in these programmes. I think the people in the province have a full right to be very, very proud of the system that we have here. So accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, if the House is desirous of granting leave - it's a three-section bill -to proceed into committee....

Leave not granted.

Interjections.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You want to wait for the member who is not present today?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's exactly right.

[ Page 4675 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: All right. You have the privilege to do that. That's fine.

Bill 53, Summary Convictions Amendment Act, 1977, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 66.

BRITISH COLUMBIA BUILDINGS CORPORATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

The House in committee on Bill 66; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. BARNES: I have a question to the minister respecting the conditions by which a director may sit on a board of directors of the corporation. Apparently the members have to be either members of the executive council or public service employees. When a person ceases to be in either of these categories, he is no longer eligible to be a member of the board. Is that correct?

There is also an explanation in the amendment which suggests that where a director is not a member of the executive council or the public service, he may receive remuneration for out-of-pocket expenses and so forth. I would like the minister to explain how that would work. I'm thinking of a person who at one time may have been a member of the board and who retired, say, from the public service. In that case he would no longer be a public servant and he would qualify as a private citizen. You also have a category for citizens. Does this disallow a person to qualify as a member of the board if he at any time previously had been a member of the executive council or a member of the public service? That's one question I would like some explanation on.

The other would be to elucidate a bit on the kinds of expenses that are involved. Would this also include the members of the executive council who are, as cabinet minister, receiving substantial income as it is? Certainly their expenses are accounted for in their departments. I'm just wondering if attending at quarterly board meetings or so forth that they would have to attend would justify them being included for additional remuneration. I'm just wondering if there would be some limits put on a member of the public service, for that matter, receiving remuneration.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, to the second member for Vancouver Centre, it says in the bill 11 reasonable traveling and out-of-pocket expenses." We don't envision a per them rate, just what it says there - "reasonable traveling and out-of-pocket expenses." We don't even know how many meetings there will be, but I would like to speculate that maybe for a while they will be once a month. This would be traveling expenses from their home community to wherever the meeting was called, probably Victoria.

As for the other item at the start of your questions, expanding from five to nine allows the public sector to serve where before it excluded them from serving.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, that's quite clear. I know the intent of the amendment, but there seems to be an unexplained situation where a person who was previously already on the board serving either as a cabinet minister, or a member of the executive council, or as a public servant, for some reason was no longer on the board and then came back as a member from the private sector. Now does that preclude that person from becoming a member of the board? In other words, would he be disqualified, having previously been a member? There is no explanation in the amendment that disqualifies such a person, and there could be a conflict.

HON. MR. FRASER: If I understand your question correctly, there is no reason for him to be disqualified. If they had been in the public service before, they could still serve on this. I might say that ministers don't get paid for serving on here.

MR. BARNES: In respect, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that that particular amendment is meaningless. It doesn't make any sense. You state: ". . . in addition, a director who is not a member of the executive council or of the public service may be paid for his service as a director such renumeration as may be fixed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

That was put in to protect, I presume, the private sector - in other words, to allow that extra number of people to come on who would be different from those who would be public servants or in the government. By not disqualifying such persons you could conceivably have.... You see, it doesn't make any sense because you say if they have served in that capacity, they cease to be a member. I don't understand how you can say that. It's not well-drafted; it's not clear. It seems to me that if you do one, you can't do the other. You have a conflict of terms there.

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, they would have to be re-appointed. They would have to be reappointed if they ceased to serve the appointment.

MR. BARNES: I am not going to belabour that,

[ Page 4676 ]

but I think that when you review it you will.... It's not a point that I care that much about one way or the other but I think that it's not a very clearly defined amendment. It could put a person in a situation where they cease to be on the cabinet.... Say, for instance, when a person retires, they would argue the point: "Well, I'm no longer a member of the cabinet. I'm supposed to be disqualified but on the other hand you say that the private sector also has a right to sit, and so I'm going to stay." You could say they could be reappointed right there. What I am saying, if that's the case, is that your legislation has a loophole and it really doesn't make any sense. I will just leave that one with you, Mr. Chairman.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

On section 5.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, on this one I would like the minister to explain the question I asked the other night when we were in second reading of the bill, respecting the transfer of people, particularly those who are maintenance and security staff right now. I am thinking particularly of this particular precinct where we have many confidential files, where people are doing maintenance work in the offices of private MLAs. People are privy to records and could conceivably be held accountable and are required to take an oath of secrecy.

Under the transfer scheme, conceivably, these people could not be transferred and would not become employees of the B.C. Buildings Corporation. But on the other hand, they could find that they have a second opportunity for employment, not be caught up in the 800 to 1,100 people that are going to be left without employment, but asked to work by a contractor - a private contractor the B.C. Buildings Corporation might wish to engage - to carry on the work that they're presently doing. I suppose the idea would be to keep them, because of their experience and to have some continuity,

So if they were hired, they would not be hired as public servants. They would not be hired as employees of the B.C. Buildings Corporation. They would be hired as individuals working for a private contractor to do the work that is presently being done. In that case, what liability would be placed upon them to continue the same security that they are continuing right now, in terms of confidentiality and so forth, working in this precinct? Will there be any new additional amendments made to the B.C. Buildings Corporation Act, or will there be new legislation brought in to include them? Because they would not, as I can see it, be held responsible for any leaks or any difficulties that may arise as a consequence.

Perhaps if you'd like to just deal with that one.

HON. MR. FRASER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To the second member for Vancouver Centre: there'll be no contracting out of the maintenance work in this precinct or in this building.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to hear the minister indicate that. Certainly the rumours are tearing around the precincts.

However, the whole question of transfer.... As far as I'm concerned, transfer in this particular section is a euphemism for dumping a lot of the employees of the Public Works service. I know why the minister wanted the Buildings Corporation. It's certainly a good way to amortize the activity of the department, particularly when you have to pay large amounts for buildings.

But I wish the minister hadn't carried it so far and gone into this particular area. You can still keep the employees of the department. I predict this: what the minister is going to be doing over the years is spending a lot more money for contract services than what he would spend if he was directly employing the people to provide those services. I just wanted to express that one though on this particular section. Transfer, in many instances, means dump.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify in this section some of the matter we discussed in second reading. I raised with the minister a question which an employee had brought to my attention -namely, the fact that although the word "transfer" is used, in fact there would be competition, or it could be interpreted that there was competition for the jobs of those persons who do go to work for the corporation. If there are 1,600 people applying for 800 jobs then, obviously, there's something in the nature of a competition, whereas the word "transfer" clearly is meant to imply - whether it does so in practice or not, it's meant to - that it's a simple move from the Ministry of Public Works to the B.C. Buildings Corporation. And I want to clarify this point, because I think the minister made it quite plain in his answer that the union is not concerned that there might be any controversy over the interpretation of the word "transfer", and that some of these employees who in fact are transferred, would never in the future be considered to have obtained that job through competition.

Now it seems like a hair-splitting point perhaps to those of us who don't understand all the finer details of contracts and collective agreements. But this matter was raised by one employee and I'm trying to get the answer.

The second point that I would like to raise is that, as has been said many times on this issue, there are many people in the employment of the Ministry of

[ Page 4677 ]

Public Works at the moment who are very apprehensive as to what the future holds for them. And I notice that in this section, subsection 3, it mentions that the dates for transfer may be before the coming into force of the section, and the section is to be made retroactive to whatever extent is required to give it effect. In light of the minister's comments the other night on second reading - that there will be about 800 employees to be relocated somewhere - and his statement that he could assure the House and these employees that they would be relocated in government employment, is there any date in the minister's plans by which time all these 800 uncertain employees will be informed that subsection 3 has been completed? In other words, all those who will be transferred have been transferred, and that means that the others not yet transferred on the date related to subsection 3 know that they have to be relocated somewhere else.

It's a very tough time for those employees. They don't know if they're coming or going. They don't know whether they're likely to be transferred to the B.C. Buildings Corporation under this section, or whether they can anticipate some real disruption in their livelihood and in their place of occupation, perhaps, and in the ministry in which they work. I feel most sympathetic towards some of the staff who are in a highly skilled category - not necessarily in the simpler jobs - and therefore will have much more difficulty relocating because of their more specialized type of work. I'm thinking of some of the senior personnel and senior civil servant positions, whether they're architects, or quantity surveyors, or some of these other very highly trained people with many years of experience.

