[ Page 4723 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Human rights application to independent schools. Mr. Gibson –– 4723

Ammunition purchase by Provincial Secretary ministry. Mr. Cocke –– 4723

Sales tax on non-prescription medications. Mr. Wallace –– 4724

Revelstoke dam appeal. Mr. King –– 4724

Surrey Dodge investigation. Mr. Cocke –– 4725

B.C. Rail's debt service loss. Mr. Lauk –– 4725

Motor-Vehicle Amendment Act, 1977 (No. 2) (Bill 27) . Committee stage

On section 2. On section 3.

Mr. Wallace –– 4726 Mr. Lockstead –– 4729

Mr. Lea –– 4727 Hon. Mr. Davis –– 4729

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 4727 On section 4,

Mr. Mussallem –– 4728 Hon. Mr. Davis –– 4729

Report and third reading –– 4729

Motor-Vehicle Amendment Act, 1977 (No. 3) (Bill 40) . Committee stage

On section 1. On section 2.

Mr. Lockstead –– 4729 Hon. Mr. Davis –– 4730

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 4730 Report and third reading –– 4730

Commercial Transport Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 41) . Committee stage

Report and third reading –– 4730

Greenbelt Act (Bill 29) Committee stage

On section 5 amendment. On section 5 as amended.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 4731 Mr. Skelly –– 4732

Mr. Cocke –– 4731 Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 4732

Mr.Skelly –– 4731 Report and third reading –– 4733

Mr. Wallace –– 4731

Companies Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 49) .

Report and third reading –– 4734

Credit Unions Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 80) .

Report and third reading –– 4734

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

Report and third reading –– 4734

Summary Convictions Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 53) Committee stage

On section 2.

Mr. Macdonald –– 4735

Mr. Lea 4734 Report and third reading 4736

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 4734

Attorney-General Statutes Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 74) . Committee stage

On section 2. On section 12.

Mr. Nicolson –– 4736 Mr. Wallace –– 4737

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 4736 Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 4737

Mr. Wallace –– 4736 Report and third reading –– 4738

Mr. Macdonald –– 4737

Pesticide Control Act (Bill 46) Committee stage

On section 1. On section 4.

Mr. Skelly –– 4738 Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 4739

Mr. Nicolson –– 4738 Mr. Skelly –– 4739

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 4738 Mr. Wallace –– 4739

Heritage Conservation Act (Bill 77) Committee stage.

On section 4. Mr. Wallace –– 4744

Mr. Nicolson –– 4743 Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 4744

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 4743 Mr. Nicolson –– 4745

On section 11. On section 16.

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 4743 Mr. Nicolson –– 4745

Mr. Nicolson –– 4743 Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 4745

Mr. Barber –– 4743 Report and third reading –– 4746

Strata Titles Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 70) Committee stage

On section 1. Report and third reading –– 4746

Mr. Barber –– 4746

Mobile Home Act (Bill 34) Committee stage

On section 30. On section 47.

Mr. Wallace –– 4747 Mr. Nicolson –– 4749

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 4748 Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 4749

On section 39. Mr. Wallace –– 4751

Mr. Nicolson 4748 Report and third reading –– 4751

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 4748

Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 38) .

Second reading

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 4751 Mr. Macdonald –– 4752

Mr. Lea –– 4751 Mr. Lauk –– 4753

Mr. Nicolson –– 4752 Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 4754

Royal assent to bills –– 4755

Appendix –– 4756

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): In the gallery today is a friend of many MLAs, Mr. Bruce Torrance, who has come back to British Columbia from California with his mother-in-law, Mrs. Lillian Terri, from Hawthorne, California, and his two daughters Kelly and Corrine, who are returning to British Columbia with their father to go to school. I would ask the House to give them a very warm welcome.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are two visitors from the North Shore: Lawrence and Maureen O'Neill, who were married only last month and who are here in the Legislature to watch our daily lesson in togetherness. I ask the House to make them welcome.

Oral questions.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, there are no fewer than eight or nine ministers away today. I would ask leave of the House to delay question period until more ministers of the Crown can be here for question period. Can leave be granted?

MR. SPEAKER: I believe it's the custom of this House for the Speaker to ask leave to be granted on behalf of the member who has indicated he would wish leave. Shall leave be granted?

Leave not granted.

AN HON. MEMBER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Clerk did not call order for oral questions.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: No, I'm sorry, hon. member. The Clerk announced all questions by members before the point of order was raised. I took the point of order and replied to the point of order. The Clerk announced question period and I've recognized the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano.

HUMAN RIGHTS

APPLICATION TO INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Labour. Last Friday the Minister of Education (Hon Mr. McGeer) stated that if anyone was to "take strong exception to admissions policy at a given independent school, there is always the redress of the human rights legislation." The director of human rights seemed quite sceptical about that in the public press.

I ask the minister if he is aware of any section of the legislation under which an individual could file such a complaint against an independent school.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question. I've asked for a report on that aspect and I haven't received it yet.

MR. GIBSON: I'd like to ask the minister a supplementary question. When he receives the report, and should it turn out to be negative, would he consider filing retroactive legislation to last Friday to make the Minister of Education's statement accurate?

AMMUNITION PURCHASE

BY PROVINCIAL SECRETARY MINISTRY

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I'll ask the Provincial Secretary a question. The Provincial Secretary has now informed the press that her ministry purchased one million rounds of small arms ammunition as practice ammunition for the police. She made the point that two previous governments had made similar purchases. Does the minister see anything wrong in this type of purchase?

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the phrasing of the question isn't correct, but I wouldn't mind responding to it. The provincial emergency programme has at the RCMP stores, material for the aid of the provincial emergency programme through the auxiliary police departments. In this case, as with the last government and the government before that, they have stored all of the ammunition at the RCMP depot in the Victoria area.

The amount in the particular case that was questioned yesterday, I believe, was one million rounds. There was a 25 to 50 per cent saving in purchasing that ammunition in two lots, and that was why the large quantity was purchased at that time. That's not the first time they have been able to accumulate that much in the stores, but it is the first time they have been able to effect a savings of 25 to 50 per cent on the purchase price.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, will the minister assure the House that her fantasy of a secret policy force will not now be realized?

[ Page 4724 ]

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): That's argumentative, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: That doesn't require an answer.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the minister was minister of the Crown once before and also made charges in between her periods in government. I would just like her assurance that her fantasy will not be carried out. Or, would she like to apologize for the charges she made while we were governing?

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Provincial Secretary. Was the minister aware, when she was a Minister Without Portfolio in the previous Social Credit government, of the purchases of this ammunition?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Out of order.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): You're not the Speaker, Garde.

HON. MR. GARDOM: He's out of order!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the member for Vancouver Centre has asked me of my awareness of the provincial emergency programme. Yes, I was aware of the ~ provincial emergency programme, but not of the specifics of that programme, other than the Air and Sea Rescue, which I had some information on at that time.

SALES TAX ON

NON-PRESCRIPTION MEDICATIONS

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Finance. We wanted more specific details yesterday with regard to provincial sales tax and the fact that it is not applied to candies and soft drinks, but is applied to medications which do not require a physician's prescription. Since such medications as antacids, minerals and vitamins are essential for many elderly and handicapped citizens who no longer receive these medications under Pharmacare, can I ask the minister if he's been aware of this obvious discrimination against persons with valid medical needs, while junk food such as candy bars and soft drinks are tax free?

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I believe the member has referred previous cases of so-called anomalies in the sales tax application to me which of course altered the picture when Pharmacare came into place on certain items. I'd prefer it if he directed this to me by way of correspondence and I'd be glad to deal with the matter. But I know that the entire matter covering certain items of sales tax exemption is under review.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for that answer, but I wonder, since the need is more urgent perhaps than should be decided by correspondence. . . . I'd like to ask the minister a supplementary. Has he had recent discussions with other cabinet ministers, such as the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) , who is perhaps more aware than others of the consequence of changes in Pharmacare and the fact that this difficulty involved in paying sales tax on what happen to be medical needs by the handicapped and senior citizens, who would be very grateful for some fairly urgent attention, and action, hopefully, on this issue? Has he had these meetings with the Minister of Human Resources?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, the matter of sales tax application to a variety of medical items has been a matter of discussion with both the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) and the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) . I would encourage the member to direct any specific anomalies that he sees to me.

REVELSTOKE DAM APPEAL

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Labour. Over two weeks ago, during the consideration of the Ministry of Labour estimates, the minister indicated that a decision would be handed down on the Revelstoke Dam appeal. I want to ask the minister, since that's over two weeks ago, what the delay is now, and when a decision may -be expected with respect to the Revelstoke Dam.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Soon.

MR. KING: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, that answer may be humorous to some members on the government's side, but in light of the fact that many businesses in the city of Revelstoke are left holding the bag in terms of investments, it would be necessary to accommodate a large influx of workers if the dam proceeds. Does the minister not feel that it's fair, and very urgent, that they be taken into the confidence of the government, to determine whether the project will go ahead or not?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, that is fair. The matter is urgent, but because of the very significant interest, as expressed by the member for Revelstoke-Slocan, the committee is taking the utmost care reaching its decision, which will have wide-reaching consequences, not only for Revelstoke,

[ Page 4725 ]

but for the entire province.

SURREY DODGE INVESTIGATION

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) in this House said that all pertinent documents with respect to the Surrey Dodge case would be made available to public accounts. Would the Minister of Finance assure the House that the voucher for the sales tax on the Surrey Dodge Mustang sale registered in Golden, B.C., on April 23,1976, be made available?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, the member asks a specific question of a sales tax item, which does, as I recollect, pose a question regarding the Sales Tax Act itself. If I am not mistaken, the Act precludes public disclosure of individual sales tax returns. In other words, I would have to view very seriously the implications of that Act, in terms of that kind of individual disclosure, notwithstanding the desire for this information. There is protection against the disclosure of individual returns under the Sales Tax Act.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, normal contact was made by the opposition to the Ministry of Finance requesting this material. I understood that the minister himself must have been aware of that contact by the opposition. Was it the minister's instruction that halfway down the process of getting that information, the information was blocked from being forwarded to the opposition?

HON. MR. WOLFE: The answer is no.

MR. BARRETT: Will the minister then pursue this matter and report to the House as to whether a normal procedure of gathering information has in any way been violated in this particular request by the opposition for this information?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, no, but I would be quite prepared to examine the request, which is a specific one, and report back to the House, both on the implications of the disclosure which, I might say, is protected under the Act against individuals and their sales tax return, and on the individual information on the case that you mentioned.

B.C. RAIL'S DEBT SERVICE LOSS

MR. LAUK: This question is to the hon. Minister of Finance. With reference to British Columbia Railway's announced $1 million per month debt service charge loss - that is, interest payments lost -due to the government's decision to close down construction of the Dease Lake line, can the minister inform the House if the government intends to deduct that $1 million per month from the $54 million that you have received from the federal government for the Dease Lake extension?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member, in referring to the $1 million so-called loss, is confusing that with what is really an ongoing expense item associated with the debt of B.C. Railway. Instead of being charged to the capital project involved it is now transferred to the operating cost of the railway. What I'm trying to say, Mr. Speaker, is that I don't think the word "loss" is appropriate, as much as a transfer and accounting charge for the interest debt.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. LAUK: I want to clarify something for the chartered accountant and Minister of Finance. The financially troubled B.C. Railway revealed Wednesday that interest charges on funds borrowed for the recently aborted Dease Lake Rail extension.... It is not the total rail debt service charge, it's on the extension. Each month that it is delayed costs us $1 million. Is that going to be deducted from the federal payment of $54 million? If not, does the government intend to reimburse the railway in whole or in part for this loss from the railway's general revenue?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that I don't accept that it amounts to a $1 million loss.

MR. BARRETT: Where will the money come from?

MR. LAUK: It seems to me that the railway board knows this and the railway board has said so. If the minister will accept that it is $1 million a month, will he advise his government to pay the $1 million to the railway? The railway can't afford it, and the government made the decision to shut down the line. Will the government reimburse the railway for this debt service loss?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, with respect, there is legislation on the order paper covering this very matter.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Here comes the former financial wizard!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, will the minister inform this House whether funds will directly or indirectly come from general revenue to make up this

[ Page 4726 ]

loss of the B.C. Rail?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to debate a bill that is before the House that indicates that there is a transfer of a specific amount from the provincial government revenues from the federal government over to the railway. The matter will be dealt with under that heading, I'm sure.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege to point out to the House and to ask your advice, sir, on the absence of the hon. Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) who, it was revealed last week, is absent in Norway on a trip regarding private business not related to the business of this House, and certainly without the authority of this House to be absent.

The matter of privilege I refer to is the fact that there are bills on the order paper under the name of the Minister of Education, bills which have been referred to a committee of this House. Certainly the House is being impeded in terms of dealing with those bills in the absence of the minister.

I reiterate that the minister is absent on private business without the authority of the House. Accordingly, I would ask you, sir, to indicate and advise the House whether a prima facie case of contempt of the House exists with the respect to the minister's unauthorized absence on private business.

MR. BARRETT: He's a cabinet minister who's being paid by the taxpayers....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Replying briefly to the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan, I've heard the request that you've put before the Speaker. I will certainly investigate the matter to see if, in fact, there is a matter of privilege involved.

It occurs to me that members are from time to time absent from this chamber. There is a provision, as I recall, within the Act that when the hon. members of the House sign an affidavit respecting their attendance in the House, at that time they declare the numbers of days they were absent from the House. If the number of days exceeds 10, as I recall, there may be a deduction from their stipend as a result of that if they're absent without leave, hon. member. But I'm prepared to look into the matter of privilege that has, been raised by the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan.

~ MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, there's one point I neglected to make as there was some noise in the House at the time. Part of the problem is, as I pointed out, that there are bills in the charge of the minister. There is no indication as to when the minister will return and when the House can resume its normal business in terms of dealing with that legislation which has been referred to committee.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I told you that. Order!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member made that point when he was first on his feet.

