[ Page 5299 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Land Commission Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 88). Second reading

Mr. Skelly –– 5299

Mr. Gibson –– 5302

Mr. Macdonald –– 5303

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 5304

On the amendment to refer to agriculture committee

Mr. Skelly –– 5307

Mr. Wallace –– 5307

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 5309

Mr. Cocke –– 5309

Division on the amendment –– 5310

Societies Act (Bill 50). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 5310

Mr. Levi –– 5311

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 5314

Societies Act (Bill 50). Committee stage

On section 42.

Mr. Levi –– 5315

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 5315

On the amendment to section 56.

Mr. Levi –– 5315

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 5316

On the amendment to section 71.

Mr. Levi –– 5317

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 5317

Report and third reading –– 5318

Automobile Insurance Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 71.) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5318

Mr. Cocke –– 5319

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5321

Public Recreational Facilities Act (Bill 90). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 5322

Mr. Nicolson –– 5322

Appendix –– 5323

The House met at 8 p.m.

Orders of the day.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 88, Mr. Speaker.

LAND COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

(continued)

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, as I stated before the dinner hour, I said I would be brief. There are just three or four points that we'd like to cover in the bill before it's dealt with by the House.

It's difficult to deal with a principle in this Act since it's really an amendment to an existing statute, but most of the amendments we can support on this side of the House. As the minister pointed out, most of them are housekeeping amendments. Some of them improve the Act where there are needed to be improvements, and some of them formalize procedures that already exist and are already used by the Land Commission. So we would support those improvements to the Act, and we're principally pleased with the fact that the Land Commission now has power to enforce compatible uses on farm land. Before, in some areas of the province, there were no building codes, or bylaw enforcement through building or bylaw inspectors. It was difficult for the Land Commission to ensure that there were compatible uses and no incompatible construction on farmland, because they didn't have the enforcement procedures. So we're pleased to see that included in the bill.

We're also happy to see the consolidations section, although we have some concern about ancient subdivisions that have been improved, or joined into a farm unit. We would have liked to have seen some amendments which would have given the Land Commission the power to designate a farm unit for protection under the Land Commission Act, and I'll cover that later.

Another part of the bill that simply formalizes the procedures under the Land Commission is the section which deals with regional advisers. We do have some questions of the minister on the regional advisers. In the past, committees were provided by the B.C. Federation of Agriculture which would go around and look at property under appeal and advise the Land Commission whether that land was high potential farmland or could be farmed economically. Those advisers provided valuable service to the Land Commission.

We would like to ask the minister, and perhaps he will advise us in winding up the debate on second reading, whether he is intending to formalize those advisory committees; or whether he will be appointing civil service or Land Commission employees under this section of the Act in each part of the province; or whether he'll be designating some government employees in each section of the province to fulfill the role of regional advisers.

We're quite concerned, if this is what he plans to do, that they not be representatives of the local real estate board or representatives of the local developers. We would like to see the commission and the regional advisers supportive of preserving farmland as much as possible. So perhaps the minister can give us more detail on this section in closing second reading.

I pointed out the problem of ancient subdivisions. At one time in the province of British Columbia, developers, mainly railways and including B.C. Rail, went around the province and divided the whole province into small two- to five-acre lots, without any regard to the terrain of the province, simply for speculative reasons. Some farmers, finding that small parcels two- to five-acres were valuable farmland, consolidated those parcels. They didn't consolidate them in a formal way under the Land Registry Act, but they joined them all together to produce a farm unit. There are many examples of this in my constituency and many examples in the minister's constituency which pose problems to the Land Commission at the present time. We were hoping for an amendment which would have provided to the Land Commission the power to designate a number of ancient subdivision lots as a single farm unit, to protect them under the Land Commission Act.

I'll just give the minister an example of a farm unit in my riding. The farmer who owned the unit died and the farm wound up in a dispute among various family groups in the settlement of the estate. What happened was that a part of the family came from out of province and all they wanted to do was to get out with the money. They sold every five-unit parcel as a farmette. They broke up an excellent, producing dairy farm and sold the individual five-acre parcels as farmettes. As a result, the province is that much the poorer, because we've lost a producing farm unit on Vancouver Island.

That's happened in a number of cases, and there is also the threat that that might happen again. As I said, there are even examples in the minister's riding. So we would have liked to have seen some amendments to this Act which would have provided the power to the Land Commission to protect those kinds of farm units.

We are pleased to see the establishment of a public hearing provision 'for section 9(1) appeals. Those provisions had already been made by the Land Commission for 9(2) appeals, and we wish that the minister had seen fit to provide public hearings for all

[ Page 5300 ]

appeal procedures under the Land Commission Act. Unfortunately, we've only seen the addition in the section 9(1) appeals.

One section we're completely opposed to on this side of the House in the New Democratic opposition is this section relating to the appeal procedures. The old section 9(7) appeals, where an individual could appeal his property out of the agricultural land reserve, but first he had to go to the municipality and get authorization from the municipality. This was an initial hurdle that an applicant had to pass in order to appeal to cabinet. That hurdle was an important one, Mr. Speaker, because when the Land Commission was first established, hundreds of people decided to appeal for frivolous reasons simply to get out of the land reserve because they had been misinformed as to the intent of the Land Commission and why it was set up.

A number of Social Credit candidates, Mr. Speaker, advised people to appeal to the Land Commission on a wholesale basis to try to thwart the objects of the Land Commission. That happened in a number of ridings throughout the province where the local Social Credit organization told people that when the Land Commission was established they should immediately appeal on any grounds whatsoever, including political grounds, to try to thwart the objectives of the Land Commission. So the government was forced during the initial stages of the operation of the Land Commission to set up an appeal procedure that would provide for a local screening of these appeals.

The municipalities, at the same time, also demanded that they have a right to review these appeals before they went to cabinet. That right was established in the Land Commission Act under section 9(7) of the old Act.

I don't think we can object to removing the authority of a municipality to veto an appeal to cabinet altogether. But we would have liked to have seen a change in this section which provided for a first step municipal appeal, so that the local government, the people more closely involved in the appeal, could take a look at the application and could make a judgment of the application. The municipality could recommend against it or they could turn down the appeal based on the local planning problems. They may say that appeal shouldn't be granted; it shouldn't have been made in the first place. But at least that would have provided a first step in the appeal procedure. It would have provided for local government input.

Instead of removing the veto, the minister has removed municipal involvement altogether now. For that reason we oppose this section and we will oppose the bill unless the section is removed or amended.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): What section is that, Bob?

MR. SKELLY: That's section 7 (7) in this Act, and we would have to oppose that section of the bill. We would ask the minister to take a careful second look at it and, as the minister has agreed to do in other bills, possibly he could, as I say, take a second look at it and come back with an amendment which would involve municipalities in the appeal procedure without giving them veto power, as they have at the present. I think that we should involve local governments as much as possible in land planning in this province. This government has been constantly taking away powers and responsibilities of local government and we should not let that happen in this Act, Mr. Speaker.

Now once a person had appealed to the Land Commission under the old section 9(7), if he was rejected at the Land Commission level, Mr. Speaker, he then was required to get the approval of two members of the Land Commission to give him leave to appeal to cabinet, or to the Environment and Land Use Committee. Again it provided an extra hurdle – two more people whom the appellant had to convince in order to take the third step in the appeal procedure. I think it's necessary that the person involved should have a good case to take farm land out of the agricultural reserve. After all, agricultural land is food production land, and the whole world has an interest in food production land in the province of British Columbia. Our children have an interest in that land. It's important, and there's a province-wide interest in that agricultural land.