I wonder if the minister could give some approximate idea, in relation to subsection 3, as to the date by which he anticipates that at least it will be known that the transfers have been completed and that anyone presently in Public Works who by that date has not been transferred then knows they will have to be located elsewhere. On that point I wonder if the minister would care to tell the House about the case where, if the union is satisfied with the way negotiations are proceeding and the way planning is proceeding, does this include assurance on the other point I raised about the person who may be offered a relocation in a different ministry, in a different city perhaps, or in a different town, who decides to reject that offer?

Can the minister perhaps make a statement which would reassure people in that category that it is not a question that if they fail to be transferred and they fail to take the first relocation job that's offered, they may risk losing their employment by government? If that isn't the case, has there been any guideline drawn up as to how many times a non-transferred employee can turn down an alternative proposal without in fact having that turndown used against him or her by the Ministry of Public Works? In effect, they might then say: "Well, we've offered you three alternatives and in view of the fact that you've rejected all three, we think we are entitled to dismiss you from employment."

This is causing serious concern in the minds of many people. I would hope these three points I've raised might give the minister a chance here today in committee stage to clear up, once and for all, some of these recurring questions that MLAs are being asked by current employees of the Ministry of Public Works.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, to the member for Oak Bay, I'll go from the last question to the first and try to answer your inquiries.

First of all, a question is going out to the employees: "One of the options I advise is that I will not be offered employment with the BCBC. What are my options?" This is what it will say:

"You may elect early retirement if 55 years or over with 10 years of service; you may elect severance pay; you may elect public service placement, in which case you will be eligible to receive a maximum of two employment offers from the Public Service Commission for positions for which you are qualified as these positions become available."

Those are some of the options that are going out soon to the employees.

Regarding the 800 you mentioned, I might tell the committee today, Mr. Chairman, I'm advised, as of I think yesterday, that we're not dealing with 800; it's now 735. 1 guess that is through retirements and so on. As for the date the member for Oak Bay wanted to know, I'm advised it will be April 1,1978, that this will all have taken place regarding how it affects the 735 people.

The last part I have here came up the other night in second reading, Mr. Chairman, and again today from the member for Oak Bay. Under the agreement negotiated with the employees union, transfer of union employees to BCBC will be based on qualifications, seniority and location. Competition for positions is confined to management jobs excluded from the collective agreement. In other words, the only place competition is taking place is for positions confined to management jobs. They are excluded from the collective agreement.

MR. WALLACE: I very much appreciate the minister's answers. I think he has done a lot to assuage some of the fears and confusion. I just wish. to expand on the phrase he used about non-transferred employees having a maximum of two choices. I want to be very clear on that. Am I to understand that those employees under this section

[ Page 4678 ]

who do not get transferred will actually be offered two jobs? I think the phrase the minister used was:

. . positions for which you are qualified."

I just want to ask two things in relation to that specific statement by the minister. How will location be involved in determining that these are reasonable alternatives? In other words, I don't expect that it would be in the same building, or maybe even at the same time, but what consideration is being given to someone now in Victoria being offered a job in Dawson Creek or Prince Rupert, or whatever, where there's a substantial relocation, and, if so, what is the government prepared to pay towards the cost in that regard?

Secondly, the minister was kind enough to say that the date mentioned, or the likely date referred to in subsection (3) , will be April 1,1978. From that date onwards, April 1,1978, how long would employees who were not transferred to B.C. Buildings Corporation have? What's the time frame within which they would be likely to receive the two offers of alternative employment, if there is such a time frame? Is it hoped that by April I those who have not been found employment by BCBC will have been relocated or will have been given a maximum of two options?

Now I realize this is difficult because of the number we are dealing with, and, as the minister has pointed out, there's already been a certain attrition of the 800 by people electing to take early retirement and so on. These 735 people who are not to be transferred to BCBC are still wondering the kind of question that I am now asking. They will be given two options of alternative employment; is there a date by which the minister envisages that all the 735 people or less will have had to exercise their option, whatever the option might be? Is it possible that beyond April 1,1978, employees who have not been covered under this section, and have been transferred ' will still be given more time by the government to exercise any one of the various options? What is the outside period of time the minister envisages to allow a non-transferred employee to exercise any one of these options?

HON. MR. FRASER: To the member for Oak Bay, what we hope will happen is that it will all be finished by April 1,1978, and they will have had a lot of time to contemplate their position. As a matter of fact, it's starting to go out now, and as I personally see it, by January I the employees certainly should know, and then they still have until April 1. 1 hope that it doesn't have to go on beyond April 1. We hope it's all sorted out by then, and if it isn't. we will probably have to extend that. We don't anticipate that to happen. Hopefully they will all be sorted out by then.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, a final question, Mr. Chairman. The minister said a few moments ago that only management would be involved in competition for jobs with BCBC, and this raises the other point where employees have come to me expressing their concern. I'm thinking of certain individuals, and one particular individual who is not in the union. I don't understand exactly the technical employment phrases that are used about - is it red circling? I'm not trying to confuse the minister, but I don't understand exactly this area of limbo where the person is not in the union, but apparently is not management either. At least, his or her privileges and status and professionalism are looked upon in some way differently. All I'm saying is that what can the minister tell about those persons who compete for a job in BCBC under section 5, and are unsuccessful, and who are within the group of 735?

1 notice that those who are in the union have all kinds of guarantees within section 5 and later on in subsection (4) . In 5 they have access to the Labour Code, they are guaranteed their pay won't be reduced, and so on. I've had an interview with one individual who is in this red-circled group, whatever exactly that means, and there is no guarantee whatever that he will have the kind of assurances that the union employee has under subsections (4) and (5) of this section. I know that this kind of person realizes that he will have to be relocated in another ministry of government. He may have had, as in this case, many years of service and be very well experienced in certain aspects of public works. Can the minister outline the options that are still open to them? Not just the option of early retirement, which is not possible in the case of the individual that I've been interviewing, but what option does that person have, other than hoping that somehow or other he can be relocated in another ministry of government, without loss of salary or pension or whatever? He does not seem to have anything like the assurance that the union employee has under subsection (4) and (5) .

HON. MR. FRASER: To the member for Oak Bay, these people who are red-circled are going to shortly be offered the same as has been offered to the union people. I would just like to explain red-circling for a minute. If somebody's at $30,000 a year and they find themselves within another ministry where the position they're going to only justifies $28,000, they're red-circled at the $30,000. Then as that position moves up, they move up from there. But they're red-circled so that they don't take a drop in salary from $30,000 to $28,000. They're going to be offered almost immediately the same deal that the union people have been offered. As you mentioned, they seem to be offered most items, and that's going to also be offered to the red-circled people.

[ Page 4679 ]

MR. BARNES: Well, they may not take a drop in salary, Mr. Minister, as far as being red-circled for the year, but certainly on the annual increment they wouldn't progress until that level was finally reached. So it is a drop in pay in due course.

I was pleased that it at least appeared to be good news when you suggested there were only 735 employees to be considered for placement, down from between 800 and 1,100. Are we to believe that the B.C. Buildings Corporation has absorbed those people? Are those people now in the B.C. Buildings Corporation scheme of things, or what happened to them? When you're answering, maybe you could indicate how many of them had accepted severance pay. How many had just given up because they didn't feel they could pursue the career that they had started in the manner which they had thought when they became public servants, so they have just accepted severance pay and retired? How many of them were in the category of 55 years of age or over and are accepting early retirement? Also, could you indicate if any of them are in limbo, as I think the member for Oak Bay was suggesting, in terms of being retrained, or off to school, or someplace getting ready for some other occupation at the expense of the public?

HON. MR. FRASER: Getting down to this figure, none of them have been affected by this package we've been talking about. There has been a hiring freeze on in Public Works for over two years, as I understand it. The prior administration put it on, I believe, in 1975 and we haven't taken it off. Normal attrition has accounted for that. None of them have had this packaged to them or anything. It's normal retirement, leaving the job voluntarily, and so on.