MR. KING: No, I didn't, not with respect to the lack of any indication as to when the House can take up consideration of those bills in the minister's absence.

MR. BARRETT: You don't even know the date yourself.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Orders of the day.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I move the House proceed by leave to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 27, Mr. Speaker.

MOTOR-VEHICLE

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977 (NO. 2)

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 27; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say briefly that....

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: I know that the Attorney-General has been reading today's Colonist when I talk about speaking briefly. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, no. I used to say it to you in the hall all the time.

MR. WALLACE: I just want to support the comments of the hon. member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) in regard to this section which removes any discretion to impose partial suspension of driving licences in the case of certain offences. I think the member for Dewdney was right on when he said that some of us could have our licences suspended and it would affect our livelihood very little, but certain

[ Page 4727 ]

other individuals would lose their job and it would indeed bring a great deal of hardship on their families, to a degree which doesn't apply to someone with another occupation or a bigger income who could well withstand the temporary inconvenience of not having a licence.

I wonder if the minister could just mention for a moment or two to what degree the courts seem to be in favour of this "all or nothing" attitude - that you either suspend it or you don't. In second reading, the minister mentioned that there are some practical difficulties in administering a partial suspension. I wonder if he could just tell us on this section whether there have been any discussions about alternative administrative procedures. It would seem to me that if a person in court has his licence partially suspended, would it not be quite reasonable to take away his licence and give him another, very distinctive type of licence that spells out that he can only drive his truck while he's working Monday to Friday, 40 hours a week, or whatever?

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) interjects that perhaps we should try a color-coded system whereby he can still maintain his livelihood.

Mr. Chairman, in second reading it seemed to be more an administrative reason that the minister gave for supporting this section than a reason based on justice. The law can fall unevenly on someone depending on their occupation or their wealth. It's not related whatever to the offence. If a doctor is charged and convicted of drunk driving, he can still practise medicine and make a very substantial income, but if a truck driver suffers the same guilty verdict he's in real trouble and, as I say, may lose his livelihood. If there is some reason other than administrative, I would like to know what it is and how valid a reason it is. If it is just administrative, I wonder if the minister would reconsider in the light of the comments the member for Dewdney made, and the comments that others made, in the debate on second reading.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Chairman, once again I agree with the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) , and the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) . I don't quite understand how the discussion around the courts has entered into this discussion, other than that I would imagine that the courts have made a recommendation to government, and the government has brought this in the form of legislation into the legislature.

It seems to me that we are getting things a bit backward. Obviously we should listen to any recommendation that the court has to the Legislature, but we don't necessarily have to follow those recommendations - government, or the Legislature. It seems to me that it may be inconvenient, and it may be hard, for the court, and the police forces, to deal with the legislation the way it is, but I think it's just a way to try and deal with it. If we go this other route it's going to be very unjust for a great many people.

I wonder if the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) , has, since the other day when it was first discussed in the House, had time to consider, or to reconsider, government's position on this legislation; or the Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Davis) ? The Attorney-General should be involved, too. I would imagine that there has been some discussion between the Attorney-General and the Minister of Energy on this question of the right of the court to recommend to government and the Legislature. It is not a must for us to follow those recommendations, when we have to protect the people of this province and make sure that they are treated in a just manner. I think the only way we can do that is to leave the legislation the way it is now and not to change it to make sure that there is an injustice carried out on our, the legislators', behalf. It would be an immoral thing, if an unjustice were to be carried out upon the recommendation, through legislation, of the members of this Legislature.

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications): Mr. Chairman, to a degree at least we're playing on words here. The word "conditional" has been removed from other sections of the Act, and this section proposed to remove it finally from the Act. In its place really is the word "probation."

For some years now there have been no conditional suspensions; however, there are instances where an individual has been convicted. It is in consultation with the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles that these amendments have been made as it is an administrative matter, and the superintendent has chosen to allow a return of the licence on a basis of a probationary condition. Assuming there are not further convictions or incidents, this individual, for example a trucker, can continue to utilize his licence to pursue his vocation.

We're really just playing with words. Conditional and probationary conditions are to a degree synonymous. So a difficult situation where the livelihood of an individual is at stake can be covered a t the discretion of the superintendent of motor-vehicles by the issuance of a probationary licence.

MR. LEA: I think we have maybe a little more of a problem than we think, because there was a case of a constituent of mine whose livelihood depends upon it. Upon writing to the superintendent of

[ Page 4728 ]

motor-vehicles, he was told that there was nothing, no way, and was not advised of the probationary aspect. I think what is happening, Mr. Chairman, is that there may be cases where people are not being advised of the full extent of the law. I think people are trying to streamline it for their own bureaucratic efficiency.

I think what we should make sure of in this Legislature through legislation, through regulations and through administrative practice, is that people do get the opportunity to have justice applied to their own particular and individual case, It's not being done. Nobody's blaming anybody; I'm not blaming government. It's just that I think we should straighten this out so that this is not allowed to go on. I had the correspondence come through my office, and never was that person notified by the bureaucracy that there were certain options that he could take.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Mr. Chairman, is the minister saying clearly that the superintendent of motor-vehicles has discretionary powers and may exercise them when he wishes? Because that is not what he tells us. We don't hear that from him.

MR. LEA: Not doing it at all!

MR. MUSSALLEM: He says he may not use discretionary powers. But if the minister will tell me now that he has that right, there's no question in my mind on this point.

MR. WALLACE: I just want to follow up that same point. The minister mentions that we're really playing on words, but one word in a piece of legislation can have tremendous impact. I'd like to know the meaning of the word "probationary" in the sense that the minister said the licence could be given back to the driver on probation. Does that mean the driver would only be able to use the licence for livelihood purposes, or would the probation extend 24 hours a day, seven days a week? In that case, I would suggest that we're going too far in the other direction because if someone loses a licence for pleasure and convenience, that in itself is a measure of penalty.

All I'm trying to say is that it should be uniform to each and every person who suffers that penalty. If the probationary solution is to allow the person to drive a vehicle both for business and pleasure purposes, then it would seem to me the use of the word "probationary" and going that particular route isn't very advisable either. I would have thought that a much simpler route would be to leave the judge the discretion to go only so far as allowing the person to continue on the job. But if it's considered important enough that there should be any invoking of the licence, partial or otherwise, surely that amount of invoking should be done on everybody, regardless of what their livelihood is.

If we're to use this probationary definition, then it seems that the judge will probably be, as seems to be the case, wishing to impose some kind of denial of driving privileges. If he can't do it partially then he'll take the whole lot from the driver. That appears to be what's happening - there is no discretion.

I wonder if the minister, in view of these points that have been raised by three different parties in the House.... This isn't a partisan issue. We're just trying to get, first of all, a clear definition of the minister's understanding of the Act and, secondly, some guarantee that whoever administers the Act, including the courts and the superintendent, has the same understanding of what the law provides.

MR. LEA: As far as one of my constituents go, I have egg all over my face. I'll bring the file privately to the minister's attention because I was fed misinformation, in my opinion, out of his department, and I passed that information on.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, we're talking here about the powers of the superintendent of motor-vehicles. We're not talking about a decision of the courts. This is to that extent an administrative matter. We're talking about the removal of a licence from an individual for cause.

Formerly that licence could be returned on condition, for example, that it was only used between certain hours for this person to continue to pursue their vocation. The probationary provision which has now been in effect in a number of other sections of this and other legislation sees a return of the licence to the individual, in a sense on a condition that there aren't further conditions of like type. But it is not limited, for example, to hours of work or such.

There have been no conditional returns of licence for several years now under any sections of the Act whatsoever. There have been a considerable number of returns of licences on a probationary basis. The hon. member for Oak Bay is pleading for uniformity of treatment; this completes the uniformity of treatment. You either have your licence or you don't. You can have the original licence you had returned on a probationary basis. It is in some measure conditional, but it is for all purposes. It is for all purposes, simply because the policing of a conditional licence, limited as to the purpose of the use of the licence for a period of time and so on, was administratively impossible. That's basically why the change is being made.

MR. WALLACE: Two final questions, Mr. Chairman. Is the minister confident that the , superintendent of vehicles is aware of the intent of the word "probationary" or the use of the

[ Page 4729 ]

probationary approach? The second question may be difficult for the minister to answer now, but would he take it as notice? Could he tell me or find out for me, let us say in the last two or three years in which the minister says this has been in effect, how many licences which have been suspended have been returned on a probationary basis? I'd be very interested to know what total number of licences have been suspended, let's say within the last two years. If that's a thousand or whatever, out of that thousand, how many have been returned on a probationary basis?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. The answer to the first question is, yes. I'll endeavour to get the number. My impression is that it is in the hundreds.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Just a very brief question to the minister on section 3, where the wording is: "The licence shall be suspended without a hearing by the court." I'm just a bit concerned that a driver's licence can be suspended without a hearing. Perhaps the minister would be good enough to explain that. On section 3, line 5, section (b) .

HON. MR. DAVIS: This change has been requested by the courts. The question the hon. member poses relates to the superintendent and not to a decision of the court. The purpose of the change is to ensure that the licence is picked up after the conviction, so that the person who is convicted doesn't walk away, not only leaving the precincts, but perhaps leaving the community with his licence and in a position to drive again. It's a matter of picking up the licence prior to the superintendent having to be involved. It's not a matter to do with the courts.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

HON. MR. DAVIS: On section 4, 1 move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, there is a further consequential amendment which should have been picked up at the time when notice was given re the original amendment, which would appear, when passed, on lines 9 and 20, and which substitutes - I believe copies of this amendment have been circulated - the words filed an appeal under the Criminal Code", replacing the words " . . . complied with section 750 of the Criminal Code."

Essentially, we have here in respect to both amendments - the original amendment and the consequential one - a broadening of the ground of appeal of the individual who is appealing a conviction. Now whether they're convicted under summary conviction or by indictment - it's adding "by indictment" - they can get their licence back during the period of appeal. It's a broadening of the grounds of appeal and the opportunity to have the licence returned to the individual.

Amendment approved.

Section 4 as amended approved.

Sections 5 to 7 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 27, Motor-vehicle Amendment Act, 1977 (No. 2) , reported complete with amendments.

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

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

Leave granted.

Bill 27, Motor-vehicle Amendment Act, 1977 (No. 2) , read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 40.

MOTOR-VEHICLE

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977 (NO. 3)

The House in committee on Bill 40; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, I have a very brief question to the minister. During the course of second reading of this bill - and it's primarily a housekeeping bill, as is Bill 41 which follows this and

[ Page 4730 ]

is very similar - the question was raised concerning the fact that the United States may be lagging somewhat behind Canada in the implementation of metric measurements and the metric system. Does the minister visualize perhaps postponing implementation of this Act until such time as all of us in North America are moving to the same system together, rather than Canada perhaps going metric on highways, speedometers and the rest of it - weights and measures, and the whole thing - and being followed perhaps five years later by the United States?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, essentially this decision has been taken by the government of Canada. Canada will be proceeding to metrification before the United States but the time lag, since the United States is certainly following, will be of the order of one year, or two at the most, and will not be more than that. In respect to speed limits, for example, it is intended that across Canada the speed limits be expressed on the highways in metric terms beginning September 1, this year. The United States date is August 1, next year. It's that kind of time lag.

Implementation of a number of our other measures, particularly in the categories of distances, weights and so on, are by proclamation and can be delayed to coincide with similar changes in the United States. Specifically in relation to speed limits, we're moving I I months ahead of the United States - that's the U.S. as a whole. I assume that Canada as a whole will have all the metric speed limits in place by this fall.

Sections 1 through 4 inclusive approved.

Schedule I approved.

On schedule 2.

HON. MR. DAVIS: In order to accommodate several municipalities whose lanes - I'm talking about back lanes - are wider than 6 metres, it is proposed to change the measurement "6 metres" to 'T metres" to cover all lane situations in British Columbia. That's the nature of the proposed amendment.

Amendment approved.

Schedule 2 as amended approved.

Schedule 3 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 40, Motor-vehicle Amendment Act, 1977 (No. 3) , reported complete with amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

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

Leave granted.

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

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

Leave granted.

Bill 40, Motor-vehicle Amendment Act, 1977 (No. 3) , read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 41, Mr. Speaker.

COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

The House in committee on Bill 41; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

Sections 1 to 9 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. DAVIS: 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 4 1, Commercial Transport Amendment Act, 1977, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed,

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 29, Mr. Speaker.

GREENBELT ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 29; Mr. Veitch in

[ Page 4731 ]

the chair.

On section 5.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Chairman, I propose an amendment to section 5 of the Greenbelt Act and I apologize for not having it on the order paper. Mr. Chairman, an amendment to section 5, line 2 by adding - and I will see that a copy comes over - by adding: ". . . other than land acquired by gift under the Green Belt Protection Fund Act, " which follows "greenbelt land".

MR. COCKE: Would you hold this section until such time as we've seen copies? It's certainly a beneficial situation if it's put on the order paper. Mind you, if what I heard is true, it sounds like a real improvement. But I just want to see the....

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Chairman, we appreciate receiving a copy from the minister, and I think this satisfies a number of concerns that our side had about this section of the Greenbelt Act, which, as it was previously written, allowed the member to eliminate land from the greenbelt without any reference to the people who had made the land available.

There is one other concern that we might have, and I'll make this known to the minister. I have another amendment myself and I'll send a copy over to him. But our party would be in favour of this amendment.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I haven't a copy but I listened carefully to the minister and I think it certainly meets the general thrust of the criticism which was presented in second reading.

I just would like to ask the minister a further question in relation to the effectiveness of this amendment. In 1974 - and I'm sure the present Attorney-General will remember this - under the Statute Law Amendment Act the Laws Declaratory Act was amended by adding section 44, a new section after section 43, which in effect said that any Act that would bind the Crown in respect of the use or development of land, or the planning, construction, alternation, servicing, maintenance or use of improvements as defined in the Assessment Act, does not bind or affect the Crown. I'm just interested to know, in light of that amendment and the Laws Declaratory Act, whether or not the amendment we're now debating, which appears to place some restrictions on what you can do with -gifted land.... Which of these two statutes prevails? Would it be the authority in the Laws Declaratory Act which appears to overrule any other Act or statute of the Legislature which binds the Crown in the use of land?