The appeal process shouldn't be easy. Before you deny food and food production land from our children, from people around the world, and from other people in the province, you should have to go through a difficult appeal procedure and you should be forced to prove your case for taking that land out of the reserve before the local officials and before an independent body like the Land Commission before you get to the political body that meets in secret to decide on these appeals. The appeal procedure shouldn't be easy. Now it shouldn't be unnecessarily restrictive, but definitely, because of the wide interest in agricultural land, it should not be easy to appeal land out of the agricultural reserve.

We would hope that the minister will take a second look at the elimination of the local government approval procedure and we would hope that the minister will take a second look at elimination of the requirement for two land commissioners to approve the leave to appeal to the Environment and Land Use Committee.

What has been happening in every piece of legislation that this government has brought down is a centralization of legislative authority in the cabinet and in cabinet committees, as is the case here. We've

[ Page 5301 ]

seen some difficult problems in cabinet appeal procedures where people such as Brett's Chevrolet in Chilliwack, through an exchange of information with their local MLA and his assistance in greasing the procedure to the cabinet, have managed to get land out of the reserve over the objections of the Land Commission and over the objections of the local municipality. That municipality now refuses to rezone the land that was taken out of the agricultural land reserve in order that Mr. Brett can do what he pleases with that land near Chilliwack airport.

We've also seen a case where 320 acres were taken out of the agricultural land reserve in the minister's own riding. The principals involved in that land transaction were represented initially by Robert Bonner, and they appeared to have no difficulty at all getting that land out of the agricultural land reserve once they got to the secrecy of cabinet and to political friends of Mr. Bonner in cabinet.

We felt that procedure should be as difficult as possible and should be thwarted as much as possible. Why should we allow land to be taken out of the agricultural land reserve, land which everybody in this province has an interest in, land which future generations have an interest in, land which the whole world has interest in because it means food export capability by this province? So we believe that procedure should be as difficult as possible, used as little as possible, and the hurdles involved in getting to that final stage of the appeal procedure should be very difficult. An applicant should be forced to prove his case in some detail before he's allowed to get to that stage in the appeal procedure.

The thing is, this section isn't even required, Mr. Speaker, because up to the present time I'm not aware of a single appeal that has been made to the Land Commission or a single application that has been made to members of the Land Commission for leave to appeal to cabinet that has been rejected. So let's look at what is going to happen. You now don't have to have local approval to appeal. You now don't even have to have the Land Commission's approval. In fact, they can veto your appeal 100 per cent. It can be unanimous that the Land Commission rejects your appeal. Furthermore, it may be that an appellant can't even prove the case that he be heard again to two members of the Land Commission, and now he can appeal to the minister, flash his Social Credit Party card, and he's on his way to getting that land out of the agricultural land reserve.

Mr. Speaker, it makes a mockery of the previous stage in the appeal process – appealing to the Land Commission – because you simply don't have to accept the Land Commission's decision on the appeal. If you have the right party affiliation, you can get the land out anyway because within 30 days of the decision by the land commissioners, you can then go to the minister and have your land taken out of the agricultural land reserve simply by flashing your Social Credit Party card.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Possibly the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) will be speaking in this debate. We'd be interested in hearing what he has to say because he has so very little to say ordinarily, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Maybe he doesn't have a Social Credit Party card. (Laughter.)

MR. SKELLY: That's how he got into cabinet. He didn't flash his card, but now that you're there, all it costs you is $1 for four years, or something like that, to get your land out of the agricultural land reserve. There are some of us in this province who don't feel it should be that easy. Those decisions are made behind the closed doors of cabinet; they're made without reference to public input. There are no public hearings involved at the cabinet level and it's not the kind of appeal procedure that should be allowed when we're dealing with valuable resources such as agricultural land. The more decisions that are made in a public forum, the more opportunity the public has to make an input to those decisions, the more people can be involved in the protection and enhancement of our agricultural land resource, the better it's going to be.

We're strongly opposed to this section of the Act and in committee stage we'll be voting against it. As I said before, Mr. Speaker, we would hope that the minister would reconsider this section of the Act and change it to make the political side of the appeal more difficult.

Another thing that we're concerned about, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that this bill is brought down and being dealt with in the Legislature at a time when the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture is out listening to representations from agricultural groups, environmental groups and concerned citizens throughout the province. One of the terms of reference of that select standing committee falls within the jurisdiction of the Land Commission. That is the protection and development of agricultural land to provide an agricultural land base self-sufficiency for the province of British Columbia in food production. While that select standing committee is out dealing with the very thing this bill deals with, we're debating it in the House in their absence. Mr. Speaker, that doesn't make sense at all. I feel that it's contempt for that committee to bring this bill down in the House at a time when the committee is sitting around the province.

They don't have the opportunity in an informed way . . . . They are probably more informed on

[ Page 5302 ]

agricultural problems throughout the province than we in this House are at the present time, because they've been holding public hearings throughout the province. I feel it's contempt, and this party feels it's contempt, Mr. Speaker, for the House to deal with this bill while that agricultural committee is sitting away from the House tonight.

So we would hope – and we intend to move – that instead of referring this bill to a Committee of the Whole House, the committee that deals with this bill be the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and that they have an opportunity to consider it before it's brought back for third reading in the House. We'll do that at a later stage in debate.

So, Mr. Speaker, for those reasons, this party cannot support the bill during second reading. We hope that the minister will reconsider those sections and explain to us who the regional advisers are going to be and how they're going to be appointed. We hope that he himself will reconsider a motion to send this to a Committee of the Whole House and, in fact, refer it to the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture which is now meeting throughout the province.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, my feeling is that this is basically a committee bill. The housekeeping amendments in it are good, the enforcement sections are good and the restriction of authority of the commission to agricultural land, I think, on balance, is a forward step.

I should say that I was amused to see some of the changes. I was amused to see the words "except by expropriation" which were such a controversy when this Land Commission Act was first passed have been removed from this bill, but we'll get to that in committee stage. The concept of regional advisers is a good one, and the statutory, rather than regulatory, system for the addition of land to the reserves is good.

The essence of this bill, the core of this bill, to me, is the powers of cabinet that the minister described as parallel powers to those of the Land Commission. I find these worrisome. I don't mind in principle an appeal to a political authority in this kind of area. It's not a judicial area, but it's not a partisan area, either.

I think it should not be decided by a one-party committee which, of course, the Environment and Land Use Committee is. As every member of this House knows, in any land transaction of this kind, if one is successful in getting land liberated from the agricultural reserve, there is potential for tremendous profit. This is not necessarily a wrong thing, but the decision shouldn't be made in a partisan spirit. There's always that suspicion when it's done behind closed doors by a cabinet committee.

The solution in my view, and one in which I will be offering in amendment in committee stage, is that the appeals should not be to the Environment and Land Use Committee. It should be to the standing committee on agriculture, which is not a one-party committee; it's a committee of this House. It operates in the open and I think it's appropriate that legislation passed by this House should provide for appeal to a committee of this House. Then the public's business is done in public. I know the former Attorney-General would subscribe to that.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Absolutely, and I like it.