Your further question was about retraining. None of them accepted retraining. The reduction has been caused by normal attrition and the hiring freeze.

MR. BARNES: In other words, these people have just quit. They didn't even get severance pay.

HON. MR. FRASER: That's right.

MR. BARNES: It's just normal attrition. What's the ratio of normal attrition?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, there is always a normal attrition rate, I understand, of about 20 per cent.

MR. BARNES: This'll take a little calculating to nail it right down. But on that basis, if you had, instead of moving to the new B.C. Buildings Corporation in one year, projected it over five years, you wouldn't have even had to get everybody uptight. They would have all just disappeared anyway and you wouldn't have had to have anybody worrying about getting laid off.

I don't know about that 20 per cent rate. You're saying that out of the 1,100 to 800 people you were worried about, you're now down to 735 and nobody's been laid off. They've just quit. No one's received any severance pay. Now that was an option that they would have had. Are you counting all of the people in the public service who may have been in some other category besides the one that we are talking about? I don't know. Maybe you should explain. It seems to me that there should have been some of these people who have opted for severance pay, who are getting rehabilitation training, or who have accepted early retirement. Don't you have any figures so that we can see exactly whether you're talking about an actual attrition rate of 20 per cent or maybe 15 per cent?

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, Mr. Chairman, none of them accepted or asked for severance pay, as I understand it. They either took retirement or they just quit; maybe they even passed away. But it's been reduced by that amount. Maybe on a larger scale -and I think I said it in the main estimates - I believe the turnover.... This is, by the way, in Highways and Public Works that we're talking about. In the overall, I understand that there's a turnover of 700 people a month in the public service of British Columbia.

MR. BARNES: I'm not going to belabour it. I would just tell the minister what a shame it is that we had to go through all these fast moves, when with another year or two everybody would have been gone and you wouldn't have had to have everybody upset. Because I can assure you when the people find out that you're not going to contract out the maintenance work or security in this building, they're going to be very happy. I've been talking to quite a few of them and they're very worried, because somewhere there's a lack of communication. People are uptight when there's nothing to worry about. The government had nothing in mind at all, except to see that everybody's interests were taken care of.

I really don't understand why the move had to be so abrupt, especially in light of the figures you're giving - 700 people a month are quitting the public service.

HON. MR. FRASER: The total public service.

MR. BARNES: Total, yes; not just in Highways and Public Works. I believe that's part of the government's policy though - to put a freeze on hiring. I suppose those numbers that would normally be hired are included in that 700, so we'll have to do some calculating to see how many jobs you've just

[ Page 4680 ]

knocked out by not hiring anybody. Maybe what's happening is that those people who were going to be laid off are now filling in where you're not hiring, through some kind of shifting within the system, Because it was a known fact that this government was opposed to allowing the public service to assume too much responsibility for carrying on the activities that should have been in the realm of the private sector. Right, Mr. Chairman?

AN HON. MEMBER: He's out of order.

MR. BARNES: That's in order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You'll have to continue with your own debate.

MR. BARNES: I think that's perfectly in order. Because what we're suggesting is that the B.C. Buildings Corporation, which will become a private corporation at the expense of the public, will be doing a better job in the public.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you are discussing the principle now.

MR. BARNES: No, we're not discussing the principle. We're talking about the transfer of employees from the public sector to the private. This is a matter which I think the public should understand. What I'm suggesting to the minister is that if he'd reviewed his actuarial charts and so forth, he would have known he didn't need to scare everybody, because they would just leave by normal attrition. They'd just disappear. All you have to do is wait three or four years, and say: "As the people leave, we'll slowly start this new corporation." Instead, they do it in one year and get everybody uptight, something like 800 to 1,200 people. The rest of them have to scamper and try to get red circled in order to hang on to what they're getting. The minister says they won't be taking a drop in salaries and we all know they won't be getting their increments either, especially if it's below what they would have been getting next year.

So I'm just suggesting that the minister is being very evasive in answering specific questions. He hasn't really explained how that 735.... He's just throwing out a 20 per cent reduction annually - or something like that - in terms of Public Works and Highways staff drop. We don't know what that breakdown is. I suspect that there are some statistics available; I don't know. Maybe the minister just doesn't have them. I don't know what he's doing, but I think that he should give us an explanation.

I think we should know, for instance, what kind of real security these 735 people, who still have to deal with their futures, have. What's going to really happen to them?

We could have a situation in this area very similar to what happened in Britannia with the Railwest situation. The whole town just dried up. People moved into town, they invested in homes and they got all ready to get the children in school and started developing their families. Then they found out they don't have jobs. They tell me that there's always been one place you could count on working once you got in - I guess this government's out to prove that's wrong - and that's the public service. Years ago, I used to work as a postman and I could always get credit, because I had a job with security. Now we find that even the public service isn't safe.

Anyway, that's the only question I have, Mr. Chairman. I don't have the answers, but I don't think I'm going to get them and I don't want to belabour the point. I just wanted to have it known on the record that it seems to me that the government was in haste when it moved so fast, because from what the minister said in his few answers, it was possible to have worked it over a longer period of time. People would not have had to be uptight. They could have carried on with their idea of wiping out a large sector of the public service and perhaps that would have been a more humane way of taking the step backwards.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): This section is the hidden agenda which was not in the original bill. I think it's very symptomatic and illustrative of the problem and, I think, the extent to which members in the House were perhaps misled with the original bill. One would have thought the original bill was not to do away with the Public Works employees as civil servants and to do away with many jobs within the Ministry of Public Works, but was an effort to bring some rational type of method of financing capital projects. We see in this section a very needless difficulty which has arisen, because I think the ministry has gone far overboard in terms of the aims and objectives of that Public Works corporation. Various powers were given to it, but we would certainly not have expected that they were going to try to completely annihilate the Public Works department per se.

I think public servants, and particularly those in the Public Works ministry, certainly deserve better treatment than they've had than to be subjected to this kind of uncertainty. I could only estimate the sleepless hours that have been spent by the people in this ministry who've been subjected to a form of harassment which I think is deleterious to health, well-being and security.

This certainly could have been avoided. The whole concept of a public works corporation could have been a very sound one in terms of what it could have done for rationalizing capital expenditures in this

[ Page 4681 ]

province, amortizing large capital costs of buildings, bringing about accountability between departments, and making departments accountable for what they're paying for. Instead we've seen that this has gone too far. It's led to this.

I would like to say while the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) is here, in terms of transfer of these employees, it's fine and good if a person is to get transferred from a place like Victoria to a fine place like Nelson, but if it should work in reverse it could be very unpleasant for the employee.

MR. WALLACE: Withdraw!

MR. NICOLSON: I think the member, Mr. Chairman, should be careful in how he refers to places like Prince George and some of these places. Some people have a different viewpoint as to which direction of moving is a penalty and which one is a reward. Some of us in the interior feel that maybe a move to the interior or to the north is a promotion.

MR. WALLACE: It was the cost of any move that I was thinking of.

MR. NICOLSON: Certainly the cost of any move. Okay. I didn't mean that too seriously, Mr. Member. Certainly it was a very good question that the member brought up, and I don't know that it was adequately answered.

I would just like to go on record as saying that the principle embodied by this section is just an illustration that the government has gone too far in terms of switching everything into a public works corporation. It's just an obvious attempt to hide the true numbers of a burgeoning public service when they were so critical of the previous government for growth of the public service.

MR. LEA: It's grown more with them than it did under us.

MR. NICOLSON: Certainly the size of government has grown in leaps and bounds under this government, the public works corporation being just one example, the Systems Corporation, and there will be a statistics corporation when it's found, probably, that it can't be done within the department and that they have to hire too many more people. They'll have so many more people that they're going to have to hide. This Act which we're debating is a result of the fact that we're having to hide the fact that this government has not done what they promised to do. There will be runaway growth in the public service, but it'll be much more difficult for members of this opposition to get answers about the size and the growth because this just won't be completely open to US.