I raised this issue at the time that the amendment came in on the Laws Declaratory Act, and I don't recall ever getting a satisfactory answer. I just think it's vital now that we not be passing an amendment which appears to further the interests of greenbelt land protection, when in point of fact under the Laws Declaratory Act it looks as though the government can put itself beyond the scope of any restriction on the use of land if it should so choose.

I'll just read it quickly again: "An enactment that would, except for the section, bind or affect the Crown in respect of use or development of land does not bind or affect the Crown." I wonder if we could have an interpretation of which of these two statutes would prevail if the government should choose to change the use of land which was gifted as greenbelt land in the first place.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: To the member for Oak Bay, I'm sorry that I can't offer you the ultimate word on that because you've identified what in your mind seems to be a conflict or perhaps some type of authority of another Act which may be superior to this. Certainly the amendment, I believe, explains clearly that our intent indeed is not to dispose of or use greenbelt land which has been gifted to the Crown for purposes other than those as suggested or authorized in the transfer at the original time of the gift.

I can't offer you a legal explanation for your question. I can certainly advise the member that the intent is, as I have just explained, that land which has been gifted to the Crown as greenbelt land will be used for that purpose.

I can certainly advise the member that the intent is, as I have just explained, that land which has been gifted to the Crown as greenbelt land will be used for that purpose, and also by way of that amendment, will not be sold. Now it's possible that other Acts could pre-empt this Act, and perhaps an investigation would reveal that your concern is very real. It certainly is not the intent of this Act for that to occur.

MR. COCKE: On the amendment, Mr. Chairman, the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) was very explicit, and very critical, at the time the bill was introduced, and I certainly want to also thank the minister for having considered this matter. I thought at the time that the arguments were sufficiently weighty that they should be considered. I know I've been very critical of this minister from time to time, but once in a while, I guess, they can make it, and he certainly made it on this. I do hope that another amendment might just finish off this particular section, but we'll get to that. Certainly we approve of this amendment.

[ Page 4732 ]

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the minister's difficulty in answering my question, since it does involve another Act. There's little point in voting amendments in if they are really meaningless in the face of another piece of legislation which completely wipes out the intent of the section. I know the minister isn't a lawyer, but we've got the Attorney-General in the House, and I wonder if he would care to tell me, despite the minister's assurance, that this government doesn't plan to sell greenbelt land.

Does the Laws Declaratory Act permit some future government to say, "Well, we didn't make that commitment"? Section 44 of the Laws Declaratory Act says that the Crown can do what it likes with land. This is a very important issue because, if the Laws Declaratory Act is superior in its authority to all these other amendments we're passing, then we're all just wasting our time. I would like to have some opinion, and perhaps from the Attorney-General, as to the degree to which the amendment we're now debating might well be used, by a future government, to completely disregard the intent of this amendment.

My simple reading of section 44 of the Laws Declaratory Act, as a layman, makes it very plain that the government need not be bound, in its ownership of Crown land, by an enactment which, except for this section in the Laws Declaratory Act, would bind it. This amendment says that it would not be bound by any other enactment.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Our legal advisers advise us that the specifics in this Act, particularly the amendment, would take precedence over the generalities of any other Act. This could, perhaps, be open to some argument in law, but it is generally understood and agreed that the specifics in this Act would take precedence over the other.

Amendment approved.

On section 5 as amended.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I believe I tabled with you an amendment which I wish to move at the present time, that after the words "Lieutenant Governor-in-Council" in section 5 of Bill 293 the following words be added: . . . and after sufficient public notice and the public hearing." The minister has indicated, by a message to me, that he would be willing to accept the words and after public notice."

I think that lands in the greenbelt are not only lands that have been gifted to the Crown, or made available to the Crown, as the result of a bequest or some other procedure. Some have been added to the greenbelt inventory of the province by request of local government and by request of citizens' groups. These groups may not be aware of, or may not have any input into, the deletion of these lands from the proposed greenbelt register. Although there is provision under the Land Act, I understand, for a public hearing at the discretion of the director or the minister, there's no obligation on him to hold a public hearing, although I believe there's an obligation for public notice.

What I would like to do by way of this amendment is to protect the interest of those citizens' groups and local governments. Now I understand that local governments will get the referrals in any case on the disposition of the Crown land. They will not be informed. There is no provision for them to be informed on the fact that the land is being taken out of the greenbelt register or out of the greenbelt inventory, although there is that provision under the Land Act when the land is actually disposed of.

So I would like to see - and I hope that the minister will go along with this - some provision for sufficient notice and a public hearing so that the interests of citizens' groups who have requested purchase or acquisition of greenbelt land, and the interests of local governments, are protected when the government decides to delete that land from the greenbelt register. Perhaps the minister could respond.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, with due respect to the proposed amendment by the member, I believe that we could accept the consideration that "after public notice" be included in the section, as I indicated to the member. He feels by his statement that a public hearing would be necessary as well.

We could indeed hold a public hearing at the present time. Public notice presumably in the Gazette and also in the local papers would hopefully.... The purpose of the public notice would be to attract the attention of those persons in the area. I don't believe that under the Act now or under any other Act we are prohibited in any way from holding a public hearing. If we include a public hearing under this amendment, it then becomes mandatory to hold a public hearing in every instance.

It could be that the disposition of some greenbelt land could be of such minor proportions - it could be a fraction of a piece of land - that a public hearing as such may be somewhat redundant or even unnecessary. I respectfully suggest that public notice would indeed suffice in this instance. The numbers of times that greenbelt property has been disposed of are extremely few. I believe that public notice in the Gazette and local papers could indeed lead to a public hearing. If we were to dispose of any greenbelt land that was highly thought of land, then there's no question that we'd hear about it. I'm sure, as any

[ Page 4733 ]

government would respond, if we heard about it, we'd have a hearing.

So I think, Mr. Member, with all respect, that a public hearing may not be necessary in the legislation itself. Public notice could indeed bring about a public hearing in the event that we wish to dispose of some greenbelt land,

MR. SKELLY: It seems, Mr. Chairman, that what the minister is talking about is something along the lines of the public notice and hearing provisions under the Land Act now or under other Acts. If people object, a public hearing could be held. I would accept the rewording of the amendment, although I'm kind of relying on the Chair to instruct me as to how I can change that wording.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There are two possibilities, hon. member: one is that you can withdraw the amendment, or we can have an amendment to the amendment by notion.

MR. SKELLY: In that case....

MR. CHAIRMAN: You would ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

MR. SKELLY: In that case, I would ask leave to withdraw the amendment ...

Leave granted.

MR. SKELLY: ... and to substitute the wording proposed by the minister, that after the words "Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council" in section S of Bill 29, the following words be added: "and after public notice."

MR. CHAIRMAN: "After sufficient public notice"?

MR. SKELLY: "After public notice, " I believe.

Amendment approved.

Section 5 as amended approved.

Sections 6 to 9 inclusive approved.

On section 10.

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

On the amendment.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I wish to withdraw the amendment that I had on the order paper along the same lines as the minister's amendment.

I'd like to express the appreciation of our side to the minister for eliminating our major concern about one of the major deficiencies of this bill. With the addition of this section our party would be prepared to support this bill on third reading in the House.

Section 10 as amended approved.

Sections 11 and 12 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 29, Greenbelt Act, reported complete with amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

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

Leave granted.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, as most people realize, third reading is very seldom debated but you can debate the advisability of "now."

I just want to point out to the minister that because of his co-operation, we're only too happy to permit this bill to be read a third time now by virtue of the fact that he took some very considered opinions from the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) who did a fine job of debating the bill. We congratulate the minister and we're prepared to have it read a third time now.

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

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

Leave granted.

Bill 29, Greenbelt Act, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm just going to order each of those members a dozen roses, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 4734 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Is that allowable under the Constitution Act?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Gee, I don't know. Probably not, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to call report on Bill 49, Mr. Speaker, with leave.

Leave granted.

COMPANIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

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 49, Companies Amendment Act, 1977, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 80, with leave, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

CREDIT UNIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

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

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

Leave granted.

Bill 80, Credit Unions Amendment Act, 1977, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, by leave, report on Bill 81.

Leave granted.

LIQUOR CONTROL AND

LICENSING AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

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 81, Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act, 1977, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 53, Mr. Speaker.

SUMMARY CONVICTIONS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

The House in committee on Bill 53; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. LEA: I would like to move an amendment to section 2 of Bill 53. Mr. Chairman, it's section 2, Bill 53 - to delete section 2 and substitute the following: "2. Section 5 is repealed and the following substituted: 5. Unless otherwise specifically provided in an enactment, a person who is convicted of an offence is liable to a fine of not more than a certain percentage of his average annual income to be set by regulation or to imprisonment of not more than 6 months, or to both."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, it appears to be out of order in that any bill or order involving a penalty in the hands of a private member is out of order.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I accept your ruling but I would like to speak on section 2. 1 feel that unless penalties are applied uniformly to people who have broken the law, then justice is not being done. I oppose this section on the grounds that if you have a flat fine, then the higher the income, the less of a penalty the fine is. Obviously, if a person is making $5,000 a year and is fined $100 for an offence, it is a much different penalty than if you are making $50,000 a year and fined $100 for committing the same offence. I believe that it should be a percentage of your wages so there is a uniform application of the law in the penalty that's applied.

I would wonder if the Attorney-General would consider bringing in an amendment as a minister of the Crown to make~ sure that people are treated evenly under the law. A person will never be treated evenly as long as there is a dollar fine and that dollar fine is not applied to a percentage of that person's income. I would like to have the Attorney-General's views on this section, and whether he feels it's fair that a millionaire should be fined the same amount of dollars as a person who is working on the minimum wage.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I would like to respond, Mr. Chairman, to the hon. member's remarks. I did respond - I had forgotten whether it was you, hon. member, or other hon. members - during the debate

[ Page 4735 ]

in second reading, because the point came up at that point in time.

I'm the first person to agree that a fine is certainly not the most equitable of yardsticks. I don't think there is a person in this chamber who will disagree with that. I would, though, like to mention to the hon. member that the suggestion that he has raised has been given consideration in some other jurisdictions and it is a matter which I am prepared to look at. I say that without equivocation. I'm not too sure how effectively it would work in our society, because I would like to mention something to you, which one of your colleagues was unaware of during the debate dealing in second reading of this bill. There are really a larger number of discretions, open to the court today than there ever have been.

For example, I would commend you to the Summary Convictions Act, specifically section 57, where "no judge, after the date the Act came into force, shall order that a person be imprisoned by reason only that he default in paying a fine." When you follow the civil process of getting a civil judgment and then enforce the fine through the civil process, which becomes just like a civil debt, a judge will not make an order to take that type of direction unless he is satisfied that the person against whom the fine is imposed has sufficient means and ability to enable him to pay the fine forthwith. So there is a very strong protection built into our statutes at the present time.

Dealing again with the suggestion: we could have the perhaps ludicrous situation of people having an abundance of assets and not any income. Your suggestion would fall to the ground under those kinds of terms.

We have very broad protections under our Summary Convictions Act right now. Furthermore, under the suspended sentence provisions, the justice who suspends the passing of a sentence can prescribe as conditions of the recognizance that the defendant will make restitution and reparation to any person aggrieved or injured. This is a point that I think that is very important, because I think there has been rather a shift over the past few years - which is now, I'm very glad to say, turning the other way -whereby the victim was forgotten. I think society has to pay a lot more attention to the plight of the victim and we are doing that in this province.

We have a number of programmes - the restitution programme, the community service work order, and so forth - wherein the victim receives some degree of protection and assistance. The amendment is out of order, but for the reasons I have articulated now, I am not able to support your premise at this time.

M R. LEA: I understand What the Attorney-General is saying. It is difficult, under the best of circumstances, in a fine system, to have any equity. Possibly we should be looking at means of penalty other than fines altogether. I believe that you can't find any equity under a fine system until everybody is making the same wage, and under exactly the same circumstances, with the same payments out. This is obviously an impossibility, and undesirable, so the sooner we get away from a fine system for penalties for having broken the law, the better off we'll all be in society.

HON. MR. GARDOM: One remark, Mr. Chairman, I don't wish to take the time of the House, at this point, but there is something that I think we could give a lot of serious thought to, particularly in some offences, and I am thinking of the drinking-driving offences. If the fine proves to be an inadequate remedy in the event of a serious breach, maybe some form of social agency custody would be darned appropriate. I don't think it would be a bad thing to suggest that a person would ride shotgun with a police officer, or spend some time in the city morgue, or in an ambulance emergency, or working in a hospital. Then I think we have a better equality of approach to the thing, and that, of course, will help shift public attitude. That is what we wish to do, really, to change public attitude. We will always have criminals, we will always have people who break the law, but there always can be fewer of them.

MR. LEA: I know that when you're driving an automobile, and you have to pay a fine, when you're making good wages, you have a tendency to be a little more lax in your driving than if you're on a point system where you know you might lose your driver's licence.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. LEA: Obviously it works better than having the fine system to have a point system in driving charges, so it might work better to take other social sanctions, as opposed to money sanctions and other points of law.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): I just want to say a word on what the member for Prince Rupert has brought up. Many judges do examine the means of the accused person who has been convicted, and fine according to those means, but quite a few of them don't.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, they are supposed to.

MR. MACDONALD: They are supposed to, that's right. Far too often it's $350 for impaired driving, regardless. I hope that inquiry will increasingly be made by the judges.

I've got a technical question under this section.