MR. GIBSON: The current Environment and Land Use Committee system, Mr. Speaker – and I thank the minister for his courtesy in responding to my note on this – is, to my understanding, not a public hearing system. I gather that it is open to the appellant, to the regional district, to the municipality and to the Land Commission. That's better than a totally closed hearing system, but it's still not out there in the public view, where everybody can see it, where the press can be there and say: "What's going on here? Is the public interest really being served?"

The minister could assist a lot of my doubts in this regard if, in closing debate on second reading, he would stand up and say: "Well, perhaps the way the Environment and Land Use Committees on this particular question in the past have been held is wrong. Perhaps they should be completely open to the public." As a matter of fact, it the minister would say that they will be open to the public from now on in this particular sort of appeal taken under section 7(7) through (10), then I would say, well, that's fine. That relieves most of my concerns here, if the minister would say those hearings are open. But without that, I have serious concern. As I say, I'll be offering an amendment at committee stage.

The addition of public hearings under section 9(1) is good. It remedies a defect in the original Act, where the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council had the right unilaterally to make any kind of a change in the land reserve without a public hearing. So the addition of a public hearing here is good.

I would like to see the minister carry the same principle on throughout the appeal process, so that the principle of public hearing in a change of land use from agricultural land reserve to another category should be public in every instance.

The point of the hon. member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) in this context on a municipal hearing was a good idea. That did provide a public hearing. As the member put it, it was a hurdle that had to be overcome. The minister may want to change that and say we'll move one hurdle to another; we'll substitute the cabinet hurdle for the municipal hurdle. All right. That's his prerogative; that's the government's prerogative, if they can convince the House and their

[ Page 5303 ]

own backbenchers primarily. Taking away that requirement for a municipal hearing takes away the requirement for a public hearing. What I want the minister to do is to put that public hearing back in and to guarantee to us that the procedures of the Environment and Land Use Committee in this regard will be open to the public.

The offence that this legislation gives to the current investigations of the agriculture committee I think is self-evident. Indeed, it's almost an offence to the House, because the House as a whole gave that committee terms of reference some months ago and charged them with an investigation of this Act. Now it was working. That member there, I know, supported that resolution; and that member there, and many of these members. I wonder where they are tonight, when we're infringing on the terms of reference that we gave that agriculture committee. The Minister of Mines knows we're giving the committee the shaft.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: That's right, Mr. Speaker. We asked the committee to go out and see how the land use commission was working, and here we are being asked by the government to pre-empt the judgment of that committee and say that here's how the Environment and Land Use Act should be changed. I don't think that's right. For that reason, assuming that the hon. member for Alberni is going to move a motion to refer this legislation to the standing committee on agriculture, so that they can look at this in conjunction with their own investigations, I'm naturally going to support that.

Mr. Speaker, agricultural land is scarce and it's important. Urbanization is a one-way street. I think every member in this House knows that. I think that removals of lands from the agricultural land reserve – and there's no question that there's a quantity of land in the province that should be removed – have to be done carefully. It has to pass a certain test and public tests.

I'm going to refrain at this point from saying how I will vote on second reading until I hear what the minister has to say about the public aspect of the deliberations of the appeals under section 7 of this Act by the Environment and Land Use Committee. If he satisfies me that there will be a sufficient public component, I will support the bill. If he does not, I think that's an important enough principle that I'll vote against it. I'll listen to his reply with great interest.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I've listened very attentively to this debate. When we wrote the Land Commission Act, which was one of the great achievements in the province of British Columbia, I remember having something – and I'm very proud of it – to do with the drafting of the Act. We were convinced, when we drafted that Act the second time, Mr. Speaker . . . . The Speaker remembers the first time we drafted the Act – and I didn't have too much to do with that; it was a very poor Act when it was first drafted.

This Act which is now the Land Commission Act is a cornerstone in the statutes of British Columbia to save green space. Let's remember what the original purpose was: to save the green space of British Columbia for future generations.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nothing to do with agriculture?

MR. MACDONALD: That comes into it – green space for agriculture primarily, and food production, and also recreation, and chlorophyll for the atmosphere. Those were the purposes of the Act.

MR. L. KAHL (Esquimalt): Let's hear it for the chlorophyll.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, you don't have ozone; do you, unless you have green grass growing and trees growing and things of that kind? We can blacktop planet Earth, and live to regret it. Well, this is very close, Mr. Speaker, to being a blacktop government in a different sense.

AN HON. MEMBER: How long did it take you to prepare your speech, Alex?

MR. MACDONALD: The essential point that we were concerned with was to keep politicians out of the process of releasing land for black topping and real estate development, because politicians are corruptible.

AN HON. MEMBER: Speak for yourself.

MR. MACDONALD: Politicians are corruptible. We saw the municipal councils all over the province and the regional districts being bowled over by the real estate interests. If they couldn't win in this municipality with money and pressure and electing their members to the councils and the regional districts, they'd try another. They'd make a bundle of money after they got the rezoning and then they'd go on to make another conquest where they found a weak spot. As the Liberal leader said: "The process is irreversible."

We saw the green space of British Columbia, which is limited enough because we're basically a mountainous province, disappearing. And so we acted. We were very careful in terms of the appeal procedure that the politicians didn't make the

[ Page 5304 ]

primary decision. Safeguards were written into the legislation: it had to come through a municipal council if there was to be an appeal from an independent body and there had to be two dissenting members of the Land Commission.

Now that is being swept away. First, this government comes into office and they fire the whole commission. But we are not discussing that tonight. That was the beginning of the erosion of the green space safeguards which we had established in British Columbia. Now this bill is just a little more erosion – not very much. But little by little this government is breaking down the safeguards. Little by little this government is centralizing wherever they run in all their legislation and putting it into the hands of politicians, whom the campaign contributors will be beholding. Centralizing. Putting it into the hands of corruptible politicians. This is what is happening here tonight in a small way with this bill.

It won't make much difference in a year or two, but over a period of time this erosion, this ability to go to the minister, who is a politician, and say: "You know what I did for you in the last election. I gave you funds; I helped you. . . ." Politicians are fallible, politicians are human, politicians depend in the state of our present election system on campaign funds. Politicians are corruptible.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that your experience?

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, certainly it is. Yes, it is. You've got to be very careful in terms of campaign funds. You've got to be very careful in terms of pressure groups when you are trying to safeguard a public interest, which is the preservation, in this case, of green space.

Of all people in this House, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) should be opposing this section. Little by little it's breaking down the safeguards.

This government doesn't have the courage to wipe out the Land Commission Act of the New Democratic Party. They don't have the courage. They know the public of British Columbia wouldn't stand for it. So little by little they break down the essential safeguards that we built into that legislation.

The Minister of the Environment will be a very popular person with the big land developers because he will now have a key position to play in this. Whatever the Land Commission does – even in their new complexion after the original ones had all been fired – they can come to the office of the minister and say: "We want a second chance, and we want politicians to decide whether this land shall be rezoned." If it is rezoned, in most cases its value in the marketplace goes up twofold, threefold, fourfold. There is a lot of money involved and there is a lot of public interest involved.

I think it's a tragedy tonight, Mr. Speaker. I'm not going to say any more about it, but here we are again, centralizing in the hands of the politicians.