1 must say that in the Nelson area people in the Public Works Ministry have had a great deal of uncertainty in terms of the fact that it was one time proposed that they be switched over to the Department of Education or community colleges, and that happened when we were government. This thing falling on top of it, I would like the minister to at least be aware that many, many couples, I would dare say, and many of your employees, have probably spent many anxious, sleepless nights, and many angry hours at union meetings trying to get answers, trying to get information, trying to know what is being done with their lives. For my part I am certainly not satisfied with the answers that were given.

Section 5 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 66, British Columbia Buildings Corporation Amendment Act, 1977, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Second reading of Bill 80, Mr. Speaker.

CREDIT UNIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, the bill presently before you is part of a continuing effort of this government to update and make more relevant the legislation of the province. Particularly in my own ministry we've been attempting to review all legislation in the commercial area in order to make sure that legislative provisions do not fall behind existing business practices and the lessons taught to us by experience.

We're all aware, Mr. Speaker, that the credit union movement in British Columbia has had a significant impact on the provincial economy. This government is determined to ensure that credit unions continue to grow and take their proper place in the economic life of the province. The amendments being introduced by this bill will allow credit unions to more effectively and efficiently take care of their business. Certain provisions will reflect the demands of participants in the credit 'union movement itself.

In section I of the bill, Mr. Speaker, the government is proposing an amendment that reflects existing business practices in other financial

[ Page 4682 ]

institutions - namely, that an application to withdraw all money on deposit from the credit union and to redeem all shares constitute a notice of withdrawal from membership to the credit union itself. The amendment provides, however, that where an individual credit union does not wish to follow this procedure the members may so specify in the rules of the credit union itself.

The government is also introducing an amendment that will allow credit unions to pay a rate of return on trust funds greater than the return on other funds deposited with them. This amendment, Mr. Speaker, will correct the situation arising out of a 1976 amendment to the Credit Unions Act, whereby it has been interpreted that credit unions were unable to pay a greater rate of return on trust funds than on other deposits.

Mr. Speaker, the credit union movement in British Columbia is, to a considerable extent, made up of family groups belonging to the same credit union. This family orientation is probably more true of credit unions than any other financial institution. It's not uncommon to find a number of members of the same family residing in the same household and all belonging to their local credit union.

The credit union movement, Mr. Speaker, has experienced extra expense and unnecessary duplication in the sending of several notices to its members in situations as I have described. The intent of the proposed amendment contained in section 3 of the bill is that a credit union may send one notice to a household where there are several credit union members residing. It will only be possible for the credit union to do this where the individual members have consented in writing to this procedure.

Credit unions of British Columbia have enjoyed considerable success in extending their activities into a wide variety of savings and investment plans. Under the present legislation, Mr. Speaker, the Credit Union Reserve Board has power only to guarantee investments, loans and this sort of thing in the credit union itself.

Sections 4 and 5 of the bill before you will give the Credit Union Reserve Board the power to extend guarantees where funds are invested in a central credit union or a corporation having objects similar to a credit union, and will further allow the board to make assessments against these other organizations for the provincial credit union share and deposit guarantee fund. It is important however, Mr. Speaker, to realize that no guarantee would be extended automatically. This is simply enabling legislation, and the Credit Union Reserve Board would still have to make its proper inquiries and investigations.

The way in which the Credit Union Reserve Board may act receives attention by section 8 of this bill. If the board finds it necessary on occasion to move on urgent matters, Mr. Speaker, this amendment will provide them with the power to specify their procedures in those cases. It may, for example, adopt a procedure that is informal in nature.

In the event of a person being aggrieved by the procedure adopted by the board, an appeal may be taken to the Corporate and Financial Services Commission. This bill also removes an anomaly in regard to credit unions declared to be under the supervision of the former Act. The existing provision does not adequately clarify how those credit unions may remove themselves from that supervision.

By section 9 of this bill, Mr. Speaker, provision is made for credit unions to advertise shares and deposits being guaranteed by the Credit Union Reserve Board.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 80.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to be brief because these are technical amendments and there is no need to hold them up. I just want to make some mention of what is coming down for the future.

There is the 10-year review of the Bank Act. I understand that there are some discussions and, in fact, some very serious arguments going on between the federal government and the provinces in respect to "near" banks - trust companies and particularly credit unions. There is one particular issue and that is that the federal government was asking the credit unions and the trust companies to hold their reserves in the Bank of Canada. I guess that protest was led very much by the province of Quebec and presumably all of the other provinces objected to it as well. It seems to be a further insinuation of the federal government into a provincial function.

No doubt over the next few months and possibly next spring we will be dealing with some more amendments to this Act in relation to what will be required for the credit unions to fit into the new Bank Act, if it comes down. I gather that will be in 1978 or 1979.

1 just wanted to make one observation about the credit unions. In their most recent report, just to cite a couple of examples of the kind of popularity that credit unions have in British Columbia, at the year ending December 31,1976, British Columbia had 176 credit unions with 668,000 members. If you compare that with Ontario, which has something like 1,200 credit unions with 1.6 million members, what is going on in British Columbia is an incredible expansion of the popularity of the credit union. Certainly if they are going to have the opportunity to become near banks - nearer to banking than they have been in the past - then that augurs well generally for the people in the province because one of the things the banks have usually lacked is some very serious competition.

It would seem to me that given the right kind of opportunities and the right kind of legislation, both provincially and federally, the credit unions can offer

[ Page 4683 ]

the kind of competition that might offset some of the horrendous - and I emphasize "horrendous" -profit pictures which banks are showing. The Bank of British Columbia just today announced an incredible earnings percentage over last year. The profits are up something like 70 per cent. What we're looking for, again in indicating to the free-enterprise party over there, is that if this free enterprise stuff is going to work, then there's going to have to be some real competition. It would seem to me that the credit unions are the ones that should be able to offer that kind of competition in the financial area. We look forward to that.

MR. WALLACE: I welcome these amendments. I think they were summed up in the minister's comments when he said that legislative provisions should not fall behind existing business practice. I think it's very clear from some of the comments which the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) has made, and from a great deal of the publicity which is appearing in the press and elsewhere, that credit unions have an enormous attractiveness as a service to the consumer. I have found the credit unions to provide a very personalized kind of service to the consumer in a way that, unfortunately, I can't say one finds in the banks. Even when you take your business away from the banks, the manager doesn't even seem to bother to find out why you took it away. I think if we're dealing with a free-enterprise government, or any group that's trying to keep legislative provisions in keeping with existing business practice, then we should be very sensitive to what the consumer feels is a sound and reasonable existing business practice, and it should be offered in the widest and most open kind of competition in the marketplace. That is why amendments to the credit union Act, in my view, will always be very welcome since they will give the credit unions opportunities to further enhance their service to the individual consumer.

Now the question I have about the amendments relates to the fact that the banks claim unfair competition. This matter was raised in an earlier debate, I think, and it relates to the suggestion that the legislation does not provide the same responsibility on the part of the credit unions to have a minimal amount on deposit as security against their liabilities. I would like the minister to comment on that because I notice, for example, that part of this bill relates to the capacity to advertise retirement plans I think it's section 9 of the bill - and there was quite a controversy Ionic months ago. I was involved in a considerable amount of telephone discussion with a member of the business that sells retirement plans under one of the investment companies. Their claim was that already the credit unions were advertising incorrectly. They were offering to the consumer in fairly large ads - in the greater Victoria area, at least - a type of retirement plan and claiming terms for that retirement plan which were misleading. Now this may be more a matter for the minister wearing his other hat than the hat that deals specifically with credit unions. If the minister feels that this is unrelated to the specific section of this bill, I will be willing to accept his opinion on that.

I am a little concerned, much as I admire the service of the credit unions, that we are debating amendments which may be giving them a greater opportunity to advertise retirement plans, when there appear already to have been problems in what the credit unions in the greater Victoria area have already done in recent months. Now that may be a specific episode which has been corrected. I won't say any more, but I hope the minister would comment upon it, because while I want to see the credit unions have every opportunity to provide a competitive service to the consumer, at the same time it's not fair that the banks or investment companies are going to in some way be penalized by not having exactly the same capacity to advertise in such important and expanding areas as registered retirement plans.