[ Page 4736 ]

The new section 5 provided that if you break an enactment, you're liable for a fine up to $2,000. Now before, it was if you broke a statute, an enactment, a rule or regulation. Does that word "enactment" include rules and regulations made under statutes? I wouldn't have thought so.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Under the Interpretation Act, hon. member, enactment means an Act or a regulation, or any portion of an Act or regulation.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 53, Summary Convictions Amendment Act, 1977, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 74.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

The House in committee on Bill 74; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, just for the assistance of the Chair and myself, I would mention that we do have amendments to section 1. We also have amendments on the order paper to section 14. 1 request to be delivered this morning copies of the amendment to section 17 to the parties of the House, a copy of which is also at the table.

On section 1.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

On section 2.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Chairman, I believe the schedule of tariffs in the Arbitration Act, as I recall, takes in amounts like $20 and $40 a day for sitting and so on. Now it's going to go to Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. I think that this should be put into statute. The schedule as it exists is almost centuries out of date. Certainly I tend to feel that if it were to be brought in line, it would probably stand fairly well for about five years. Could the minister indicate what schedule they would be intending to bring in?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I would like to respond to the hon. member, Mr. Chairman. The last time these figures were revised was back in 1949, which is nearly 30 years ago. For example, to every secretary-clerk or reporter for every hour occupied in connection with an arbitration, it was $1.50, which is below the minimum wage. The reason we didn't put it into the statute, Mr. Member, is to maintain a degree of flexibility. It will be revised, and we are having consultations in that aspect right now.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, this seems to be the day for handing out compliments to the government. I think I would like to compliment both the Attorney-General and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) .

Very briefly, I want to say that a serious problem arose in arbitration in Trail simply because the school board in that case, as it is entitled to do, refused to waive the regulation which limited the payment to $40 for a chairman of arbitration. Negotiations there had started in September, 1976, and reached the point in Trail where the BCTF had described the area as being "in dispute, " which meant that the school board could not hire teachers, or if they did, there would be a charge laid by the BCTF that the school board had breached its contract.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair. ]

I just want to make it plain that in some sense of utter frustration I was contacted by Mr. Popoff from Trail who pleaded with me to try and bring this stupid impasse to an end. In June of this year I corresponded with the Attorney-General and the Minister of Education, bringing the matter to their attention. The Attorney-General wrote to me on June I and said that he would take the matter up with legislative counsel, and here we are on August 18, with the legislation in front of us.

It's obviously very timely and it will prevent this kind of impasse arising again on the matter of arbitration. I just think that we spend so much time emphasizing the negative around here, it's only appropriate that the Attorney-General should get credit for the prompt way in which he has responded with this amendment.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Thank you very much, hon. member. I would also like to thank you for your

[ Page 4737 ]

assistance in being another one of the individuals who brought the matter to my attention and for your thoughtful letter.

MR. MACDONALD: No matter what figure the Attorney-General puts in, it's very likely to be waived in almost all arbitrations.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Not necessarily.

MR. MACDONALD: That's right, because the amounts charged are very high. You could put in $250 a day or $300 a day, yet a great many people will not serve unless that's waived. Usually that's the first order of proceeding in any arbitration board today. I should know.

Sections 2 to I I inclusive approved.

On section 12.

MR. WALLACE: On section 12, Mr. Chairman, this deals with increasing the fund available to compensate people who suffer loss through some misdemeanour by notaries. Since we have had unfortunate examples of this not too long ago in the greater Victoria area, I'm wondering if the Attorney-General could just tell us to what degree this amendment was brought about by any increase in such acts of misbehaviour by notaries, or is it that the incidence is no more frequent now than it was 10 years ago, but there is simply a need for a greater amount of money in the fund?

HON. MR. GARDOM: The special fund for notaries has been in existence since 1967. 1 gather that in the principle case - my notes say one case; I tend to think there was more than one, but I may be incorrect in that - there was $55,000 paid out. There were 11 claims. At the present time, you will see that we have upped the amount that can be payable for an individual claim from $5,000 to $10,000. Also the overall fund has been increased from $100,000 to $150,000.

The procedure that is followed is this: if an individual feels that a notary has misappropriated funds, that individual can then prepare a statutory declaration setting forth the facts of the matter to the Society of Notaries Public of B.C. The society will then investigate the situation and if they determine that there has been a wrongdoing by the notary, then the society will first determine whether the individual has commenced a lawsuit and, if not, the society will lay a charge against the notary and payment will occur following the filing of judgment.

MR. WALLACE: I have just a brief follow-up. Could I ask the Attorney-General about the one case he quoted? Was that the Victoria case, and was each of the offended parties compensated in full, and did that break the fund? Is that why we're now expanding it?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I cannot respond to that specifically. I have the name of the case and I gather it was a long time ago. I shall give you the name in confidence.

Sections 12 and 13 approved.

On section 14.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 14 as amended approved.

On section 15.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 15 as amended approved.

Section 16 approved.

On section 17.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman ' I filed an amendment with the Clerk and distributed it to the members of the House. I so move that amendment to section 17.

Amendment approved.

Section 17 as amended approved.

Sections 18 and 19 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 74, Attorney-General Statutes Amendment

[ Page 4738 ]

Act, 1977, reported complete with 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 74, Attorney-General Statutes Amendment Act, 1977, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 46.

PESTICIDE CONTROL ACT

The House in committee on Bill 46; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. SKELLY: As our members pointed out last night during debate on this section, we have a number of concerns about a number of sections in this bill. In this section specifically, we are concerned about the definition of "adverse effects." I'll read the definition as it's present written: " 'Adverse effect' means an effect that results in damage to man or the environment that can be demonstrated or predicted by (i) accepted scientific methods, or (ii) documented field experience." I'm not sure that those two things are mutually exclusive.

The definition of an adverse effect here gives the impression that somebody who wishes to prove an adverse effect and who is opposing a spraying programme will be forced to provide that documentation - either field experience or effects demonstrated by accepted scientific methods. I'm not sure that it's proper really to include that in a definition. An adverse effect should simply mean an effect that results in damage to man or the environment. A statement that an effect "results in damage to man or the environment" seems to us to be a clear definition of what an adverse effect is.

The second part of the definition is really redundant and should not be included, although it could possibly be included in some other section where an applicant for a licence or permit under this Act would be forced to demonstrate that his application or his use of a pesticide or transportation or whatever does not cause an adverse effect. He should be obliged to demonstrate that through accepted scientific methods or documented field experience.

So I would like to move an amendment, Mr. Chairman, to the definition of "adverse effect" in section 1 so that it reads as follows: "that the definition of 'adverse effect' in section 1 of Bill 46 be amended to delete all words after the word .environment' in line 2 of the definition."

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment appears to be in order. I'd like us to read the motion for the benefit of all the members of the House: "that the definition of 'adverse effect' in section I of Bill 46 be amended to delete all words after the words 'environment' in line 2 of the definition."

MR. NICOLSON: In other words, I believe the definition would then read: "Adverse effects means an effect that results in damage to man or the environment."

Mr. Chairman, yesterday some members cited the example of thalidomide, and other things were cited. I gave an example of the effect of 2, 4-D on the potato crops over on Lulu Island and how this was traced to the loss of quality and the loss of marketability of potatoes that were slated for potato chip products because the product was not browning properly. As a sign, Mr. Chairman, only this morning we read in the paper evidence that has just come to light that in the case of a pesticide for the nematode we now have evidence that this leads to a breakdown in sperm. The minister's going to get up; he's giving me a sign. It looks rather hopeful here. I know he's in a good mood, so just that sort of thing comes up.

I think there's some sign. I think somebody's trying to tell us something, Mr. Speaker, when things like this should so fortuitously happen and come to our attention this morning.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments offered, and the amendment. The purpose of the words which are contained in the bill as drafted - "accepted scientific methods or documented field experience" - I think, are obvious attempts to establish some type of parameters or qualifications. But we can accept the amendment. I don't believe the amendment will in any way adversely affect the terminology of "adverse affect."

We do recognize, speaking of adverse affect, that when pesticides are applied, there will be an effect. I suppose you could argue that if it has a detrimental effect upon certain plants or pests or whatever, there is an adverse effect upon that specific target. But we can accept the amendment as proposed. I believe that the intent of "adverse effect" will remain, so we can accept that amendment.

MR. SKELLY: Again, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank the minister for accepting the amendment. I do have several amendments that I'd like to propose throughout the bill, and I think that those amendments considered in total - and they've been

[ Page 4739 ]

discussed with such organizations as the West Coast Environmental Law Association - will probably result in this bill being accepted by all of us in the House on third reading.

We feel that the accepted scientific method or documented field experience really relates more to a procedure in establishing adverse effects rather than in a definition of adverse effects themselves. So we very much appreciate the fact that the minister accepted the amendment in this case. We would hope that the procedures would be amended on another section - in fact, on section 4.

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

On section 4.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I would like to propose an amendment to section 4, and I have copies for the Chair and also the members opposite. I would like to read the amendment, Mr. Chairman:

"Section 4 is to be deleted and the following substituted: 'Where, because of the size, location or nature of the land or body of water to which the pesticide is to be applied, an unreasonable adverse effect could be caused by such application, no person shall, unless he holds a valid and subsisting permit authorizing him to do so, apply a pesticide to such area of land or body of water."'

Mr. Chairman, speaking to the amendment for just a moment, in second reading last evening it was pointed out by several members that the wording of section 4 perhaps could be interpreted to suggest that a person shall not apply a pesticide to a body of water or land where there's a possibility of an unreasonable adverse effect unless they have a permit to do so. The intent of that - and we have discussed this with legal counsel, and they insist that the manner in which it is worded is very clear - is that it does not mean that. It means that a person must obtain a permit "if there is reason to believe. . . ."

I believe that the amendment, by altering the structure of the section, makes it that much clearer that where there is reason to believe that there could be this adverse effect, no person shall apply pesticides until such time as they receive a permit to do so. I believe that clarifies it somewhat. The intent is certainly there. I move that amendment, Mr. Chairman.

On the amendment.

MR. SKELLY: Unfortunately I don't see how this amendment changes anything except possibly by shifting around the wording. To reduce the amendment to its bare bones, it says that where an unreasonable adverse effect could be caused by such an application, no person shall apply pesticides to an area of land or a body of water unless he holds a valid and subsisting permit. That's the amendment reduced to its bare bones. Basically, it says the same thing as the unamended section, so there's really no point in submitting the amendment.

What is going to be permitted if this amendment passes or if the original section is passed is that a person could apply pesticides to an area of land or a body of water even though an unreasonable adverse effect could be caused, but he would have to do it with a licence. So the minister or the administrator can issue a licence even though he is aware that an adverse effect could be caused to an area of land or a body of water. I can't see any change between this amendment and the original section. Possibly the minister could be more explicit as to what the changes are, because if this amendment passes I can't see any change at all.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that the minister may be trying to make the section more clear by the amendment but what we're all concerned about on this side of the House is that even if the risk of causing unreasonable adverse effect exists, we want to be certain, as far as we can be, that even in the light of that suspected fact, a permit might still be issued. If it is issued, then the person would still be able to take the risk of contaminating a substantial area of land or water. I suppose maybe the section per se doesn't really spell out what the minister intends, even in the amended form.

As far as I'm concerned - certainly just speaking for myself - I want to have some assurance, to use the words of the section, that where the application or manner of application would cause an unreasonable "adverse effect" where these circumstances pertain.... I don't think there should be any chance that that body of water or land, under these circumstances, could be contaminated with or without one permit or a hundred permits. What I'm concerned about is the efficiency with which the Act will be implemented to ensure that some perhaps poorly researched piece of work will not result in a permit being given to someone to do this and then the minister will have no power to stop that person because he or she has been given a permit to do it, even though the circumstances under which the permit might have been given in the first place allow this contamination of a large area of water or land which will produce an unreasonable adverse effect.

I really wonder if it wouldn't make more sense to delete the whole section and have confidence that in the rest of the bill, under regulations and inspection

[ Page 4740 ]

and other sections of the bill, the intent of this section will be carried through anyway, without trying to put it into these specific terms. With respect, Mr. Chairman, I think that even the amended rewriting of the section still leaves the doubt - it does in my mind, at any rate - that there could be a very substantial risk of an adverse effect. Under these circumstances, it might still be quite possible for someone to get a permit to go ahead and do what the minister quite sincerely does not want to be done.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Not wishing to move any further on the bill than the amendment to section 4, the revised section by way of the amendment was, as I suggested earlier, to more clearly explain - at least, hopefully to more clearly explain. What we are attempting to cover in the amendment to the section is where there is concern about a specific location of land or water and a person wishes to apply pesticides, when there is reasonable concern that an adverse effect could be caused by it, he be required to apply for a permit. That permit application would be reviewed by the interministerial committee established and, in the event that a permit is granted, it would be subject to the appeal procedure. We are concerned about a person who may be applying pesticides without being examined in any way, without going through a procedure of some type whereby the plan is examined and it is determined by those persons in authority that they may proceed under a permit because it has been concluded that there is no unreasonable adverse effect that will take place.

It is there to establish a mechanism which requires a person to go through a procedure before he or she is permitted to apply pesticides. In specific areas where there is reason to be concerned because of the nature of the area, because of the nature of the land or the nature of the water, they would have to go through this procedure before receiving a permit which would allow them to go ahead. The amendment says an unreasonable "adverse effect" could be caused. The amended section suggests "could be." We want to have a look at it. We want to be able to get that person through the procedures, including the interministerial committee, and also subject to appeal to the board. That is the intent of the amended section.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, now that the minister has explained it, I'm more confused than ever. It seems that what he is talking about now are the procedures available under sections 2 and 3, which we've already passed, that no person shall enter into the business of applying pesticides.

Section 3 says: "No person shall apply pesticides unless he has a certificate." The procedure is already available in those sections to issue a licence. I'm certain - at least I'm hopeful - that the administration or his agents who issue the licence would take into consideration the fact that before a licence can be issued there would be no unreasonable adverse effect.