I've been reading a book on Huey Long of Louisiana. That's a long time ago, but what did he do? He was a master politician and demagogue. As soon as he became governor of the state of Alaska, he began . . .

AN HON. MEMBER: Louisiana.

MR. MACDONALD: I was thinking of the Alaska Purchase, but the Louisiana Purchase was earlier. When he became governor of Louisiana, he wanted to see that all the strings of power came back into his own office. He achieved that result and at the time of his assassination he was a threat himself. This government is doing the same thing, little by little. Look at the other Acts you passed in this session. Centralize. Look at the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis), for example: power to change zoning bylaws of his own initiative and rewrite them. Here is just another example of centralizing, of putting it into the hands of corruptible politicians. I say that British Columbia, for generations to come, will rue this simple little amendment that is in this Act tonight. We're going to see again, very slowly it's true, green space in British Columbia disappearing under the developer's hammer on the auction block. The time will come when we will need fresh air and we will need food production and we will need space for recreation in this province. I say this is not something that should be given to the politicians. It should be left to a strong independent Land Commission. This is a little by little erosion of that power.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, with the indulgence of the House, I wonder if perhaps I could just make a short announcement with respect to the fire in Nanaimo. One of the members from the pollution control branch has just returned from Victoria and has informed us that the fire is virtually out except for small situations which are easily taken care of. According to the representatives of the Nanaimo volunteer fire department, the chances of any environmental damage of any proportion is unlikely.

Mr. Speaker, I might mention that I had the opportunity of visiting that area today, and the people who are in charge of the emergency programme in Nanaimo and the volunteer fire department did an exceptional job in evacuating persons who could be in danger, keeping the fire under control and minimizing damage. Even so, it was reported that in excess of $2 million of fuel was consumed in the fire. Unfortunately, one of those volunteer firefighters lost his life in that fire this

[ Page 5305 ]

morning. The overall capabilities of those persons is to be commended. The information we received tonight is that it is virtually out and under control, and we're very pleased with that.

Responding to some of the thoughts and questions about the amendments, the member for Alberni identified many points as he went through it. I appreciate that he recognizes some of the amendments which appear to be very obvious to persons who are involved in working with that Act, such as the regional advisers. And, yes, the B.C. Federation of Agriculture has played a role in this.

It is not my intention at this time to appoint civil servants or government employees to those positions of regional advisers. The thought at this time is that because of their limitation in numbers it's impossible to have citizens from each regional area of the province on the Land Commission. We have members on the Land Commission now from the lower mainland, Cloverdale area; another from the Okanagan, from the Kamloops area, from the Cariboo. It's impossible to have people from all over the province. As an example, we do not have a member on the Land Commission from Vancouver Island. We would like to have a regional adviser from Vancouver Island and from the northern area, perhaps in the Omineca area, the Peace River district, and other very identifiable areas of the province as designated by the Environment and Land Use Committee, in the management resource areas, or others. These people would be appointed as advisers and would be responsible for offering advice to the Land Commission, relative to applications which are being considered in their region only. These people would be prominent persons who have similar qualifications to those necessary to be appointed as a commissioner.

The restriction we've imposed on the land commissioners is a maximum term of four years. We have a maximum term of two years for regional advisers. It is our hope that some of those persons who may be appointed, after their two-year tenure might be quite suitable as possible replacements as land commissioners for the full four-year term.

We recognize the problem of ancient subdivisions that the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) discussed. We recognize that, looking at the former correspondence on ancient subdivisions, this problem was early identified. We've discussed this extensively with members of the Land Commission, with a number of mayors and other representatives of regional districts. We have attempted to develop some type of a solution to the problem. We have been unable to do so satisfactorily to all. We hope that we can come up with a type of amendment at some time for the Act, or another Act, which would cover this. We have asked for, and received, co-operation from local governments who have, in many instances, prevented such development of these subdivisions. We have emphasized to them our concern. We do recognize that factors in history are such that these strange subdivisions are in place throughout the province. We recognize it as a problem. We know the former government recognized it as a problem. I regret that we have not been able to resolve it satisfactorily, as I'm sure the other government attempted to, and members of the Land Commission are working on this problem at this moment.

The public hearings were mentioned by the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly). In the Act, we feel that it can go a long way to resolving some of the problems which are before us when it comes to lands which are to be excluded from the ALR or applications made. A lot of that is the confrontation which takes place between proponents and opponents, and we feel that a public hearing is the place for much of this to be decided and much of it to be heard.

The appeal procedures – there are minor modifications in there and the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) is quite correct; it is a committee bill, because it's difficult to speak in principle to amendments to an existing Act. When we get to committee stage, we can review them in more precise terms. But there are a number of modifications made which will reduce some duplication in bureaucracy and red tape. Several examples within the existing Act make it necessary for a person to appeal to several levels of authority. Should they be refused the appeal, a different avenue of appeal is open, but they must go through all the steps again to get back to where they are.

We've allowed in some modification for the Land Commission to have an option. Under the Act, the Land Commission, if it's looking at an application for exemption, may, with the permission of the applicant, rather than granting exclusion, allow them permission under another section of the Act. They can do that now by telling that applicant to go back and start over again and see us under a different section. This way they can cross over, but again with the agreement of the applicant. It isn't to be forced upon them, because the person may not wish to go that way.

MR. GIBSON: What about a public hearing?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: A person who is applying under a section of the Act at the moment – what is called a 9(2) . . . these hearings are open. This is the original application, where a person who owns land and wishes to have it excluded goes to the Land Commission and those hearings are held in public. The original application is made. Should the Land Commission then refuse that application, the appellant may then go back to the Land Commission

[ Page 5306 ]

and ask for leave to appeal to the Environment and Land Use Committee. If two members will give him such permission . . . .

MR. GIBSON: That isn't public.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: That isn't public; that is between the appellant and the Land Commission at this time. If they do grant the appeal, then the Environment and Land Use Committee hears the appeal under section 9(7) of the Act. The regulations stipulate that:

"The Environment and Land Use Committee shall, at or before the hearing, review all the documents filed with it pertaining to the appeal, and at the hearing shall hear the representations and evidence of the commission, the appellant and the regional district, municipality or other persons who made representations or gave evidence on the original application."

Now they're not public hearings in that sense of a public hearing. No. They're not a closed hearing completely, in that many persons can attend – those persons I just made mention of. They would be those persons who took part in the original public hearing.

MR. GIBSON: Why not make them public?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Well, perhaps we could go into that during committee study and we can listen to your arguments and I can offer you some other thoughts to that. You mention that if you could be persuaded . . . I can only offer you that which is at this time, and it's your decision if you support that or do not support it. In effect, it really is not changed under the amendments. There is really no change in that appeal procedure as far as being open to the public. It's as it was previously.

We have no records that . . . . It was mentioned by a member that we should go back to the regional district or municipality. We have no records that any local government has ever refused the 9(7) portion of the application, but be that as it may. One of the problems we have with local governments getting involved in these applications is getting them involved. Some regional districts particularly are very anxious to be involved; others refuse to become involved. In many instances, we have written several times to a regional district, asking if they would please make comment, representation or anything, and they have refused to do so. Decisions are made one way or other without their advice. We have made some modifications where, in some sections of the Act, they must come forward. So not all local governments, unfortunately, act in the same way. Some are exceptional and some are extremely poor. We have told them what our thoughts are on that.