The last point I wanted to ask the minister, Mr. Speaker, was that he made it plain that one of the amendments allows the credit union to offer a larger return on trust funds than on other deposits. The actual amendment really uses the phrase "not less than." It in no way states that the credit union shall give a higher rate of return on trust funds than on other deposits. I wonder if the minister is aware that the full intent of that section is not clear. I'm dealing with the amendment to section 2. He may feel that we should deal with that in committee. I'll await his comments.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I would like to, if I may, comment for a moment on the remarks made by the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) . I think I should tell him and the House that we indeed are concerned with the federal government's amendments to the Bank Act, and as a matter of fact had thought of anticipating some of those changes by bringing legislation to this House. But it occurred to us that with the federal government's record on playing different games' and moving goalposts we might just be better off to wait and see what they did before we came to this House in anticipation.

I thought also, Mr. Speaker, that the member's remarks concerning the growth of the credit unions were most apropos. Perhaps the House would be interested in knowing that in 12 years the assets of credit unions in British Columbia have gone from

[ Page 4684 ]

$155 million to $2 billion, and that the Vancouver City Savings Credit Union is the second largest in the world.

I agree particularly with the comments made by the second member for Vancouver-Burrard, as also reflected by the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) , concerning the credit union system in British Columbia and its popularity, and I think it's safe to say that it reflects very adversely upon the banking system in Canada and very favourably on the credit union system. I think it also reflects a banking system which works very well in the United States of America - namely, a local banking system where the manager is somebody who is known and is in the community. I think that one of the basic reasons for the popularity of the credit union movement is that the manager and the loans officer are usually, if not native British Columbians, people who have resided in British Columbia and in the community long enough to know that community and know its aspirations and its needs, and have not just been transferred from someplace in eastern Canada or elsewhere.

The question of guarantee of funds of the credit unions and the obligations of the credit unions, of course, is what the guarantee fund of the Credit Union Reserve Board is all about. I think that I should also tell the House, if it is not already general knowledge, that our inspection branch has doubled in its numbers. We inspect on a basis that I think the House would be satisfied with - I'm certainly satisfied with it.

The question of advertising, which the member for Oak Bay raised, is dealt with in section 9 of the amendments. I hope this section takes care of the problem, which I think the member brought to my attention last year at the time the situation became a problem. Once again, Mr. Member, almost all of the statutes in my ministry are very much living statutes and have to be watched very carefully. If the amendment does not take care of the situation then we will have to make sure that proper amendments are brought in to see that the situation which came up last year does not reoccur.

Mr. Speaker, I think that I have covered the remarks made by the members opposite. I accordingly move that the bill now be read a second time.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be referred to Committee of the Whole House to be considered today, with leave.

Leave granted.

Bill 80, Credit Unions Amendment Act, 1977, read a second time and referred to Committee of the

Whole House forthwith.

CREDIT UNIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

The House in committee on Bill 80; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

Sections 1 to 11 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. MAIR: We got going so quickly there, Mr. Chairman, I think there are some amendments standing in my name on the order paper that didn't make it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I haven't seen those amendments.

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, we did that so quickly, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we could.... How do we back up? May we have leave to reconsider the bill in committee?

Leave granted.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 2 standing in my name on the order paper.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. minister, it isn't on the order paper. Could you read the amendment, please?

HON. MR. MAIR: I'm sorry. Section 2, line 4, Mr. Chairman ' by deleting paragraph (b) and substituting the following:

" (b) by striking out 'and the credit union is not required to account for any greater return on the funds than the rate paid on the other funds invested on similar terms and conditions' and substituting 'but the credit union is not required to account for any greater return on the trust funds than the rate agreed to be paid on them.' "

MR. LAUK: All amendments that are not on the order paper I'd respectfully request that the minister, through or by the advice of his staff, advise us as to the effect of these amendments. We haven't had an opportunity to study them if they weren't on the order paper.

HON. MR. MAIR: This is simply a refinement on the wording of the bill itself. I don't think that I can give any greater clarification than that. It's

[ Page 4685 ]

housekeeping only. I think if the member were to read the words struck out and read in that context the words put in, you would see that they are simply just that: a refinement of the wording.

MR. LAUK: Perhaps the minister will agree that we should deal with this with order paper amendments and that this matter should be raised in committee at another time.

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to doing that. I had thought the House had consented to deal with it today, but if it is going to cause a problem certainly we can move on to something else.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion would be to rise and report progress.

MR. NICOLSON: I would move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again-

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

Hon. Mr. Williams requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Committee on Bill 81, Mr. Speaker.

LIQUOR CONTROL AND LICENSING

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

The House in committee on Bill 81; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

MR. NICOLSON: It's incredible. The minister hasn't done any homework on this bill either. This is a very long section, Mr. Chairman.

I note that in the explanatory notes there's nothing on it, perhaps due to some misprint. The explanatory notes jump from section 10, 6, and then over to section 14, yet section 13 is probably the largest section in this Act. It says: "Sections 36 (3) to (5) are repealed, and the following substituted. . . ." It goes on for over a page. I really feel the minister has some obligation to rise and give us some information. If he prefers not to, well I guess his bill will just slip right through. But it deals with the general manager and empowers his officer or employee, referring back to section (3) , to take actions on "an order or decision that is requested by a person and is authorized under this Act or the regulations."

I think, Mr. Chairman, some of the members thought that I'd just picked this section at random, and that I hadn't read the bill. But I certainly did pick one of the very large, very important - and to me rather complicated - sections, and I wonder if the minister could elucidate. I kind of resent the jocular vein in which some of these hon. members treated my question.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, I'm not quite sure what explanation the member for Nelson-Creston wants, but this is a new appeal procedure which was dealt with, I think, at great length in my estimates - well, as much length as anything was in my estimates - and was dealt with also in second reading. If there is some particular part of section 13 that the member would like me to deal with or to try to put on the blackboard for him, whatever would suit him best, I'll be very happy to try to do so.

On section 1.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, just for your information, we have received the copy of the amendments. We've read them and we will not be opposing them.

AN HON. MEMBER: We're on Bill 81.

MR. LEVI: Aren't we on Bill 80?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, Bill 81.

MR. LEVI: I apologize. I withdraw my remarks.

Sections 1 to 12 inclusive approved.

On section 13.

MR. NICOLSON: I think this is the core section of the bill. Would the minister perhaps give some explanation of this?

HON. MR. MAIR: I'm sorry, which section?

MR. NICOLSON: Section 13.

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: I would have thought we might get some free legal advice on this, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. MAIR: With respect, Mr. Chairman, I

[ Page 4686 ]

would have thought that all of the free legal advice the member would want was sitting to his left. I would hardly be called upon to provide that.

MR. LAUK: It's not free!

MR. NICOLSON: It's not free.

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, it's worth what you pay for it.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I don't intend to delay the committee further, but I will just point out that there are 15 subsections under this bill, which obviously the minister hasn't read.

Sections 13 and 14 approved.

On section IS.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 15 standing under my name on the order paper.

Amendment approved.

Section 15 as amended approved.

Sections 16 to 19 inclusive approved.

On section 20.

MR. LEVI: This is the tenderloin section.

HON. MR. MAIR: This is the Oak Bay Beach Hotel section.

MR. LEVI: This really should be called the "Ontario immigration section." All those people being kicked out of Yonge Street are going to find their way out here.

HON. MR. MAIR: We've got all the ones from Bay Street; we might as well get them from Yonge Street.

MR. LEVI: Bay Street is another question, but what we're going to have here.... If we can be serious for a minute, what we've done here is - and some of this was covered in second reading -introduce the principles of censorship. But we're also breaking down what heretofore was a very generalized application of liquor policy vis-~-vis the entertainment thing. Now what we're doing is we're turning it over to the municipalities.

I'd just like the minister to expand a little bit on the kind of apprehensions that some people have. I realize we can always amend this thing, but that's another question entirely, depending on which municipalities do decide to take advantage of this section and go in for whatever kind of entertainment they want - different perhaps, from a neighbouring municipality.