What this section even as amended says is that even if there is or could be an unreasonable adverse effect, he could still issue a licence. I would hope that would not be the case. I'm very concerned about both the original section and the amendment.

There were a number of amendments that we planned to propose, and I'm sorry that we didn't get them in. The problem is it is so soon since second reading last night that we haven't had an opportunity to go over the debate in principle, to read the Blues, and to decide exactly what the nature and the wording of our amendments would be. I wonder if the minister would consider delaying consideration of this bill in committee stage until we have had an opportunity to go over the Hansard blues on debate on principle and come back tomorrow or on Monday and consider the bill in committee stage.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I don't wish to consider that at this time, but I believe I could add something to this amendment. I hope that perhaps there would be a better understanding, as best as I'm able to explain it, because the member suggests my explanation added more confusion.

Under the permit section, section 4, we're speaking about specific projects. I could give you examples: the Okanagan Lakes, the budworm, B.C. Hydro application - specific projects. In the previous sections a licence is to do with business: the selling of pesticides, authorizing a person to store them, carry on the business and so on, and to apply pesticides, if that is their business, as well.

The certificate would be one of competency for a person to be certified as in other Act. Perhaps they would be licenced to actually apply pesticides if they are competent. The idea of the permit is to cover a person who seeks to make use of a pesticide in a specific area, a site specific situation. Obviously, when that permit is granted for that reason, if it is granted, then the person who is actually applying the pesticides must have a certificate. The person from whom they purchase the pesticides must have a licence to sell and carry on that business. It's one person who obtains the permit, but that person, that corporation, that ministry or whatever, may themselves not have a certificate. They would have to bring someone in to do the work who would have a certificate , and they, of course, may not have a licence because they wouldn't be in the business of selling or applying pesticides themselves.

We're speaking of a specific instance where a project is under consideration. If there were reason to believe that an adverse effect could be caused by such

[ Page 4741 ]

an application, that person would have to obtain a permit for that specific job. And going back: ". . . to be applied by a person with a certificate of competence to be purchased or acquired from someone with a licence to sell them."

The situation could change from project to project, whereby certain pesticides that are authorized under the federal regulations and others may have an effect on a certain species but a somewhat different effect on another. When they are licenced to sell that pesticide there may be restrictions on to what it may be applied, or indeed we may have scientific information that the effects are different in different species. It would be difficult to cut it off earlier in that it could be a restricted use or it could have different effects on different species.

The permit section, as amended, would permit the persons responsible in this Act to look at the site specific to investigate the nature of the land or the body of water to find out what may be unique to that and what effect that particular pesticide would have on that area. It's very concise. It's for that specific project, taking into consideration those conditions that are unique to the area and unique to the pesticide to be used in that area.

I can't explain it beyond that - I'm sorry.

MR. SKELLY: That is clarified a little more to my satisfaction.

It still appears to be possible, to the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, for the administrator to grant a permit on a site specific basis even though an unreasonable, adverse effect could be caused.

I now realize what you're talking about in terms of the procedure for allowing a permit on a specific application project, but it still appears, even though the section has been amended, that it is possible for an applicant to apply pesticides to an area even though it will cause an unreasonable, adverse effect simply because he has permission of the administrator or one of his agents. So this hangup still appears in the section.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, the minister stressed the site-specific nature of the kind of project that might cause the adverse effect, and I'm just puzzled. Why would the person get the permit in the first place if it was a site-specific application for a permit or a certificate or whatever we're calling the authority anyway? But if this is such a site-specific issue in this section, how could it arise in the first place that a person might get a permit to spray all the Okanagan Lakes if, in applying for that permit, it was obvious that there might be an unreasonable adverse effect? I'm just puzzled to know how it could be that if there's such a likelihood of an unreasonable effect, the person applying on a site-specific type of application would get a permit in the first place.

It leaves the implication in my mind that there must be some enormous loophole somewhere, where a person might well get permission to use pesticides on a large area of land or body of water. Then somewhere down the road, somebody discovers that it could cause an adverse effect and then we have to go through all this procedural rigmarole of the appeal committee, the appeal board, public hearings and all kinds of expense on the part of the protesting party. Yet it would seem to me, from the minister's emphasis on the site-specific nature of the application for a permit, that a permit wouldn't be issued in the first place. Could the minister clarify that part?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I'll attempt to. I think, in that the amendment and the section were both one sentence, perhaps that's part of the problem.

The amended section does not state that a person will receive a permit. We're attempting to highlight that where there is reasonable concern - where there is concern - the person must go through the procedure of applying for a permit. The person is prohibited from applying pesticides unless he has a permit. There's no way I can prejudge applications for permits, but there's every reason to presume that a person can be denied a permit. When he applies for a permit, he can certainly be denied. The wording, I again draw to the member's attention, says: "Where an unreasonable adverse effect could be caused" -this opens up the investigation. This causes an application for permit and investigation into that permit. It doesn't state that once you apply, you will get your permit. It says that you must receive the permit before you can proceed.

The adverse effect mentioned in the amended section is what causes the investigation into the application. The concern that there could be an adverse effect causes the applicant to file for a permit. The information is then deliberated by those responsible and a decision is made whether a permit should be issued. I would suggest that if the evidence indicated that there would be unreasonable adverse effect, the responsible persons very likely would deny such a permit - without prejudging specific applications.

That is the reason for this - to tell any person, corporation or anyone else that they must, in effect, prove their case before a permit is allowed. I would think that if I were on such a committee, I would ask 'the people to prove that there is no unreasonable adverse effect. But I can't prejudge the committee's work or the administrator's work. The veracity of the persons involved must be considered. This is the purpose - to avoid or minimize adverse effects by demanding that the person qualify for a permit.

[ Page 4742 ]

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I'm not really trying to split hairs here. I see the minister's attempt to clarify, but it still reads, as far as I'm concerned, that we can be aware of the possibility of an unreasonable adverse effect, and yet somebody could be in a position to have obtained a permit to do that. Within the wording of this section, they would then be in a position to go ahead and do it, and whether somebody might be quick enough or aware enough to get to the whole matter before an appeal board might or might not happen. I'm very hesitant to start trying to introduce an amendment to the amendment, but it seems to me that what we're all really trying to establish is that the person should not be able to - if we look at the last sentence - "apply a pesticide to such area of land or body or water until that person has applied for and been granted a permit."

But the phrase in the amendment says "unless he holds a permit, " meaning as though he already holds a permit. I'm suggesting that it's very much a matter of the phraseology. I would suggest that if we deleted the words "unless he holds a valid and subsisting permit authorizing him to do so, " and added at the end of the paragraph "until he applies and receives a permit, " at least you've got the sequence of events clearly established.

Admittedly, he might eventually get that permit, but the way we have it now he's already holding a permit which might be very difficult to withdraw by all the time and effort in the appeal procedure. If you state that he's got to get it in the first place and might be denied getting it because of that awareness of the possible adverse effect, it would seem to me that that might be one way to clarify the minister's intention. I'm quite clear on the minister's intention, but I am just saying, Mr. Chairman, that I don't think the wording meets that intent.

I'm suggesting, if I may be so bold, what I think would be the final suitable wording: ". . . where, because of the size, location or nature of the land or body of water to which a pesticide is to be applied, an unreasonable adverse affect could be caused by such application, no person shall apply a pesticide to such area of land or body of water until he has applied for and received a permit authorizing him to do so." The phrase "until he has applied and received" is so very different from "except a person who holds, " meaning that he or she is already in possession of a permit to do something which we think might be harmful. It just seems to me that if we turn the tense of the verb around to say "until he has applied for and received a permit authorizing him to do so, " that, I think, much more readily sums up what I believe the minister's intention to be.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, with respect, to the hon. member for Oak Bay, I am not sure that even that wording even solves the problem. I think the minister is facing a dilemma here in that he wants some permits to be site-specific, but he doesn't want to burden every permit holder in the province with the responsibility of applying for a permit on a site where there are no problems at all and no possibility of a problem.

We all know that pesticides are going to be used on the family garden plot throughout the province or whatever. In an instance where damage is likely to be caused, he wants to make sure a permit is issued on a site-specific basis.

I think there is a problem here in that we haven't had enough time between consideration of debate or reflection of debate on principle and consideration of the bill in Committee of the Whole. I think possibly if we considered the bill in committee maybe tomorrow or Monday.... Would the minister be willing to move progress and ask leave to sit again on this?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I am quite prepared to co-operate with the members opposite on their concern about the amendment and perhaps some of the wording, particularly when it requires legal interpretation. Could I ask any members on the other side, if they do have any proposed amendments, to perhaps get them to me so we could consider them? One of the problems is the legal wording, which is always a bit of a hassle. If you could do that as soon as possible, I would appreciate it very much.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 77, Mr. Speaker.

HERITAGE CONSERVATION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 77; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

On section 1.

HON. R.S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

On section 4.

[ Page 4743 ]

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to bring to the minister's attention that this section provides for a provision of compensation when a designation under subsection I (a) decreases the economic value of land.

It says that the minister shall pay to the owner of the land an amount to be determined by order of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. I say that this is the wrong way in which to pay this compensation for two reasons: it leaves the executive council open for criticism and abuse in terms of perhaps favouring their friends and it leaves a question on the amounts of compensation that might be paid. I take the position that it would be perhaps less efficient, but more desirable from a standpoint of fair play and protecting the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, which is the cabinet, if, on the rare occasions when this is going to be necessary, this were also subject to appeal under the Arbitration Act.

HON. MR. BAWLF: I appreciate the member's concern in this regard. I appreciate also that he points out that it's a rarely required procedure. He will be aware that this particular section is consistent with that which pre-existed in the Archaeological and Historic Sites Act. I'll just emphasize that the word "deemed", with respect to full and fair compensation for loss or damage suffered, is interpreted to mean, "deemed unless the contrary is shown." So this is not the final court of appeal, if you like.

Sections 4 to 10 inclusive approved.

On section 11.

HON. MR. BAWLF: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper with respect to section 11. (See appendix.)

On the amendment.

MR. NICOLSON: This amendment, section 11, part 2 (a) - it will delete "designate" and substitute "adopt the bylaw". So that this would read: ". . . mailed by registered mail or delivered to the owner of the building, structure or land at least 10 days before the date for consideration by council of the motion to adopt the bylaw." Okay.

Amendment approved.

On section 11 as amended.

MR. NICOLSON: Here again, there's the problem which I have already indicated concerning the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, now in terms of a municipal designation. It's under the municipal section, part 3 here. In subsections (4) and (5) it says:

"Where designation under subsection (1) decreases the economic value of the building, structure, or land, the council may, by bylaw, provide a grant, loan, tax relief or other compensation to the owners.

"(5) Compensation provided under subsection (4) shall be deemed to be full and fair compensation for loss or damage suffered by the owner through the designation."

As I read this, that would mean there's no appeal; that its finding is final.

Now these two subsections create in my mind two problems. One, I don't see the possibility of fair appeal. Again, I think that recourse to the Arbitration Act should be included, but over and above that, it is not spelled out how the municipality is to find the money for this type of designation. I realize that there are in some of the later sections under the Heritage Trust.... I think there is some possibility that something might be forthcoming from the Heritage Trust, but that isn't spelled out. This is a clear concern of some municipalities - that they are really going to have pressure on them to go out and designate certain buildings or they may deem it to be very necessary to do this. I really feel that unless there is some kind of compensation and cost sharing that is really spelled out, this will hamper the implementation of this whole part 3, and that is in terms of involving municipalities in heritage conservation.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): I should like very briefly to confirm what my colleague has said. I was recently in conversation with one of the leading mayors in the city of Victoria.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many mayors does Victoria have?

MR. BARBER: The minister, very properly and happily, has raised expectations. He has suggested very positively that municipalities engage in a creative way in heritage designation. The reply of this mayor - and these are my words and not his; but certainly this is the sense of it - was: "Now that we have been given the power, who will give us the money? Now that the citizens have been given the raised expectation that municipal councils will exercise leadership in the field of heritage conservation - and congratulations to the minister for having done so -is the minister comparably and simultaneously prepared to provide us with the funds necessary to do the job?" As the mayor went on to say, he knows full well that this minister, having previously served as an alderman - indeed, at one. time, he served as the finance chairman for the city of Victoria - knows that the budgetary limitations are very severe.

I think it's reasonable, Mr. Chairman, that we ask

[ Page 4744 ]

for at least verbal guarantees that municipalities that do embark on a creative and imaginative and aggressive programme of heritage conservation be guaranteed that their efforts will not be in vain because they can't afford to follow through.

They want to support it. They applaud you for this bill - I do, too - but what they require, what this mayor told me very clearly they have to have, is the assurance of the money they need in order to meet the now raised demands and expectations of all those citizens who wish to see this heritage conserved. They need the cold, hard cash in order to do it. They would be enormously grateful for that assurance today, and so would we.

MR. WALLACE:- Mr. Chairman, the minister already answered this question during second reading to some degree, but I certainly feel there has to be some clear understanding, perhaps in greater detail than exists simply in the bill, that the municipalities are at least not on their own in finding the compensation where it is shown that the value of the property has increased through designation. I think the minister, in replying to my question during second reading, suggested that the specifics had not been finalized, or there was no clear-cut formula of 50-50 sharing or whatever, and there would have to be more deliberation on this point.

Another point under designation which I would like to ask the minister about, because it also affected the city of Victoria where he formerly served, was a complaint brought to my attention where designation was being used to thwart land development. In other words, there is an area in Victoria where developers were trying to put together several parcels of land and that could very readily be thwarted by picking a property right in the middle of that area and designating it as heritage. This particular individual who came to seek my assistance could prove that there were at least two other absolutely similar structures in other parts of Victoria which were not being designated. It seemed very suspicious that the one that was being designated to prevent its demolition prevented the consolidation of several parcels of land.