The new modification to the Act, which is the appeal procedure, has generated some comment. The appeal has not been misinterpreted by persons outside this House, but perhaps it's not been fully understood. The appeal to the minister is the same appeal as to the two people from the Land Commission at this time. It is only appeal for leave to appeal to the Environment and Land Use Committee which the Land Commission can do now. And to the member for Vancouver East, with the green spaces and so on, the Greenbelt Act, which was passed recently by this House, empowers the government with adequate authority to acquire such properties, and that would be our intent: to protect such properties.

And a final comment, with reference to a remark by the member for Vancouver East. I'm sure he is in agreement that the members of the commission are competent people. I think that there's added protection for the public in that their term of office will be limited, because I think it's important that there be a turnover of such persons who are put in a very hectic job and a job of great importance.

Mr. Speaker, with those comments, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 88 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the amendment?

MR. SPEAKER: The question must be put, hon. members. I've taken the question and I'll recognize the hon. member following the question.

MR. SKELLY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding from talking to the Clerks that it is possible to amend a motion to refer in such a way that it can be referred to another committee other than a Committee of the Whole House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I've recognized the hon. minister in a proper manner.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I've recognized the hon. minister in putting a motion. The minister moved a proper motion and I must put the motion at this time.

MR. SKELLY: Without amendment?

AN HON. MEMBER: There is an amendment!

[ Page 5307 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before I recognize the hon. member for Nelson-Creston, in accepting the motion from the hon. Minister of the Environment that the bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today, I took the motion and no one else was on their feet at that time. I put the question.

Now the House is being interrupted by a member rising on a point of order. Apparently the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) wishes to move an amendment to that motion. He indicated during his speech that he had an amendment, I believe, but as to when it was to be moved he did not indicate. The only way that I can reverse the procedure which is in place at the present time, or suspended, would be by leave of the House. The minister was on his feet. He asked the question be put and I put the question. I have to take the vote now unless the hon. member is given leave to move an amendment, if that's his intention.

I might just point out for the hon. members that it is permissible for an amendment to be moved if it's done in the proper sequence of events. Would the hon. member ask for leave, if that's his intention?

MR. SKELLY: Yes, that is my intention, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, the amendment is that in the motion referring Bill 88 to Committee the words "to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today" be deleted and the following words substituted: "to the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and that committee shall report its recommendations to the Legislature not later than March 31, 1978."

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, in considering the amendment which is before the House – that is, that in a motion referring Bill 88 to committee, the words "to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today" be deleted and the following words substituted: "to the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture, and that committee shall report its recommendations to the Legislature not later than March 31, 1978" – the only reservation that I have, hon. members, is the matter of the time limit which is included in the motion, which in some respects may or may not be operative depending on prorogation of this session and other standing committees, or this particular standing committee being reconvened at a different time in another session of the Legislature.

However, I'm not so concerned that I would deny the amendment on the basis of the date which is included. It says. "not later than March 31." Yes, that's correct, hon. member. I only point out to the hon. member and other members of the Legislature that that particular portion of the amendment may or may not be operative at that time. I only make that as an- observation but I'm prepared to accept the amendment as it is presented.

On the amendment.

MR. SKELLY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for accepting the amendment. I would like to thank the House for giving leave to present the amendment. I think it is important that when we have a legislative committee travelling around the province holding public hearings into all aspects of agriculture in the province and in particular into the operations of the Land Commission Act and the effect of the agricultural land reserve on food production in British Columbia, these committee members have an opportunity to deal with the amendments to the Land Commission Act. In other jurisdictions, bills are referred to select standing committees almost as a matter of course before they come back to be dealt with by the House in third reading. Amendments are proposed in committee and the bills are that much better as a result. We've seen some examples of sloppy drafting.

I understand today, Mr. Speaker, that a land commissioner appearing before the public hearings of the select standing committee in Abbotsford indicated that they hadn't seen the bill and weren't aware of the contents of the bill until just a very few days ago. Even the land commissioners themselves, Mr. Speaker, haven't had an opportunity to provide input to this bill. Although the minister indicated that they had brought up a number of problems with the operation of the Act in the resolutions, they hadn't had an opportunity to deal with this bill.

I think that by passing this resolution referring the bill to committee – which is not an uncommon occurrence in Legislatures, as I said before – we will give the public and the people involved in the administration of this Act the opportunity to deal with the Act and make recommendations to the House. It's not necessary for that committee to hold off their recommendations until March 31, 1978. In fact, their terms of reference, as they're presently written and approved by this Legislature, allow them to report to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) not later than March, 1978, for some parts of their terms of reference. I don't think there would be any problem there, Mr. Speaker, and I would hope the House would accept this resolution.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I think that in the light of the substantial amendments in this bill, the fact that they've only been before the House for

[ Page 5308 ]

exactly one week, and the fact – as has already been pointed out – that the members of the Land Commission perhaps are not even aware of the contents of this bill, that in itself is some evidence to support the amendment. I'm surprised to learn that, in fact. Assuming that information is accurate – namely, that at least one member of the Land Commission hasn't even seen the bill – it suggests that the minister has not been in consultation with the members of the Land Commission about the proposed amendments. I would have thought that since the minister emphasized in his introduction of second reading . . . . If my notes are correct, he stated that the changes included in this bill resulted from a detailed study of the Land Commission. He referred to the weaknesses and redundancies and said that many of these were pointed out by representatives within the Land Commission over the last two or three years. It's really surprising if the Land Commission members are not familiar with the amendments included in Bill 88.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): If they're interested, they can get a copy an hour after it's tabled.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I don't hear precisely what the Minister of Human Resources is interjecting, but we have had a long holiday weekend and the bill has been before the House exactly one week.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: They could have got a copy of it.

MR. WALLACE: The Minister of Human Resources interjects, "they could have got a copy," as though there's some adversarial, competitive thing about this business of getting a copy.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That's their business. They're interested. What's the matter with you? They're interested. It's their business. This guy makes me sick.

MR. WALLACE: These are people in the Land Commission, Mr. Speaker, who one would expect had been consulted and involved, prior to the tabling of this bill in the House, in discussing what might be appropriate amendments. Now we find that the bill was tabled just a week ago and the members of the Land Commission have not been aware of the bill or its contents. I have private information that one of the members of the Land Commission is not very happy about section 9 and some of its subsections which, of course, are the essential heart of this bill we're debating, Mr. Speaker.

I would suggest, since the minister emphasized that this bill now before us is the outcome of – and I'm quoting from the Blues – "a study of the Land Commission Act over the past couple of years and some experience with the Act for that period of time," that surely, Mr. Speaker, it isn't so urgent and overwhelmingly crucial that after having the bill in public for only one week it must be passed on second reading tonight and we must proceed, within the next week or two, to bring it into law. That's within a period of three weeks that these amendments would be introduced and quickly dealt with in this House when, in point of fact, they are reputed to be the considered outcome of two years' study of the bill.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me that since part of the total range of responsibilities of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture is to review the use of land and make recommendations, with these amendments now introduced there could be no more appropriate forum than the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture to peruse these with less haste, pressure and sense of urgency than this House is having thrust upon it at this time.