For instance, it does say "municipalities and regional districts." Is there in any way recourse of a municipality to check with a regional district before it goes ahead, or is that simply where the regional district has that kind of power? For instance, what would happen in the GVRD? This becomes permissive in the sense of what particular municipalities want to do. While I'm not in favour of censorship - I don't think that that's anything that we should be dealing with - I think what we're going to get here is a mishmash of an application of this Act which could eventually result in severe embarrassment for the minister and for the government. So perhaps the minister might just enlarge on this particular area with respect to why he feels that it's necessary to give the municipalities this kind of power. What role does the regional district play where there is more than one municipality, like the GVRD, because it does mention it in here?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, I tried as best I could to tell the members yesterday why we feel it's proper to give the municipalities this power. I will try again, perhaps in a different way.

First of all, if you're dealing with obscenity and things of that nature, they are governed by the Criminal Code of Canada. It is always open to a peace officer or, for that matter, a citizen to bring an application to court under the obscenity sections of the Criminal Code of Canada.

What we're essentially talking about here is: who should establish the standards of entertainment that are going to take place within any particular area, whether it be a municipality or a regional district? Without attempting to deal with questioned standards of decency, we're basically dealing here with the type of entertainment that people in a give area want. Should that be determined by me, or my deputy in Victoria or some civil servant? Or should it be left to the people who are the closest to the situation and will have to put up with the noise, if indeed noise is part of that entertainment, and put up with the nuisance, if nuisance is part of that entertainment and so on?

I think we have great support in the municipalities and in the regional districts, and it seems to us that that ought to be a local decision. If you're going to impose a standard from Victoria, it seems to me that you are going to impose on the people of Prince George, Pouce Coupe, Kelowna, Penticton or Kamloops those standards that may be either higher or lower than they want. That decision ought to be left to the individual area in question.

Insofar as the question of regional district or

[ Page 4687 ]

municipality is concerned, it depends on who is handing out the licence. You're quite right that the GVRD would cover a number of different municipalities as indeed Thompson-Nicola Regional District does as well. Kamloops hands out the licences for establishments in the Thompson-Nicola Regional District if it is within that municipality, or it's the TNRD if it's outside and not in some other area. It depends on where the particular establishment is to be located as to which governing body hands out the licence and therefore attaches such conditions to it as they deem appropriate.

MR. LEVI: Just narrowing it down to the statement about the GVRD, has the minister been able to ascertain through his staff whether it will be the GVRD that will be the issuer of these licences? At the moment, as I understand it, the individual municipalities have this kind of control and presumably that will continue.

HON. MR. MAIR: I'm not as familiar with the geographical boundaries of the GVRD as the member probably is. Assuming that it is composed entirely of self-governing municipalities, it would be each of those municipalities that would make the decision. The Thompson-Nicola Regional District of course is composed both of municipalities and what previously was unorganized territory, so it is in a slightly different state. I understand that the GVRD is composed entirely of municipalities, so each one of the component parts would make their own decisions.

Sections 20 to 27 inclusive approved.

On section 28.

MR. LEVI: The minister explained yesterday, Mr. Chairman, using as an example the bulge that would appear on the person of young people - mainly juveniles, I think he made some reference to.

The kind of thing that I raised in second reading and I would like to raise with the minister again is the kind of problems that can arise from this. I used as an example the problems that flow from the police acquiring evidence relating to narcotics. Then you get into the business of how much force you use to obtain the evidence that you want or to search. If we get into this kind of situation we can have some incredible confrontations.

I am just wondering whether all of this is that essential; is it worth all of that kind of potential problem that we can get and that will flow from this. We know that in the drug field we have had deaths as a result of trying to.... I would hate to see us get into the position that because somebody feels it necessary to be able to search a person because they might have a bottle on them, we have to face the question of how much force we can use. God forbid anyone being killed as a result of this. One wonders if that kind of legislation is worth that kind of risk.

HON. MR. MAIR: I think it is useful to examine the opening words of the section: "An officer or peace office who on reasonable and probable grounds believes that liquor is unlawfully possessed or kept. . . ."

The circumstances under which a peace office could have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that liquor is unlawfully possessed are rather limited, because one is entitled to possess liquor in almost all conceivable forms and in almost all conceivable places, unless one happens to be a minor or one happens to be in a public place, or both. Now there may be other examples, but that's the one that most readily comes to mind.

If the member and I happen to be walking down Government Street with bottles of whisky sticking out of every pocket, it probably wouldn't be such a unique sight, I might say. But in any event, there would be nothing wrong with that. A peace officer would have no reasonable and probable grounds and he would be disobeying the law himself if he were to search us. But what this is designed to do is to give the peace officer, in the all-too-common situation, particularly involving juveniles, the power to stop what either has or is likely to become a very unpleasant situation by confiscating the liquor that is indeed contraband under these circumstances.

The old Liquor Act, as the member knows, contained such a power. The Liquor Act that is now in place obviously does not have the power, which is why we're talking about this amendment. We're instructed by policemen in general that this is causing them a great deal of difficulty. They're going to the Saturday night dance that is getting out of hand. They know it's getting out of hand because of liquor - perhaps drugs too, but certainly because of liquor. Yet, the juvenile is able to have a bulge of liquor sticking out of his jacket and the policeman is not able to do anything about it.

I like to think that we can rely upon our police forces in British Columbia to use good common sense and to only use this power when, indeed, they do have reasonable and probable grounds. If it turns out that I'm wrong, I will be very disappointed. But I don't think the police abused this power in the past when they had it, Mr. Member. I have every confidence that they won't abuse the power given to them again.

MR. LEVI: I understood that the previous legislation did not include the inspection on the person. I thought it was everything else but a personal search. I think that's the new departure here, isn't it?

[ Page 4688 ]

Or is it just similar?

HON. MR. MAIR: I do not have the old Government Liquor Act before me, Mr. Chairman, but it is my understanding that it did indeed give the power to the police officer to search. That power was taken away by the repeal of that Act through the proclamation of this particular Act and now, of course, we're seeking to put it back in.

MR. LAUK: This section is much more far-reaching than any other previous section in the old Government Liquor Act. I don't think we can say that we can rely on police officers and law officers to always, in every circumstance, be reasonable in the approach to enforcement of the law. Police officers may be inexperienced; they vary in experience and inexperience. Section 71 admits of a lot of mischief which I don't think the minister has really considered.

It's very important in society that young people respect the law. It's extremely important. I don't think it's appropriate to have young people respect the law out of fear. Because that's not respect; that's just fear. I don't think young people can respect the law if constables - young constables themselves very often - in enforcing such provisions, use it to harass individuals. I think the hon. minister, above most of his colleagues, knows how difficult it is for courts to determine after the fact what reasonable and probable grounds are under various circumstances. This is almost a licence to mischievous police officers to harass young people and parties where they may even imagine such things are taking place.

Under the provisions of the Criminal Code, I've seen where the use of the words "reasonable and probable grounds" have been interpreted very widely - as widely as the number of jurisdictions there are in British Columbia and as the number of regional areas in Canada - with respect to the interpretation of Criminal Code provisions that are similarly worded. I ask the minister to reconsider or to perhaps even withdraw the section and replace it with something else.

The old Government Liquor Act provided only that liquor that was visible and in the possession of a minor could be seized. Now there's nothing to prevent the seizure of any liquor in the possession of a minor, because it's unlawful for them to have it in their possession. You can seize it. That's not what this section does. You can seize it; you have to produce it as an exhibit. I can also see police officers running around the countryside seizing liquor and not laying charges. That's not desirable either. If the law is good enough to be a statute, it's good enough to be enforced.

There are two areas of mischief, and it really relates to your conception of a police officer as opposed to mine. My conception of police officers is that they vary in experience and responsibility. It's u p t o the Legislature to provide, in as-strict-as-possible terms in statute law, the kind of controls and guidelines that police officers should use. Remember who police officers are. They are law enforcers - nothing more and nothing less. When we mythologize about police officers as being quasi-judges on the street and we think they can handle the situation for us, we bring the law into disrespect. It's not the police officers who suffer so much as society itself.

I can see many situations where, for other reasons, police officers use these provisions for harassment, improperly thinking and confusing themselves into thinking that they're doing society good when, in fact, they're not. I repeat, you don't provide a framework in which young people can learn to respect the law by providing avenues for the abuse of the law and by allowing avenues for police officers to abuse the law to the extent that young people can be harassed.