I realize that we can't expect this minister, or any minister, to provide all the safeguards to prevent the abuse of legislation by a municipal government, but I wonder if the minister could comment on that point I have raised. Does he feel this legislation has adequate protection for the individual who might be affected by indiscriminate or ill-motivated designation, shall we say, where the real motive is not to recognize a historic property, but to stop rezoning or redevelopment of a certain area for reasons other than the historic significance, or otherwise, of that property? I am told the city of Victoria seems to have backed off somewhat, but only as a result of the kind of protests that the affected parties took to council and about which they threatened, I believe, to take legal action.

Since this is new ground we're breaking, since it's a big step forward, the bill as a whole, I think, is an excellent one. Since we are breaking new ground and setting new precedents, I wonder if it's asking too much to see if we can find in this legislation, or amend the legislation, to cover the possible abuse that I have outlined.

HON. MR., BAWLF: Mr. Chairman, in response to the several comments made, first of all, I would remind the members opposite that the power to designate property as a heritage site or building has been in the hands of the municipalities for some time now under section 714 (a) of the Municipal Act, which would be repealed by the enactment of this bill. The thing which has been lacking in that respect is that the former government expressly prohibited municipalities from paying compensation of any kind. It expressly prohibited them from recognizing that property could be seen to be taken or injuriously affected by way of designation.

This section which we are dealing with at present is a step - a very major step - in reversing that inequity inasmuch as it provides that the municipalities may make such payments in a number of forms. In this regard, there will need to be further research as to the various ways and formulae in which compensation can be provided. I would also call to the attention of the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) the supreme court decision in the case of Gray v. Kerslake, 1957. In this case, it is suggested that "deemed" means "deemed" unless the contrary is shown. In other words, this section of this bill does not remove recourse to the courts from the purview of the aggrieved owner.

The important thing in regard to the example drawn by the member for Oak Bay about the use of designation - the misuse of it, you might say - is that if such misuse occurs, the aggrieved owner in any event has as his ultimate measure the value of his property as it has been affected by such designation, and can seek recourse, as I've just described. If council has not paid due respect to that value, and has deemed an insufficient compensation to be conclusive of the matter, then the aggrieved party has resort to the courts. I would feel that it's vital indeed that this be the case; that no absolute power be conferred in the area upon a municipal council. I would hope that you. accept this interpretation provided by legislative counsel in this matter and accept that the ultimate point of reference in such matters can be and should be the courts.

MR. WALLACE: Could I just ask the minister to clarify this? I wasn't talking specifically about

[ Page 4745 ]

whether an individual would be dissatisfied with the amount of compensation. I'm asking - and probably the minister answered this, but I just want to be absolutely clear - about designation per se, regardless of compensation being paid, or enough being paid, or too much being paid.

If I have a property which I consider the council is designating just to prevent some peripheral development of property, I really don't care on a principle of justice whether or not I get $20,000 or $30,000 or $90,000 for my property. In the case of anyone who owns such a property, or the interests of those around that property who have spent time and money and energy developing the surrounding property, and are then thwarted by the authority in this Act which ostensibly allows a council to see that this one remaining central property is historic, when in point of fact, for reasons the council might consider valid, it could prevent the development of this much larger area, which might be a downtown area where redevelopment is very desirable, or whatever....

I'm not so much questioning whether or not a person would be able to go to court to get better compensation. I want to be assured that an individual has some access, presumably through the courts, to contest whether or not the motive for designating his property is within the spirit of this Act. Because the reason for designating properties is that they are of some historic value and part of the essential history of the city or the province. If someone has an old property, being old and being historically valuable are not the same thing. If a council should choose to designate a property simply to maintain or prevent development around it, then I want to have some assurance that that individual owner has access to the courts to challenge the legality of the designation per se, quite regardless of whatever compensation might or might not be paid in relation to that property.

It may well be that because we're breaking new ground, a lot of questions I'm asking will become much clearer and councils will realize that they're not entitled to do this. But we are breaking new ground and we should try to clear away as many of the obstacles as possible before this becomes law.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Just further on this point, I would prefer to assume that municipal councils act responsibly and in good faith, rather than frivolously. Certainly in the first instance the sobering consideration in this should be the fact that compensation is a factor.

With response to the comments of the other two members on this matter, if the Heritage Trust were to come along with all the money associated with compensation every time a municipal council designated it, we might well find ourselves in this position. I think this is the first safeguard against frivolous use of designation. Ultimately, if the bylaw is enacted in a discriminatory fashion, any such bylaw enacted by a municipal council may be the subject of an action in the courts on those grounds. Certainly nothing in this Act precludes that.

MR. NICOLSON: I think what the minister is referring to is "sociere mandamus, " or perhaps that's what the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) is referring to. That really might not be a successful appeal. Even if it were frivolous the court might not find that they really can decide whether something is heritage or not, and possibly throw the thing out. I think this is a very real concern that the member for Oak Bay has brought up. I think the minister can certainly understand how it could come about.

I don't think we're intimating that municipal councils are generally frivolous, but certainly sometimes they're sorely tempted to use some strong measures on certain things in order to.... What are we trying to correct in some other legislation that's before the House? We're doing away with land use contracts. I believe it's been said that certain powers have been misused. So without getting too suspicious of motive, I think that there's a very real concern and I think it is something that should be watched very closely by the minister and he should be prepared to bring in legislation and amendments to this Act. I think it's going to need some fine tuning, and I think that this is one area where we could see some trouble.

Sections 1 I to 15 inclusive approved.

On section 16.

MR. NICOLSON: I notice that the Companies Act does not apply to the trust. The L-G-in-C may, by order, direct the Companies Act or provisions of that Act.... I'd ask the minister why it wasn't worded as most other statutes are, where it is not inconsistent with the aims and purposes of this Act, that the Companies Act shall apply,

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Chairman, quite simply it was our view that the trust is an extraordinary type of institution or vehicle. It's not conventionally aligned with the concept of a company, but certainly to the extent that provisions of the Companies Act may prove necessary to apply, the power is there to so apply them.

Sections 16 to 30 inclusive approved.

On section 31.

HON. MR. BAWLF: On section 31, Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

[ Page 4746 ]

Amendment approved.

Section 31 as amended approved.

Sections 32 to 38 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BAWLF: 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 77, Heritage Conservation Act, reported complete with amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

HON. MR. BAWLF: With leave, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

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

HON. MR. BAWLF: With leave, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 77, Heritage Conservation Act, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 70, Strata Titles Amendment Act, 1977.

STRATA TITLES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

The House in committee on Bill 70; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. BARBER: If I may, I would like to acknowledge the request that the government made today that this bill be concluded completely. I would like to remind the government that had they brought the bill forward in February - it's only half a page long - when it was required, we, on that occasion as today, would be delighted to give all three readings in one day. We continue to regret, very seriously, the absolute failure and neglect of this minister to deal with the problem when he should have, which was in February. The bill finally comes to us in August.

Today the government has asked, I understand because the Lieutenant-Governor will be here in a short while, that we permit the bill to go completely through by leave today. We're happy to do that. We express our regret that the minister failed to do his job properly in February when it should have been done. But all the same, on behalf of the opposition as critic for Municipal Affairs, I wish to inform the minister that we're prepared to let the entire thing go through now.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 75, Strata Titles Amendment Act, 1977, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 34.

MOBILE HOME ACT

(continued)

On section 1.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I rise to try to expedite matters. I would like to point out that I have indeed searched and cross-referenced all Acts that are referred to, looked at various definitions and checked it through with the Audain royal commission. I don't intend to debate any sections of the Act until section 39.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments to section 6 standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. minister, we'll deal with the amendments one at a time.

HON. MR. CURTIS: As you wish, Mr. Chairman.

Section 6 as amended approved.

Sections 7 to 10 inclusive approved.

[ Page 4747 ]

On section 11.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 1 I as amended approved.

Sections 12 to 16 inclusive approved.

On section 17.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 17 as amended approved.

Sections 18 to 20 inclusive approved.

On section 2 1.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 21 as amended approved.

On section 22.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 22 as amended approved.

On section 23.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 23 as amended approved.

On section 24.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

(See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 24 as amended approved.

Section 25 approved.

On section 26.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 26 as amended approved.

On section 27.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 27 as amended approved.

On section 28.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 28 as amended approved.

On section 29.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 29 as amended approved.

On section 30.

MR. WALLACE: I'm just a little puzzled to know why there is the exemption in subsection (3) for a mobile home owned by the Crown, Crown corporation, or municipality. The section essentially points out that no person shall import into the province, sell, offer for sale, or move a mobile home that is not registered under this Act. The section then goes on to exempt mobile homes owned by the

[ Page 4748 ]

Crown or by a municipality. While I'm on my feet, perhaps I could also ask about subsection (3) (b) where it says that it also excludes bona fide tourists. I notice that tourist isn't defined in the definition section on section 1. Could the minister care to comment on these two points? Why is the Crown excluded? How is one to define a bona fide tourist?

HON. MR. CURTIS: In response to the first question by the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) , we have in mind here units which would be used for work purposes of one kind or another. They would be put in in a particular community for a specific task undertaken by. a municipality, by a regional district, or, in fact, by the Crown or an agency thereof.

Mr. Chairman, on the question of "tourist, " the member is correct; there is no definition of tourist. Perhaps it would be appropriate, since a question has been asked, to point out that a number of amendments have been advanced on bill 34 since it was introduced on March 31 of this year. Senior staff within the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing have conducted exhaustive consultation with all possible groups and individuals. I have participated in a number of meetings with people who have some relationship with the mobile home industry, in one form or another. We have responded to a number of the valid points which were made by these groups and individuals. In effect, I think that it's been very productive and positive.

In the time between when the bill was introduced at the end of March and the day when the amendments appeared on the order paper, the bill has served something as a white paper. It is legislation which is the first in Canada. I indicated that in second reading. It is difficult legislation. I would look to representatives of the Ministry of the Attorney-General. I somehow feel relatively comfortable that we would have no difficulty in identifying a bona fide tourist.

Sections 30 to 35 inclusive approved.

On section 36.

HON. MR. CURTIS: With respect to section 36, Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

Amendment approved.

Section 36 as amended approved.

Sections 37 and 38 approved.

On section 39.

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman. This section prohibits the sale, or offer for sale advertisement, of a new or previously unoccupied mobile home. No person shall also move a new or previously unoccupied mobile home unless it complies in all respects with the standards prescribed by regulation, or is exempted from these sections by the regulations.

I recall an hon. member talking about C-240Z standards or something in this House and dressing down the CSA standards. I would ask the minister if any thought has been given as to the code which would be brought into effect here. Are we going to adapt the CSA standards?

I would draw to the minister's attention the units which were put into Tantalus Village, the difficulty that has been experienced there, and the comments of one of the members for Vancouver South during estimates about building codes and standards. I would like to have some idea as to which direction the ministry is contemplating going, in terms of prescribing these standards. Is the ministry going to have its own standards, or are they going to rely upon the CSA standards?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, in response to the hon. member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) we have had discussions with manufacturers. We do not want to be punitive in any respect concerning what one might call substandard units, which are still finding their way into the British Columbia market.

I'm sure the member would know that the industry itself is aware of some of the difficulties that have arisen with respect to lower than necessary standards in the past. I'm confident, Mr. Chairman, through you to the member, that the standards are going to be appropriate. This is a proclamation bill. We'll check it once more before the Act is actually proclaimed.

MR. NICOLSON: I would perhaps speak on behalf of the official opposition and perhaps one member of your back bench who is in no position to get up and speak on this particular section at the moment.

The Aqua homes which were built in Alberta and brought into the Tantalus Village were built to code standards but they've proven to be very, very substandard. I'm not going to try to use this opportunity to create debate on that subject - we could possibly talk on that next year in debate on your estimates, Mr. Minister - but I certainly don't accept those standards and I think we will have to build some British Columbia standards.

If this means that we are going to restrict mobile homes in this province, in fact, to almost being homes built in British Columbia, then that's fine. There would be nothing to prohibit a company in Calgary, Alberta, if they want to export into British Columbia, meeting British Columbia standards before these

[ Page 4749 ]

things are shipped into the province. If they were going to deal in this province there would be some kind of a way they could pay to have a British Columbia inspector on their site when they are doing a job lot for shipment to British Columbia.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I appreciate the remarks by the hon. member, Mr. Chairman. Again it is a proclamation bill and there will be regulations.-

We will have to feel our way with this bill over the first year or so, and indeed there may be some amendments found to be necessary next year. Again I emphasize for the benefit of the committee that there was some concern initially, but we have gone through this exhaustively with manufacturers, with dealers, with every class of organization or individual who has had some contact or has some interest in mobile-home living.

I thank the member for his remarks. They are well taken, Mr. Chairman.

Sections 39 to 44 inclusive approved.

On section 45.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 45 as amended approved.

Section 46 approved.

On section 47.

MR. NICOLSON: I would like to find out from the minister if this section, as I recall reading it, and I have the pertinent section of the Home Purchase Assistance Act here.... Does this limit mobile homes to grants, or are they entitled to both grants and mortgage assistance and subsidy?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, grants and mortgages where they are affixed to land.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would have hoped that by bringing in a mobile-home registry we would have created mobile homes as a piece of real property. A person cannot now just sell this thing, dispose of it, cannot move it whether it is in a mobile-home park or fixed to land, subject to clearing the title which you now have on this thing.

This Act is a real departure. In terms of creating a mobile-home registry we have now created a whole new class of real property. I would have hoped that mobile-home owners could have been afforded the full benefits of whatever the Act be of the day, whether it be the old Home Owner Assistance Act or now the Home Purchase Assistance Act. As I recall reading it it seemed to me that mobile homes in mobile home parks would not be able to qualify for mortgage assistance.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, it's possible that I may stray from the specific of the section. There are two main thrusts of Bill 34. One, of course, is to assist in the registry which I think all sides of the House will agree is necessary and overdue. The other is to, in a transitional way, move a mobile home from its previous consideration as a vehicle or a type of vehicle to a home.

I think really the hon. member and I are saying much the same thing, Mr. Chairman.

Section 47 approved.