We've heard the government at different times espouse the value of the work of standing committees. We've heard the Premier say that there is a definite role, and perhaps an expanded role, for standing committees of this Legislature. If there's one issue, Mr. Speaker, which over the last few years has tended to polarize the difference between the government and the official opposition, it would have to be legislation dealing with land use.

There are few issues that have produced the kind of provincial and public dialogue in debate as have followed from the introduction of an amendment of legislation dealing with land use. So for all these reasons, and not the least, the additional reason the minister pointed out that this bill, particularly in section 9, grants parallel powers to the cabinet as are presently held by the Land Commission . . . . The central thrust of this legislation in the first place was to try to ensure that non-political informed professional people make the final decision on land use, or agricultural land in particular. It would seem that the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture would be a very useful body to study these amendments, which, I repeat, have only been before the House and before the public for one week. In the course of that one week, as far as the public dissemination of the information is concerned, we have had a holiday weekend. That, to all intents and purposes, means that the public have had about four days to become aware of and to peruse this legislation and to have some opportunity for feedback.

I think there's an abundance of reasons why it would make a great deal of sense for this bill to be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture. You, Mr. Speaker, have quite rightly pointed out that the limitation on the amendment of

[ Page 5309 ]

March 31, 1978, might make the amendment inoperative if certain changes were to occur in the meantime. Nevertheless, these amendments are said by the minister himself to be the outcome of two year's study. Surely a limited delay in the form of perhaps a few months of study by the committee on agriculture, if that resulted in a better bill, in the long run would surely be well worthwhile. I strongly support the amendment.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise not to support the amendment. The amendments proposed in this bill, in my opinion, are not of the magnitude where they need to be examined by that select committee. I don't believe that the amendments proposed in this bill are such that will make their positions difficult. We certainly expect to hear from that committee on their report. We expect to respect their report and see if they can come up with some solutions to problems that have been identified by the public.

I can't understand why it has been interpreted that the members of the commission, or others, feel that they did not see this bill. They, of course, did not see the bill in its final form before it was introduced to the House. Certainly they were involved in discussing the amendments for many months. Many of these amendments have been in discussion for a number of years. Some of the amendments which have been contained in this bill before this House were discussed in letter form as far back as September of 1975, by the same chairman of the Land Commission who is there now.

I had all members of the Land Commission in my office some months back discussing what they felt might be necessary by way of amendments to the Land Commission Act. Certainly they did not see the printed bill in its final form before it was presented to the House but the members of the commission were well aware of most of these amendments and had offered their opinions on many of them.

MR. WALLACE: Did you send them a copy of the bill?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I don't know, hon. member, if a copy of the printed bill has been sent to the individual land commissioners. I know that the chairman has one. It would have been a very simple problem to have been resolved to have copies sent, or for them to contact us, and then send them. If they are on the Land Commission, obviously they would have a great interest in the amendments to the Act. I would think that none of the amendments in the Act are such that they wouldn't have been made aware of them at some time during the discussions with myself and the chairman of the Land Commission. For those reasons and others, Mr. Speaker, I do not support this amendment.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, the minister is quite right. I'm sure that he has discussed the bill with his staff. I'm sure that he has discussed, as he says, most of the amendments – I thought that was significant: "most" of the proposed amendments – with the land commissioners.

That's fine, Mr. Speaker, but the significant proposition we have before us in this amendment is that the agricultural committee is now faced with terms of reference provided by that government which include looking over the agricultural land in this province. That being their responsibility, either that committee is out there as a working committee or it's a sham. Which is it? If it's a sham, then they're to be treated as they're being treated now – with the minister suggesting that he doesn't want to send this bill to that committee. They're asked to come back with a report in a few months' time indicating how they feel about other aspects of the agricultural business in this province, and also about marketing and other things. Mr. Speaker, this bill should not have been introduced and, having been introduced, under the circumstances, certainly should be referred to that committee.

Now if the government is playing a joke on the people of the province of B.C. by having a committee that they're going to ignore moving around this province, well then, Mr. Speaker, it's a bad joke. If they want to show good will, if they want to show good purpose, if they want to show good direction, then the minister will change his mind immediately and support this amendment to the resolution that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House.

Incidentally, the Committee of the Whole House will likely not even have with it the agricultural committee members who are now roaming this province from place to place. We likely can't even have their input when this goes before the House in committee. No, Mr. Speaker, there's no urgency. The minister indicates that very clearly. If there is no urgency, then refer this matter to the proper committee. That is not the Committee of the Whole House; it's the agricultural committee, which is dealing with this very matter right now.

Mr. Speaker, what is more important, they are hearing witnesses. They are hearing witnesses from the agricultural community and from all the sectors in this province who can give a good input into this whole question. This is as opposed to the minister's direction now, where he wants to push it through the House as quickly as he can so that it's forgotten as quickly as it was introduced.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly support the amendment put forward by the member for Alberni.

[ Page 5310 ]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS – 13

NAYS – 22

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

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before we proceed further, I just wish to make a comment. Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

First of all, as I indicated in accepting the amendment, I had certain reservations with respect to the part of the amendment that refers to a time limit. We've now had an opportunity to check some of the authorities and Beauchesne, in fact, confirms the fact that attaching a time limit to such an amendment is not in order and is improper. It also indicates that an amendment such as we have dealt with tonight, which is to refer to a select standing committee of the House, is not a debatable motion. And the amendment, while it is in order, the vote would be taken immediately on the amendment. It's recorded in Beauchesne and I just want to point that out to the members of the House so that they will not consider that a precedent which we would have to be guided by in the future.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. First of all, in standing order 1 it says: "In all cases not provided for hereafter or by sessional or other orders, the usages and customs of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, Great Britain and Northern Ireland as in force at the time shall be followed as far as they may be applicable to this House."

But on page 14 in standing order 45(1)(k) it says: "The following motions are debatable: every motion," and, in part (k), it says: "and such other motion . . . dealing with the management of its business, the arrangement of its proceedings. . . ."

I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that as it is provided for in our standing orders, the fact that it might be prohibited in Beauchesne means that our standing orders take precedence and that such motions would be debatable.

MR. SPEAKER: I'll just point out to the hon. member that first of all it's only debatable if it's an order of the day. Ottawa's standing order 32 is identical to our standing order 45 and their reference is Beauchesne. I've quoted what they follow as an order in Ottawa.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): On a point of information, Mr. Speaker, my colleague for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) did ask that the division be recorded. In terms of giving the ruling, I wasn't sure whether the Chair had heard that request.

MR. SPEAKER: I said "so ordered," I believe. But, if not, so ordered.

The question is on the motion to refer Bill 88 to the Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 50, Mr. Speaker.

SOCIETIES ACT

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): The present Societies Act, Mr. Speaker, was passed 29 years ago and has had very little amendment since that time.

The Act had its origin in the 1921 Societies Act which was an amalgamation of four Societies Acts into a single Act. Because of the diversity of the societies covered by the Act it was, of necessity, not too detailed and it attempted to broadly regulate all types and sizes of societies.

This legislation pioneered the society concept in the west and it has spread rapidly eastward across Canada. In 1948, the Societies Act was overhauled to meet existing needs at that time. The Act worked well up to the present time, considering it covered such a broad spectrum of societies, ranging from the small 500-member club to large societies such as the B.C. Teachers Federation, the B.C. Automobile Association, and the Medical Services Association which have thousands of members.