I'm not speaking about hypothetical situations. I'm speaking about situations where even now in some situations police officers abuse the law. It's a breach of the law, and the court finds so and deals with police officers in those circumstances very harshly. I only raise that to indicate that the tendency is there. The situation does arise; it's not hypothetical. If you get a situation where the police officers say, "oh, reasonable and probable grounds, " you can enter any vehicle. You can do anything to harass young people. You can yard them out of a motor-vehicle in your constituency. You have young people too. You know how easy it is for police officers to mistake them for troublemakers only on image or on appearance and use these kinds of provisions to stop the motor-vehicle at the side of the road, yard them out as if they had no rights whatsoever and conduct a search, both personal and on the vehicle, that is humiliating and degrading to ordinarily law-abiding young people.

Young people are people. They are young citizens of this community and they have the right to protection of the law. You have opened up a great big area of abuse. I'm sorry that I did not notify the minister that I was going to speak on this section but I must confess that the wide application hadn't occurred to me.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Read the bill.

MR. LAUK: I've read the bill. The Minister of Labour just wants me to read the bill, but I think that this avenue is an unfortunate one. The courts are very wary of the similar provision on reasonable and probable grounds for impaired driving.

The federal House is so protective of the rights of

[ Page 4689 ]

search and seizure for the citizens of this country that they allow only in very exceptional circumstances the right to search without a warrant. Yet with a stroke of the pen, you are allowing an avenue for police officers to commit great abuses. It's directed clearly at minors, at young people in this province.

We have a tough enough time as legislators and as members of the bar in this province trying to encourage respect for the law as it is. It's not the fault of the law. It's the fault of the lawmakers and the law enforcers and society generally. But why open up an avenue of problems like this? The opposition is going to oppose this section.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with all the remarks made by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. I think we too soon forget what happened when we were young and the fact that there is harassment of young people by police officers every day. The Attorney-General can wet his lips and shake his head, but that happens every day.

MR. LAUK: Not in his class.

MR. LEA: Yes, maybe not in his neighbourhood, but it happens every day in my riding. It happens every day everywhere I've ever been.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Name names.

MR. LEA: Come off it! It happens every day. You can see it; you can drive down the street and see it happening. You can see some young person stopped because they've got long hair. That's the only reason they're stopped, because they look suspicious or because they don't have on $90 blue jeans - maybe only $20 blue jeans. It happens every day.

I'm going to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that this, as the hon. member for Vancouver Centre has said, is going to bring disrespect for the law.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Yes, a little sensitivity. I believe that if you put this through - that if the government insists that this go through the way it is - you are going to make a lot of young people have no respect for the law whatsoever, because they are going to be harassed. The mere fact that they come out of the house on Saturday night is going to be reasonable enough to suspect that they may have been drinking or may have a bottle of beer on them. Out of every 20 or 30 they stop, they'll get one.

I believe this is just an absolutely insane thing for a Legislature to do - to pass a section that's going to allow young people to be harassed for no reason whatsoever, and to grow up into adults who have no respect for the law. That's going to happen, Mr. Chairman. I think the minister knows very well what we're talking about.

HON. MR. MAIR: I appreciate the remarks made by the first member for Vancouver Centre and the member for Prince Rupert. I think this House has to make up its mind whether or not it's going to squarely face the juvenile drinking problem that is rampant in this province, and whether or not it's going to give the police power to attempt to put an end to it.

Now I'm very cognizant of the remarks made by the first member for Vancouver Centre. I practised law, as he did. I lived in a neighbourhood where police searched juveniles. I have been searched when I was a juvenile. I was searched apparently when they weren't allowed to do it.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MAIR: All right. My point is: if you're going to have mischievous police, as the first member for Vancouver Centre says, you're going to have them no matter what the law says.

MR. LAUK: No, you're not.

HON. MR. MAIR: Sure you are, and you know that you are. You just proved the point, Mr. Member. They were mischievous when the old Act was in place, according to your evidence, and they're not going to be any less mischievous now.

As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Chairman, I think the answer is this: there are good policemen and there are bad policemen. I think the vast majority of them are good policemen and will obey the law, but you're not going to change the odd bad one into a good one by making a law saying that he shouldn't do something. If he's going to do something mischievous, he's going to do it anyway.

I say, Mr. Chairman, that we must give the police reasonable power to try to put an end to a problem that is rapidly becoming as big a problem - if not bigger, with the juveniles - in our province today as drugs. That is alcohol. The only way we're going to do that is to give police these reasonable powers. I think it's an amendment to the Act which ought to be supported by all members of the House.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I have not heard an excuse like that for bringing in a piece of permissive legislation for police officers since I first attended law school. We were in first-year law school, on criminal cases, and some young law student told Mr. Justice Angelo Branca that you can't legislate morality.

I'll never forget what he said. He said: "Yes, there are people who are going to commit robbery and rape

[ Page 4690 ]

and violence and arson no matter what the law says, but that is no excuse for eliminating those laws against those offences." That's no excuse. This is a permissive situation, but it means the same thing. Simply because there are police officers who, no matter what the law says, will commit abuses, that does not mean this Legislature should sanction a very permissive section on reasonable and probable grounds and make this available to police officers who wish to abuse their privileged position in society.

HON. MR. MAIR: They don't wish to abuse it. That's silly.

MR. LAUK: Well, they are. I think, MT. Chairman, that the hon. minister is putting his head in the sand. He's avoiding the facts, and his own life experience that he should know about.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Would the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) either take his place or go home?

MR. LAUK: I find the Minister of Labour very entertaining, Mr. Chairman. He's one of the most entertaining minister of the Crown.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): He is not!

MR. LAUK: He is. He's very entertaining. I don't think he has stood in his place to speak more than three or four times in the entire session, which is one of the longest in the history of British Columbia . . .

MR. LEA: He hasn't shut his mouth for three minutes.

MR. LAUK: ... but he has spoken more than any other two members put together. He speaks from his seat, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Section 28, please.

MR. LAUK: I do want to impress upon the minister that I think he's making a terrible mistake by bringing this section in. Do you think you are going to solve the juvenile drinking problem in this way? By police harassment? I know you're not old enough to remember the Prohibition days in the United States, but do you remember "The Untouchables" on television - Robert Stack and all the rest of them, and all the mythology that went around then? Apart from making the Mafia rich, powerful and well organized, the law against drinking in the United States didn't do a damn thing.

AN HON. MEMBER: It won't happen in West Vancouver or Point Grey, that's for sure.

MR. LAUK: I'll tell you what this will do. This will be very unfortunate for those of us who are trying to raise children in the City of Vancouver, and in jurisdictions in this province. We'll have some young policemen not as experienced as the majority, and I - agree with the minister about the majority; that's not what I'm talking about. We don't make laws for the majority of people, because the majority of people don't commit robberies, don't commit abuses. We make laws for those exceptions who break the law, who wish to abuse it.

You may want to raise teenagers in this community, and one bad policeman can turn young people against the law and cause disrespect for the law. You know that. They're very impressionable. Now what it did to you was a positive thing; you decided to become a lawyer to protect yourself and others. That's what a lot of people do, and that was a good thing. Perhaps we should go back to that policeman who conducted an illegal search of your person, and thank him very much on behalf of the public of British Columbia, because it has brought you into public service. However, most people don't react to that kind of harassment in the same way, and I think that the minister should really reconsider and withdraw section 71.

MR. LEVI: I've gone along fairly well with this minister on most of the things he's done but I can't go along with this one, particularly as he gives the reason for this particular section as containing the drinking habits of juveniles. It's all very well for those people across the way to bang their desks when people say the police are doing a good job. That's true, but when are we going to stop saddling the police with some of the social problems that we have?

If you think for one minute that this is going to assist us in the fight against alcoholism or drinking among juveniles, you must be eating some kind of pot. It's ridiculous. That's the kind of attitude that we had with the business of pursuing for 40 years the heroin question, with reasonable powers of search and seizure, and how much you can choke a guy to get the evidence. If that's the reason you give, then you're wrong, because that's the kind of thing that's been tried for 40 or 50 years.