On section 48.

MR. NICOLSON: This is a very important section to the people who live in mobile-home parks, and a welcome section. I would like to just make a comment, and that is that here on Vancouver Island, some misunderstanding arose because of a circular letter which was sent out because of the concern of the active Mobile Home Owners Association, I believe, which is the group which looks after mobile-home owners - people who reside in mobile-home parks. They were particularly concerned about section 48. Their concern was that no change be made, because they like the idea of the protection against the charging of an entrance fee, which is done by this amendment to the Landlord and Tenant Act.

Unfortunately, in sending this out, they referred to the opposition in such a way that people construed this letter to mean the official opposition, or perhaps all opposition members in this House, because I do understand that there was some lobbying from the Western Mobile-Home Dealers Association in objections to this section. I'd like to put it on the record that at no time was the New Democratic Party opposed to the protection afforded people who live in mobile-home parks which we are attempting to get through section 48 - protection against the iniquitous practice of charging entrance fees.

But I would like to ask the minister here - and it isn't clear to me - how this really prohibits the practice of an exit fee. If we read the definition section, under the definition of "security deposit" in the Landlord and Tenant Act: " . . . an entrance fee o other charge imposed by a landlord directly or indirectly as a condition of possession of residential premises, after refundable." That would, to my mind, make it possible that if anyone had to pay some amount of money in order to get into a mobile-home park.... Sometimes if there's an empty space and a

[ Page 4750 ]

person had a used mobile-home park or owns their own mobile-home park and they want to move in, a landlord was charging them. Because another option that lie had would be to go to a person who retails mobile homes and say: "Well, I have three empty pads. If you want to give me $500, I'll let you put them on my lot and then we'll sell them from there." That's one way in which mobile-home park owners were getting some extra revenue in a tight market. Another thing was to refuse admittance of someone into a mobile-home park unless they paid this entrance fee, which could range up to $500 and $1,000 quite easily. Another iniquitous practice though.... I think that is covered by this section; certainly this section attempts to.

What I am also concerned about is the exit fee. There are a couple of ways in which the exit fee can take place. If a person has a mobile home on a space in a mobile-home lot, and they then for some reason or other want to move, it's more convenient to sell the mobile home than it is to move it. In spite of whatever we say about mobile homes, they are not actually as portable as one would be led to believe. They have not been allowed by landlords in the past to sell the mobile home as is, where it is. One of the practices would be for the landlord simply to extract an extra fee and say: "If you want to do that and sell it on this lot, we will charge. . .

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: This isn't boring, Mr. Attorney-General, to people who live in mobile-home parks. It's pretty important, Garde.

The problem here is that the mobile-home park owner will sometimes demand a fee of $500. I'm not so certain that the exit fee is covered.

The other practice is where the landlord demands that he purchase the mobile home at a given price and then he knows that he is in a position where he can sell it and make a profit. There are documented cases just out here within a few miles of Victoria where the practice at present has been yielding about $1,000 in terms of exit fees. This practice is more prevalent in the lower mainland and in greater Victoria than it is in many other parts of the province.

I might also say in passing I notice the appointment of Helen - I forget her last name -from up north and.... I'm not criticizing all people who are in the mobile-home park business, because there is a very good group of them which is organized. They're very ethical and they're very concerned about these practices.

I would like the minister to explain to me - and I do have a copy of the Landlord and Tenant Act handy, so I could certainly read along with him - if he could, how it is that the practice of exit fees is also covered by this legislation. That, to my mind, is the more iniquitous of the practices.

HON. MR. CURTIS: With respect to the first comments made by the Hon. member, yes, we're aware of the correspondence which was produced earlier this month, indicating that the opposition -however one wants to read that - was concerned about this particular section. But there is no amendment to this section - section 48 - so the fears expressed by those individuals were and are unfounded. I think that settles that. I don't know who initiated or first expressed this concern, but it spread quite rapidly.

To the Hon. member on the second point he raised: we feel that subsection (5) of this section will serve quite well. At the same time, Mr. Chairman, I make no apology for it at all. This is unique legislation. It's had a great deal of work, and the amendments before the committee today support that statement.

We will monitor the situation and we will attempt, wherever possible, to avoid the kind of problem which the member has identified for us. I think he would agree - I think all members would agree -that it's very difficult to legislate every possible kind of consideration which might be asked of someone exiting in the mobile-home sense. That's the best assurance I can give the Hon. member this afternoon.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, these amendments.... The first one, part (a) , adds the definition of "security deposit" and it inserts: " 'an entrance fee or other charge imposed by landlord, directly or indirectly, as a condition of possession of residential premises, ' after 'refundable, '." So that makes the definition of security deposit in the Landlord and Tenant Act read: "Security deposit means money or property advanced or deposited, or any right given by or on behalf of a prospective tenant, to be held or enforced on or behalf of a landlord." And then it adds.... Well, actually it would have preceded that with "an entrance fee, " et cetera,

I think that the business of entrance fees onto empty spaces is looked after here. I don't know if the minister's intimating that part 5 looks after this ... which says in section 35 ... by amending in section 35, by adding the following after subsection (4) . . . so it really just ... section 35 talks about ... well, actually, section 35 in the Landlord and Tenant Act is under the "right to assign or sublet." Okay.

In terms of assigning it would then say that no landlord shall charge directly or indirectly a fee for giving his consent under this section. Of course, it makes it even more complicated by then referring to section 59. Is the deputy minister satisfied that this covers the problem of exit fees?

[ Page 4751 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I'm satisfied. I would refer the hon. member to section 5 1, which we can't discuss at this point in time, but the Real Estate Act is further amended. That speaks directly, I believe, to the problem which has been raised this afternoon by the member.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I'm just puzzled because this relates to amending the Landlord and Tenant Act which has just yesterday been repealed or at least the Residential Tenancy Act repeals the Landlord and Tenant Act and while I can't talk about anticipated legislation, I have looked at the definition of security deposit in the new bill we've yet to debate and I can't find these amendments in the new Act. So I'm just wondering if the two ministers got their Act together. I'm just interested, I'm not trying to be picky. I just can't find the amendments proposed to the Landlord and Tenant Act included in the new Act.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The office of the rentalsman has given us his opinion. He feels that it is satisfactorily covered in this respect.

Sections 48 to 50 inclusive approved.

On section 5 1.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move the amendment to section 51 standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 51 as amended approved.

Sections 52 and 53 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: 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 34, Mobile Home Act, reported complete with amendments.

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

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

Leave granted.

Bill 34, Mobile Home Act, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 38.

DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND PETROLEUM

RESOURCES AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker, the amendment to the Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources Act clarifies the role and authority of the ministry and contains two important changes. The most significant change is the repeal of the authority for the government to enter into the business of mining and petroleum resource development. This repugnant aspect of the legislation was introduced by the former government and is being repealed in an endeavour to restore the confidence of the mining industry which has been so drastically shaken by the activities of the former government.

It also clearly establishes the fact that this government philosophically is opposed to the interference in the private sector.

The legislation also reinstates a former programme for the certification of assayers. The programme is essentially as was previously contained in a former Act which was amended deleting the certification in 1973. It provides for the examinations of candidates, and the practice of analysis and assaying of samples of rock, mineral ore and metallurgical products. Assayers certified under the former Act qualify under the present legislation and those not certified have a year to do so.

This bill makes provisions for the establishment of a board of examiners. Other minor amendments deal with the authority of the minister to obtain data and to define more clearly the function of the ministry to regulate mining activity.

I have been unable to establish the reason for the former government's elimination of the certification of assayers. This remains a mystery to this date. I move second reading.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, there are three principles to this bill. No~ 1 is: "The minister may contract with any person for the provision to the ministry to hire consultant, specialist or temporary services." Now that's a departure, but one with which we agree. We agree that the Minister of Mines or any other minister should be free to contract with persons for consulting to his ministry. We agree with that.

The other principle in this bill, according to the minister, is that his government doesn't believe that the government should have the right or the opportunity to enter into any business at any time.

[ Page 4752 ]

We don't agree with that.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Even that government, Mr. Member, should have that right. We know that they can come in to this session or any other session or call a special session to get that right if they need it. So that's fine, except that we think it's a little silly to remove it, based entirely upon politics. Because both the minister and his government know that every government needs to do that every once in a while, and it's only done with discretion by any government. There's no need to remove section 7 from the Act, but if they want to do it, go ahead. It's political and political only.

The other principle is the one about the assayers. We again agree with the minister that it should be returned to the statutes in this manner. So on this piece of legislation, we basically have no quarrel with the government. The assayers being able to take an apprenticeship programme and get their certificate that way is a principle with which we agree.

MR. NICOLSON: I would just like to say that we've seen history made in this House today. We've seen the member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot) get up and read from copious notes. I never thought that I would ever see him read a prepared speech.

MR. LAUK: Shame! The end of an era!

MR. NICOLSON: It's the end of an era, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to place on the record the fact of an action that was not taken by the NDP government. I would just like to bring to the minister's attention that back in about 1974 there was one Reeves Macdonald mine in my riding very close to the U.S. border at Nelway crossing. It had been operating for some time, and [illegible] went out that they were going to have to shut down and go out of operation because of NDP mining legislation. The fact was, according to all miners in the mine, that they had run out of ore. Yes, there was an unproven ore property across the river....

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's got nothing to do with this bill.

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, it does, and I'll show you why it has something to do with this.

The government of the day then made an offer to the Bunker Hill Company which had a smelter down in the United States, which only, I think, paid 40 per cent of acknowledged concentrates and had a sweetheart smelting agreement because they actually owned control of both companies. They were claiming that it was legislation that was putting them out of business. The government of the day and the deputy minister of the day told them that if it was so risky and it was so bad, the NDP government would take their equipment, do some exploration and pay them royalties on whatever we found. You know, they wouldn't take us up on it. That's why I say that if only to prove a lie, it would be rather interesting to have this kind of power sometimes. At that time it was used to put a lie to the claims of that foreign company that was interfering in the politics of British Columbia. It certainly did put a lie to it and it put an end to the type of speculation and rumouring that was going on in the community of Salmo and those areas.

In fact, today we see that with the present mining legislation of this government, they have abandoned hope altogether. All of the equipment at the Reeves Macdonald mine has just within this last month been put on auction and they're disposing of all assets at that mine. So they have now given up opening up that mine. In spite of the fact that they sealed off parts of the mine internally, it could have been pumped out. It could have been restarted with maybe at the most one month's pumping. All the equipment was still there.

I would just point out that in terms of this particular power, which the minister is removing for political purposes, it certainly did serve a purpose, not in being exercised but by the mere fact that it was there on the legislative books. The minister would be well advised if he had something like that to force a company's hand when they just aren't dealing honestly with them, as was the case there.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the government opposite are not in the modern world at all. I don't want to raise my voice and upset them over there, but they're developing North Sea oil in Great Britain through public enterprise, private enterprise, and partnership. It's the only way to go in that kind of a situation. They give a $2 million advance to Quasar Petroleum.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Oh, don't bring that nonsense up.

MR. MACDONALD: ... to develop petroleum resources. There's no harm in using the public money to give them an advance to be paid back possibly out of future deliveries of natural gas.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The government didn't do that. You know that.

MR. MACDONALD: The government didn't do that? No, that was the B.C. Petroleum Corporation. That's a different thing, eh? That's not interfering in

[ Page 4753 ]

the private economy. That's public money, Mr. Minister, but if it ever came to the point where you might give the people of the province of B.C. an equity share in their natural gas development, oh, that would be a shocking thing! Let them lend out their money and possibly get it back with interest, if deliveries prove good; and if they prove good, then private industry makes all of the profit out of it.

For heaven's sake, don't give the people of this province any equity in their natural resources! That belongs to the multinational companies. Sure, we're the last banana republic. All those members back there support that proposition. You know, we'll have to finally throw some kind of an anchor out into the Pacific Ocean if British Columbia is not to be bought up and sold off to the international companies completely.

There isn't a modern jurisdiction anywhere in the world where there's petroleum and mineral exploration that doesn't accept the principle of partnership, public and private, working together, each adding its distinct development. You know, there's a lot to be said for the private sector adding its expertise in the development of resources to create employment, to create a buoyant economy and public revenues. In many parts of the world the private sector is perfectly willing to strike a good deal with public enterprise, and with government, for the development of resources. There's no coercion involved. There never was any coercion in this bill.

The old section 7, what did it say? "To purchase, lease or otherwise acquire." It wasn't expropriation -it's partnership. If you believe in full employment in this province and if you believe that the people should have some return from their natural resources before they are exported out to the markets of the world, then that's the way to go.

Don't tell me this minister has made a success of the mining industry and restored its confidence and all that. The mining industry has never been in worse shape in the province of B.C. That's a fact. Right now the mining industry is depressed. What was the last great mining development made in this province? What was the last big step forward in the mining industry in the province of British Columbia? It was Afton Mines and that was brought in by the NDP.

Let me tell this little minister, Mr. Speaker, that if he can emulate by half the NDP record in expansion, employment and development of resources in this province, he would be doing pretty well. I don't know where you get your economics on that side of the House. You turn back the clock on the kind of public-private development of resources that is going on all over the world and people wouldn't think twice about. In the rest of the provinces of Canada they wouldn't think about this at all.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Pay no attention to him.

He's talking off the top of his head - as usual.

MR. MACDONALD: Because you insist on being doctrinaire, reactionary free-enterprisers, as you call yourselves, you are going to cost the people of the province of B.C. jobs. You're going to cost them expansion and development of the resources of petroleum and minerals of this province.