In the late 1960s, Mr. Speaker, it was decided that the corporate legislation, including the Companies Act, Societies Act and Partnership Act, should be revised to update them in order to meet the needs of

[ Page 5311 ]

the people of British Columbia and make their provisions consistent. A revision of the Companies Act was enacted in 1973.

The present Societies Act was enacted in 1948, and this bill revises it. From a structural point of view, it is a subsidiary or a satellite, if you will, of the Companies Act. The bill you have before you, Mr. Speaker, has been previously introduced in the 1976 session, allowing interested persons to comment upon it before introduction in the present Legislature of the present session. This Act will govern the operation of all non-profit societies in the province; it will fill the needs of large societies as well as small clubs.

The Act simplifies incorporation, Mr. Speaker, since most incorporation papers are now prepared by individuals and not by lawyers. It does this in particular by providing on the back of the legislation forms which are very easy to complete and which act as a checklist. It even has a form covering letter which should go to the registrar, indicating that you wish incorporation.

It also has a schedule B, which is a general set of bylaws which can be adopted by any society. In the past, members of the society had to try and dream up their own bylaws or copy one another's or copy other societies bylaws. These general bylaws cover all of the major points which should be covered in a good set of bylaws.

It was recognized by the draftsman, Mr. Speaker, that in British Columbia today we have two types of societies: one which is the small, backyard type of society and the other is the large society such as the BCAA. The new Act uses the idea from the Companies Act of creating reporting societies and non-reporting societies, These are special requirements for reporting societies which are directed towards the larger societies.

The reporting societies, Mr. Speaker, are required to have an auditor and are required to keep and file more detailed financial reports. The superintendent of brokers will be able to order societies to become reporting societies and, as such, they would be subject to more stringent rules on public disclosure and filings at the registrar of companies office. The superintendent will have regard as to whether the society receives government funding when deciding whether or not it is to be a reporting society. A society can, in its bylaws or by ordinary resolution, declare itself to be reporting society.

It will be mandatory to be a reporting society in the case of orphanages; boarding homes for minors; ownership, management or operation of a hospital; ownership or management of a social club; or any society created for the purpose of paying benefits or rendering services to its members. All these societies must make increased public disclosure, both at their annual meetings and at filings in the registrar of companies' office.

Mr. Speaker, the new legislation clearly spells out the responsibility of directors and officers as was done in the Companies Act. In general, it spells out that the directors and officers have a duty of honesty, good faith and care.

It also states that conflicts of interest have to be disclosed. There is also provided a means of removing a director during his term of office. If a director does not do so, any profits or personal gain will belong to the society. There are provisions that insiders of reporting societies must disclose their interest.

Mr. Speaker, the power of the minister to investigate the affairs of a society has been increased. He may, after receiving a report from the registrar, order an investigation of any society acting contrary to the public interest.

Mr. Speaker, the bill provides for registration of encumbrances, which is very necessary for financing. Increased investigation procedures are also included. These are not fully provided for in the present Act.

In the bill, Mr. Speaker, a society can only carry on a business incidental to the purpose of the society. Over the years some of the larger societies have gradually gone into business so that their day-to-day operation resembles a limited company more than a society. There is a provision in the bill for societies other than those with charitable purposes and whose main function is carrying on a business to convert, with the consent of the registrar of companies, to a company under the British Columbia Companies Act.

The ordinary member's rights are improved. Previously there was no procedure laid down for members to force the directors to call a general meeting. In the bill there is a provision for 10 per cent of the members of a society to have the right to require the directors to call a general meeting. If they do not, the members can convene the meeting themselves.

If a society fails to convene a general meeting as required, a member can apply to have a court order that the meeting be held.

Mr. Speaker, the bill fills the need for the incorporation, operation and administration of societies in British Columbia at this time. I move the bill now be read a second time.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): This bill is very gratifying to me because I'm not a lawyer. It makes one of the first inroads into the legal profession. It's one of these pieces of legislation that makes it possible for you to do it yourself, to set up a society.

The other thing which is important is the value of the Act and of the processes. It really enables that large body of people who want to do what is characterized as voluntary work in the community to have some kind of structure in which to operate. This

[ Page 5312 ]

is the legislation which enables the creation of large numbers of societies that are engaged in all manner of work in the community, particularly in the social service area and in the health area. They have been very active and they have been able to operate under this bill. Remarkably enough, there are some 8,500 societies that are operating.

The fact that it's been updated is worthwhile; it hasn't been updated since 1948. At that time, when they were talking about updating, there were a number of things that are being dealt with today that were not being dealt with then. I want to make reference to two specific areas in which I think the bill has particular shortcomings.

I'm particularly concerned that where you have a society that is in receipt of money from the government – whether it's operating or it's capital money – there have been occasions and there still are in some societies where the public is excluded from the annual meetings. I have some real concern about that. I can recall very vividly in 1971, when I was a member of the alcohol foundation, when I moved the motion that the meeting be open to the public it was ruled out of order, which I thought was very unfortunate. The Narcotic Addiction Foundation never had public meetings. There are some hospital boards that have annual meetings that the public is not invited to. I think that's a very serious problem because these organizations and the ones I referred to are those in receipt of government money. They should be open to the public in respect to their operations and there should be no prohibition from any member of the public wanting to attend.

Now I appreciate that you can't hold some of the meetings, because they are large societies, by renting the Empire Stadium, but I think the important thing is that you make it possible for it to happen. That the logistics are sometimes difficult is an entirely different matter.

The other area that concerns me very much relates to the number of organizations, particularly private clubs registered under the Societies Act, which have a number of discriminatory practices which still operate. There are a number of practices particularly related to women.

In 1948 when this Act was rewritten, the women's movement was not very large or very active. But in the 29 years since this has been revised, we've been very much aware of the fact that women want to be treated like everybody else, even like the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), Mr. Speaker. This bill doesn't give any recognition at all to that fact in respect to women. There are clubs in this province registered under the Societies Act which exclude women, and that is a form of discrimination.

Now it's been said: why should we as legislators demand that those organizations open up their membership to everyone, regardless of whether they are men or women? We do have the problem where there are women's organizations that exclude men and there are men's organizations which exclude women, and I think that's wrong on both counts. Now it's been asked: why would anyone want to go where they're not welcome?

I'll use an example, and I think perhaps the best example that comes to my mind is the example of Dr. Pauline Hewett, who was appointed the president of Simon Fraser University. One of the conditions of her contract was that she become a member of a downtown businessmen's club. So quite logically she went and applied for membership at the University Club. It's the University Men's Club actually, and her membership was rejected because their membership does not allow women. It only allows for males over the age of 21. Well, Dr. Hewett, who is a former politician, got very exercised about it, exercised sufficiently that apparently the board of directors looked at the possibility of having an amendment. The amendment recommended was – and this might be of interest to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) – that the basic membership eligibility was males over the age of 21 and university presidents.

Now that was the way they wanted to get around it. However, the amendment, Mr. Speaker, was not accepted by the membership and Dr. Hewett is not a member of the University Club. Now the University Club specifically spells out in its objectives that it's a club in which people who are interested in university matters can get together. Well, again, the Act was revised in 1949. We had one or two women university presidents in those days, but they were mostly in the United States. Since then we have a university president in this province who is a woman.