All of a sudden they've just discovered that there's a drinking problem with juveniles? We've had drinking problems in this country for 100 years and we'll probably have it for another 100 years. Because 80 per cent of the people in the province who drink are able to drink without getting into trouble. This one is the classical confrontation thing. What has happened? We've had no problems in respect to this other than the police tell us that they can't apprehend juveniles. The first member has already

[ Page 4691 ]

said that if you want to seize the liquor, you can seize it anyway; for a juvenile it is an offence. Why is there suddenly an impelling need to put this kind of a section in there? Is it because the minister tells us that this is going to be a partial answer to the juvenile drinking problem? Well, that's not terribly realistic, Mr. Minister, and you know it.

HON. MR. MAIR: I didn't say that at all.

MR. LEVI: You didn't say that? You said that one of the reasons you want this section is to remove those bulges from juveniles, the bulges being the bottles that they have, and it also relates to the question of the juvenile drinker. You say it is an ever-growing problem. Well, I doubt that it's an ever-growing problem. It's there, it will stay there till they go from being juveniles into adults, and then another group will come along and they'll go through the same kind of experience.

You have not put any evidence before us. There is no evidence juvenile drinking is any worse today than it was 15 or 20 years ago. But that's the reason you give - and that's wrong, because that will simply set up a confrontation situation. It will make no contribution to the resolving of the problem. It's a very unfortunate section.

I hope that over the next several months, if it's passed, that we don't have some kind of victims as the result of this kind of confrontation, which we haven't had for quite some time.

Section 28 as amended approved on the following division:

YEAS - 22

NAYS - 13

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

Sections 29 to 34 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 81, Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act, 1977, reported complete with amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Leave granted for divisions to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, by leave, I move we proceed to committee on Bill 80.

Leave granted.

CREDIT UNIONS AMENDMENT ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 80; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

On section 2.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, I move that section 2 be amended by deleting paragraph (b) by striking out - "And the credit union is not required to account for any greater return on the funds than the rate paid on the other funds invested on similar terms and conditions" - and substituting: "But the credit union is not required to account for any greater return on the trust funds than the rate agreed to be paid on them."

Amendment approved.

Section 2 as amended approved.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

On section 5.

HON. MR. MAIR: On section 5, Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendments:

To fine 4 by deleting from the proposed section 137 (3) the words "or central credit union", and substituting "a central credit union or corporation having objects similar to a credit union."

And in section 5, line 8, Mr. Chairman, by deleting from the proposed section 137 (4) ....

[ Page 4692 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, one amendment at a time, if you will.

HON. MR. MAIR: I'm sorry, I thought it was the same section. It's a different subsection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, it's on the same section, but only one amendment.

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. MAIR: And section 5, line 8, Mr. Chairman, by deleting from the proposed section 137 (4) the words: "or a central credit union", and substituting "corporation or central credit union".

Amendment approved.

Section 5 as amended approved.

Sections 6 to 11 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 80, Credit Unions Amendment Act, 1977, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 49.

COMPANIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

On section 1.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

On section 2.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 2 as amended approved.

Sections 3 to 8 inclusive approved.

On section 9.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 9 as amended approved.

Sections 10 to 12 inclusive approved.

On section 13.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 13 as amended approved.

Sections 14 to 22 inclusive approved.

On section 23.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 23 as amended approved.

On section 24.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 24 as amended approved.

Sections 25 to 31 inclusive approved.

On section 32.

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

Amendment approved.

[ Page 4693 ]

Section 32 as amended approved.

On section 33.

HON. MR. MAIR: I move the amendment to subsection (a) standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. MAIR: I move the amendment to subsection (b) standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 33 as amended approved.

On section 34.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 34 as amended approved.

On section 35.

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

On the amendment.

MR. LEVI: What's the purpose of going back to August, 1976, just as a matter of interest? The commencement is retroactive to August 13,1976.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why would you ask a question like that at 5 to 6?

MR. LEVI: I move the committee rise and report progress so he'll have time to check on it.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.

[ Page 4694 ]

APPENDIX

49 The Hon. K. R. Mair to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 49) intituled Companies Amendment Act, 1977, to amend as follows:

Section 1, lines 1 to 13: By deleting section 1 and substituting the following:

"S.B.C. 1973, c. 18, s. 1.

1. Section 1 (1) of the Companies Act is amended

(a) in the definition of "charter", by striking out "or amalgamated, " and substituting ", amalgamated, or continued, "

(b) in the definition of "debenture", by adding after, but not as part of, paragraph (c) "but does not include negotiable promissory notes maturing not more than one year after the date of issue;",

(c) in the definition of "extra-provincial company", by inserting "continued under section 3713 or" after "corporation",

(d) in the definition of "Federal company", by inserting "or continued by or under an Act of Canada and not discontinued" after "incorporated",

(e) in the definition of "proxy", by striking out "pursuant to section 174",

(f) in the definition of "reporting company", by adding ", other than a corporation continued under section 37B, " after "Act of the Legislature",

(g) in the definition of "separate resolution", by inserting "or series" after 64 particular class", and by inserting "or series meeting" after "class meeting",

(h) by inserting the following after the definition of "separate resolution":

"series meeting" means a meeting of members who hold shares of a particular series;

(i) in the definition of "special rights or restrictions", by striking out "or class" and substituting ", class, or series",

In subsection (8) , by striking out "incorporated otherwise than by or under an Act of the Legislature".

Section 2, lines I to 4: By deleting section 2 and substituting the following:

"s. 18.

2. Section 18 (1) and (3) is amended

(a) by inserting "or 'Limitée' " after "Limited",

(b) by inserting "or Incorporée' " after "Incorporated", and

(c) by inserting "or Ltée' " after "Ltd. By adding after subsection (3) the following:

"(4) A company may set out its name in its memorandum in

(i) English form, or

(ii) French form, or

(iii) English and French form, or

(iv) a combined English and French form and it may be designated in that form.

"(5) A company may, for u se outside Canada, set out its name in its memorandum in any language form and it may be designated in that form outside Canada."

Section 9 (b) , line 2: By deleting "trustee in bankruptcy, or".

By inserting after section 13 the following as section 13A:

"s. 73.

"13A. Section 73 is amended by adding the following subsection:

"(8) A mortgage registered under this Act by a corporation before it was continued under section 37B and in respect of which no memorandum has been entered on the register under section 81 (1 ) continues to be registered in accordance with this Act, notwithstanding the continuance of the corporation under section 37B."

[ Page 4695 ]

Section 23: By deleting the proposed section 248 (1) (a) and substituting the following:

"(a) not less than 10 per cent of the shares of a company who are entitled to vote on them and who voted, in person or by proxy, against the special resolution referred to in section 245 or 246, other than as a nominee for a person whose proxy required an affirmative vote, or."

In the proposed section 248 (1) (b) , lines 5 and 6: By deleting "did not, in person or by proxy, vote in favour of" and substituting "voted, in person or by proxy, against".

In the proposed section 248 (1) (c) , lines 6 and 7: By deleting "did not, in person or by proxy, vote in favour of" and substituting "voted, in person or by proxy, against".

In the proposed section 248 (1) , last line: By deleting "or this section." and substituting "or the resolution referred to in section 247."

Section 24: In the proposed section 249A (3) , line 4: By inserting "a" before cc return".

Section 32: In the proposed paragraph (of) , lines 5 and 6: By deleting "and the amalgamation agreement" and substituting "when it".

By inserting after section 33 the following as sections 33A and 33B:

"s. 278.

"33A. Section 278 (1) is amended by adding 'or' at the end of paragraph (e) and by adding the following as paragraph (f):

(f) a reporting company does not comply with section 162, ".

"s. 320.

"33B, Section 320 (3) is amended by striking out 'clause (a) or (b) of'."

Section 34, line 1: By deleting "section 331 (1) (a) " and substituting "section 331 (1) (b) ".

By adding after section 3 4 the following as section 3 5:

"Commencement.

"35. Sections 1 (a) (i) , (iii) , (iv) , and (vi) and (b) and 13A are retroactive to August 13,1976, and shall be deemed to have been in force on, from, and after that date."