They wouldn't listen to you for one minute in the western European countries of the world where most of the development is public-private in partnership, with both partners happy with the results and the bargain. They wouldn't listen to you for a moment. Their economy is expanding faster than that of North America at the present time. You just turned back the clock, not to the Dirty Thirties but very close to that, before all the new concepts of how we can best develop our economy came to the fore. You're doing an ideological thing, Mr. Minister. You're not doing it from the point of view of common sense, you're not doing it from the point of modern economics and you're not doing it in the interests of the people of B.C.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I rise on this bill particularly because of the report from the Clerks that I haven't been speaking enough in this House and that I've been outdone by the hon. Conservative Leader (Mr. Wallace) in terms of time spent speaking. I thought I'd rise and improve my record. There's another deep sigh by the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) supported pro teni by the old crocodile, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) .

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. member wishes to speak, he should keep to the principle of this bill; otherwise lie just might be out of order.

MR. LAUK: It would be the first time this year.

MR. SPEAKER: It would be the first time in the last five minutes.

MR. LAUK: Well, anyway, Hall Leiren printed in an article: "you'd think that Gary Lauk was a gas bag but Wallace beat him out." I was surprised that kind of language would be used by a senior member of the press gallery.

I think that the Minister of Mines is living up to the fine Social Credit tradition, in this statute, that has been set for him by the hon. Minister of Economic Development. Change, no matter what it is, gives the appearance of progress. Hopefully that appearance will be satisfactory to the public. When we have lineups of unemployment in this province, - I know he's weeping now out of guilt and shame - when the actual number of people employed in the mining industry has

[ Page 4754 ]

consistently dropped for two years in a row, from its maximum in 1974, early part of 1975, when no new major mining developments have taken place or are even on the horizon in this province ...

MR. WALLACE: Shame!

MR. LAUK: ... the Minister of Mines, the member for Columbia River, has to examine why he was appointed as the minister of that portfolio.

MR. KING: To scare away investment capital.

MR. LAUK: Indeed.

AN HON. MEMBER: It has got nothing to do with the bill.

MR. LAUK: I don't know why the minister has proposed these changes.

MR. KING: He's so afraid of Sooke, he won't go to Calgary any more.

AN HON. MEMBER: He hasn't read it yet. He hasn't even looked at it.

MR. LAUK: I'm constantly being abused and insulted by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and the Minister of Labour.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, Pshaw! Pshaw!

MR. LAUK: I'm shocked. I'm hurt, and I'm sure if they knew how badly I need my sleep at night, they wouldn't do that kind of thing. There they are, Tweedledum and Tweedledee, always here, as the Premier is in Norway, and the Premier's executive assistant is attending a conference back east....

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Vancouver Centre had better get back to the principle of the bill.

MR. LAUK: In other words, the Speaker's not amused. I'm making every effort to amuse the Speaker, and he rejects it. Well, Mr. Speaker, thank you for drawing my attention to this bill, but I want to draw the attention of the people of this province to the total inaction of the Minister of Mines. He's had several months now to make key moves in the mining industry and provide employment and wealth for the province of British Columbia, and he hasn't done that,

MR. LEA: He won't even talk about it.

MR. LAUK: The last great announcement was the Afton copper smelter, and it took him forever to bring in the incentives Act. It hasn't been called yet, and we'll have something to say on that too. I don't see how, Mr. Speaker, after a very well-devised plan for the benefit of the public of this province, in a few short months the new minister could louse it up so badly. But we'll deal with that at the time it's called.

The second reason I rose in this debate was not only to reply to Hal Leiren, but I can't have any bill of the hon. member for Columbia River pass this House without a word or two from his old friend.

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

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I find it impossible to reply to the member for Vancouver Centre. In fact he really said nothing of any substance. But I do have to reply to the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) . That member for Vancouver East talked about the great advances in the mining industry in British Columbia under the socialist regime between 1972 and 1975. 1 want to tell you the greatest advance the mining industry in this province ever made was the defeat of the socialists on December 11,1975. Never before has there been such a tremendous turndown in the number of claims staked and the amount of dollars in exploration in this province than in 1974 and 1975. That's starting to recover, Mr. Speaker, because of new policies being initiated.

The member for Vancouver East suggested that the government should be in the business of drilling and exploration of our petroleum resources in the province. Well, in the province of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, we have the dismal experience of the government involvement in drilling. We don't want to repeat that kind of an experience in this province with the taxpayers' money. The member goes so far as to suggest that the taxpayers of this province don't have an equity in the natural resources. They have an equity indeed. The taxpayers of this province from natural gas alone in the current fiscal year will receive approximately $200 million to $250 million in return as well as the cheapest natural gas in North America.

The member for Nelson-Creston talks about the need for the government to get involved in the risky, wild gambles and wild fluctuations of the mining industry. This government is philosophically opposed to the using of taxpayers' money on wild gambles. We have had enough experience of that government and the wasting of millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money between 1972 and 1975. This government is not about to repeat that dismal experience for the taxpayers of this province. I move second reading of the bill now.

Motion approved.

[ Page 4755 ]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 38 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave not granted.

Bill 38, Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources Amendment Act, 1977, referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I do believe His Honour the Administrator is approaching. Could we perhaps have a short recess?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I will declare a short recess until His Honour the Administrator arrives. I will ring the division bell when it is time to return.

The House recessed at 5:46 p.m.

The House resumed at 5: 5 7 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, His Honour the Administrator is approaching. Would all members please rise?

His Honour the Administrator entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Motor-vehicle Amendment Act, 1977 (No. 2)

Greenbelt Act

Assessment Amendment Act, 1977 (No. 2)

Mobile Home Act

Motor-vehicle Amendment Act, 1977 (No. 3)

Commercial Transport Amendment Act, 1977

Systems Act

Companies Amendment Act

Summary Convictions Amendment Act, 1977

British Columbia Buildings Corporation Amendment Act, 1977

Strata Titles Amendment Act, 1977

Jury Amendment Act, 1977

Attorney-General Statutes Amendment Act, 1977

Heritage Conservation Act

Credit Unions Amendment Act, 1977

Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act, 1977

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In her Majesty's name, His Honour the Administrator doth assent to these bills.

His Honour the Administrator retired from the chamber.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

[ Page 4756 ]

APPENDIX

27 The Hon. Jack Davis to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 27) intituled Motor-vehicle Amendment Act, 1977 (No. 2) , to amend as follows:

Section 4, line 2: By deleting ", by summary conviction, ".

29 The Hon. J. A. Nielsen to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 29) intituled Greenbelt Act, to amend as follows:

Section 10: By deleting "and the Pollution Control Act" and substituting the Land Commission Act, the Pollution Control Act and the Water Act".

29 Mr. Skelly to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 29) intituled Greenbelt Act, to amend as follows:

Section 10, line 2: To delete the word "and" before "the Pollution Control Act" and to add after "Pollution Control Act" the words "and the Land Commission Act".

34 The Hon. H. A. Curtis to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 34) intituled Mobile Home Act, to amend as follows:

Section 6 (1) , line 4: By inserting ", the Companies Act, " after "Bills of Sale Act".

Section 6 (2) , line 2: By deleting "this Act" and substituting "this section".

Section 6 (2) , lines 5 to 7: By deleting all the words after "Act" and substituting "within one year after the coming into force of this section."

Section 6 (3) , lines I and 2: By deleting "instrument filed" and substituting "instrument previously filed at the office of the Registrar-General".

Section 11: By deleting section I I and substituting the following: "Mobile home affixed to land.

"11. (1) Where a security interest is perfected under this Act either before or after the mobile home affected by it is affixed to land, the secured party may, at any time, file in the land registry office for the district in which the land is situated a notice in the prescribed form, setting out

\(a\) the name and address of the registered owner of the land,

\(b\) the name and address of the secured party,

\(c\) the registration number of the mobile home,

\(d\) the year of manufacture, make and model of the mobile home,

\(e\) the amount secured, a description of the land to which the mobile home is affixed or will be affixed, sufficient for the purpose of identification in the land registry office, and

\(g\) such other information as may be prescribed.

" (2) The notice under subsection (1) shall be signed by the secured party or his agent and there shall be attached to the notice a copy of the security instrument.

, , (3) On deposit of the notice under subsection (1 ) in the land registry office, accompanied by the payment of the prescribed fee, the registrar of titles shall file the notice and make reference to it by entry in the proper register against the title of the land to which the notice relates; or, if the title has not been registered, the registrar of titles shall file the notice and make entry of the particulars in an index to be kept in his office, to be known as the 'mobile home security index'.

" (4) Notwithstanding the Land Registry Act, where a security interest is perfected under this Act and the mobile home affected by it is subsequently affixed to land, a notice under subsection (1) shall, if filed in the land registry office within 30 days after the mobile home became affixed to the land, be deemed to be actual notice of the security instrument to which the, notice relates, to every

[ Page 4757 ]

APPENDIX

person who is an owner, purchaser, lessee, mortgagee, or encumbrancer of the land, whether or not

\(a\) he is registered in the books of the land registry office as the owner, purchaser, lessee, mortgagee, or encumbrancer, or

\(b\) he became the owner, purchaser, lessee, mortgagee, or encumbrancer before or after the filing of the notice, and the security instrument continues to have the same effect as if the mobile home were not so affixed.

" (5) Notwithstanding the Land Registry Act, where a security interest is perfected under this Act

\(a\) before the mobile home became affixed to land, but the notice is not filed within the time limited by subsection (4) , or

\(b\) after the mobile home became affixed to land, a notice under subsection (1) shall, on being filed in the land registry office, be deemed to be actual notice of the security instrument to which the notice relates to every person who became an owner, purchaser, lessee, mortgagee, or encumbrancer after the filing of the notice.

1 " (6) Where a security interest is perfected under this Act before the mobile home affected by it became affixed to land, and a notice is filed within the time limited by subsection (4) , the secured party may retake possession of or remove from the land the mobile home affixed to it if

\(a\) he has given, to every registered owner of the land within the meaning of section 2 of the Land Registry Act, a notice in writing of his intention to retake possession of and to remove the mobile home, and

\(b\) every person so notified has, for a period of 20 days after the giving of the notice or such longer period as the court may fix, failed to pay the amount owing on the mobile home.

" (7) Where a security interest is perfected under this Act

\(a\) before the mobile home became affixed to land, but the notice is not filed within the time limited by subsection (4) , or

\(b\) after the mobile home became affixed to land, and a notice under subsection (1) is filed in the land registry office in accordance with subsection (1) , the secured party shall not retake possession of or remove from the land the mobile home affixed to it unless

\(c\) every person who became an owner, purchaser, lessee, mortgagee, or encumbrancer of the land before the notice under subsection (1) was filed has consented to the retaking of possession or the removal,

\(d\) he has given, to every registered owner of the land within the meaning of section 2 of the Land Registry Act, a notice in writing of his intention to retake possession of and to remove the mobile home, and

\(e\) every person who became an owner, purchaser, lessee, mortgagee, or encumbrancer of the land after the filing of the notice under subsection (I ) has, for a period of 20 days after the giving of the notice under this subsection to him or for such longer period as the court may fix, failed to pay the amount owing on the mobile home.

" (8) A notice under subsection (6) or (7) shall be signed by the secured party or his agent and shall set out the particulars referred to in subsection ( 1

and in addition shall contain

\(a\) the amount owing under the security instrument,

\(b\) a demand that the amount so owing shall be paid on or before a day mentioned, not less than 20 days after the giving of the notice, and

\(c\) a statement of the intention to retake possession of and to remove the mobile home unless the amount owing is paid within the time mentioned.

" (9) A notice under subsection (6) or (7) may be given

\(a\) by delivering it personally, or

[ Page 4758 ]

APPENDIX

\(b\) by mailing it by prepaid registered mail addressed to the person at his last known address, and where the notice is so mailed, it shall be deemed to be given to the person to whom it is addressed on the date it would be received in the ordinary course of mail.

" (10) Notwithstanding subsection (9) , a notice under subsection (6) or (7) may in any case be given by such form of substituted service as the registrar of titles may direct, and for that purpose the powers vested in the registrar of titles by the Land Registry Act apply.

" (11) Every owner, purchaser, lessee, mortgagee, or encumbrancer of the land, whether registered as such under the Land Registry Act or not, has the right as against the secured party to pay the amount so owing in the time mentioned in a notice under subsection (6) or (7) , and thereupon the secured party's right to retake possession and remove the mobile home on account of that default ceases.

" (12) A secured party taking possession of and removing the mobile home from the land shall exercise his right of removal in such manner as will cause no greater damage or injury to the land or to personal property situated on it, or put the owner, lessee, or occupier of the land to any greater inconvenience than is necessarily incidental to the removal of the mobile home.

" (13) The registrar of titles in whose office a notice has been filed under subsection (I ) , on receipt of a certificate of discharge in the prescribed form signed by the secured party or his agent, shall, on payment of the prescribed fee but subject to the production of such further evidence as he may require, cancel the entry of the notice on the register, or in the mobile home security index, as the case may be.

74 The Hon. G. B. Gardom to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 74) intituled Attorney-General Statutes Amendment Act, 1977, to amend as follows:

Section 1, line I and 2: By striking out section I and substituting:

"I. The Administration Act is amended (a) in section 4 by striking out '66' and substituting '68', and (b) in section 52 by adding the following as subsection (3):"

" (3) Money paid into the Intestate Estates Fund under subsection (1) , shall, from the day this subsection comes into force, or from the first day of the next month after payment of the money into the Fund, whichever is the later, until the first day of the month during which it is paid out, earn interest, payable by the Minister of Finance at such rate, if any, as the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance, may direct."

Section 14, line 4: By inserting after the words "or officer in charge" the following: "of the detachment of police operating in the municipality".

Section 15, line 6: By inserting after "Patients' Estates Act, shall, ", the following: "from the day this section comes into force, or".

Section 15, line 7: By , inserting after "into the account", the following:

"whichever is the later, ".

77 The Hon. Sam Bawlf to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 77) intituled Heritage Conservation Act, to amend as follows:

Section 1, line 3: Add "or the Vancouver Charter" at the end of the definition of "council".

Section 11 (2) (a) , Be 3: Delete "designate" and substitute "adopt the by-law".

Section 31, line 1: Delete "Islands Trust" and substitute "Islands Trust Act".