Now on the attitude, Mr. Speaker, on why should people want to go where they're not wanted, one could very well use that kind of statement and say: well, why should any woman have wanted to come into the B.C. Legislature? Had Mary Ellen Smith the attitude that "I don't want to go where I'm not wanted. . . ."

AN HON. MEMBER: Why would anybody want to?

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: Wait a minute. Now, Pat, which side are you on? We've got to be very specific here. Mary Ellen Smith was the first woman member of this chamber. I'm sure she was, at some stage, confronted with the idea of: "Why would you want to go where you're not wanted? After all, this is for men, not women." Nevertheless, she came; she was elected. And following Mary Ellen Smith, there was a fairly long line of women who came into this Legislature, who were convinced that they were going

[ Page 5313 ]

to go where they felt they had a right to go, as exemplified by the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan). She's here because she wants to be here.

Mr. Speaker, one might well apply that same kind of attitude in respect to the clubs where they exclude people on the basis of race. That happens today still in this province. Jews are not admitted to the Vancouver Yacht Club; Jews are not admitted to the Vancouver Club; black people have difficulty getting into various places. Gradually, I gather, some Chinese people are being admitted to some of these clubs. Now the attitude has to be that if we believe in the equality principle, then we do not have to look for excuses to exclude people. Every person in this province should have a right on the basis that they are citizens of this province – regardless of their sex, regardless of their colour – and should have an opportunity to enter into the life of this province.

Now in many situations, people, probably fortunately for some organizations, are not interested in being a member of yacht clubs or members of the university clubs. But I think it's really the attitude that persists that is really very negative. We should not, as legislators, be agreeable to allowing legislation to omit the possibility of creating an equality for all people. This legislation does. Later on, in committee stage, I have a couple of amendments that I want to offer. I don't think that we should look for reasons to exclude people on the basis of logistics; on whether or not women should be able to congregate as women and men should be congregated as men. What we're trying to do is define a principle here.

So I would hope that when we get to the committee stage we can give consideration to the amendments that I have made. Generally speaking, except for those two very crucial areas, the bill is very much an essential part of our daily life in this province. There's no question of that. We have the Societies Act, which enables a number of large organizations to operate. They can operate reasonably well without – to the small ones – great expense in respect to the kind of accountability that's required. It's my understanding . . . .

Maybe the minister did not receive a brief from the Bible Holiness Movement. Last year, such a letter was sent to Mr. Gerald Cross, the director of civil law. They had a number of suggestions and I just want to read a couple of them. One of them related to the charitable distinction. They state in their brief:

"We would recommend that the Societies Act specify the distinction between charitable and non-profit, and that in doing so, no society be allowed to use the word `charitable' in its name or literature unless qualified under the Canadian income tax legislation to issue tax deductible receipts; and also, the charitable organization be required to specify that in the event of winding up, their remaining assets would be transferred to a registered charity determined at the time by the majority of the members in good standing; or, failing that, by designation of the registrar of companies."

There are some changes in the bill or specific statements in the bill. They have a second one which relates to audit. Their statement is:

"The changes are good and necessary for a large-income organization. But for small-income societies, it would appear that the sensible solution is to allow, as the present Act, two directors to act as audit committee, rather than the unnecessary expense of the account of outside chartered accountants."

Then they go on to suggest a range of money, an upper limit in the terms of the finances of the corporation, which would be excluded from the necessity of requiring an auditor who is a chartered accountant or CGA or whatever other organizations there are.

In the main, I think that the Act works and it works well. But I would ask the minister to seriously consider the two weaknesses in the Act, and they do relate to the issues of discrimination in relation to women. Then there is the question of the accessibility of the public – the taxpayers being allowed to go to public meetings or to the annual meeting of a society, which is in receipt. I think that certainly has to be the criterion: it has to be in receipt of public money where they're operating, or capital grants.

I appreciate what the minister said in terms of the conflict of interest. I think some of us . . . and I did have, during the time that I was in the government, some anxiety about some of the organizations that I dealt with, where it was required to make grants of money where one found – and I'm not now going to mention any names; I'm simply going to give the example – where you might find engineers and architects on boards. Subsequently, after grants had been made, you found that either the architect or one of the engineers was actually involved in the construction of the operation. That, I think, is a kind of dicey way of operating.

But one has to give some consideration, because when these situations did come to my attention, things were too far along the road to do anything about it. But it's not a very desirable practice and I think, at times, some people – not too many but some – might very well have felt that this was a good opportunity of getting into the position where they might have some inside information. Consequently, in terms of the disclosure – the conflict of interest – I think they are worthwhile. Certainly if it's tightened up, it has to be a warning to people that if you participate in a society, you are participating because you are in favour or you agree with the objectives of

[ Page 5314 ]

that society, and you are not there for some short- or long-range pecuniary interest which might pop up somewhere down the line. That's all I have to say. Thank you.

HON. MR. MAIR: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I, of course, have had the advantage of knowing the second member for Vancouver-Burrard's concern about this bill for some time. As I always do, I take them very seriously and discuss them with members of my staff. I'd like to deal very briefly with the two areas which he has talked about.

The question of opening to the public meetings of societies where public funds have been expended was the one that first appealed to me most of all. I gave a lot of consideration to agreeing to the amendment. However, in considering it and discussing it with members of my staff, it seemed obvious that this could work and probably would work a very extreme hardship on societies. That hardship would vastly overrule and outweigh any good it would do.

Having been a member of a number of societies, including golf clubs and things of that nature, I know the difficulty they go to to find the right size of premises to hold their meetings in any event each year. How to anticipate how many of their own members will come is enough of a' chore, much less trying to assess how many members of the public might just come along for purposes of inquisitiveness. I also think, Mr. Member, if I may, you might very well be opening the whole question of societies meetings to very much mischief. The public may very well come for purposes that are totally unrelated to the business of the society to be conducted at that meeting, but to protest something else entirely.

I don't suggest that my opposition to your suggestion is firmly entrenched, but for the time being you have not convinced me that it is something that we ought to consider at this time.

With respect to the discriminatory practices that you concerned yourself with I can only say this: I feel just as strongly as you do about discrimination on any basis such as you have suggested. I must bear in mind, however, that this cuts both ways. I would be opening the IODE to male members. All you and I would have to do in order to join the Women's Christian Temperance Union, Mr. Member, would be presumably to quit drinking. I'm told by my staff, particularly Mr. Huck of the registrar of companies office, that there are indeed many, many societies that are incorporated solely for women, by women, for their own particular purposes. To open those societies to men would bring a great deal of protest – a justifiable protest – from them. So while I think that discrimination is wrong, I don't think it's wrong for people to band together in specific groups for specific purposes.

I cannot accept your contention that the legislation is weak because it does not provide for every society to be open to members of both sexes, regardless of their marital status. Mr. Speaker, I must reject with the greatest respect the suggestions made by the member for Vancouver-Burrard.

Now in closing debate, Mr. Speaker, I must say one word: this bill has been in front of the public and particularly in front of the legal profession now for three or four years. It has been in front of the House for at least one year. I think it's an excellent bill. I know that it will have some rough spots, because it does break new ground in some areas. We will probably have to deal with it from time to time over the years, with minor amendments, but it is a good bill. Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be read a second time.

Motion approved.

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

Leave granted.

Bill 50, Societies Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

SOCIETIES ACT

The House in committee on Bill 50; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

MR. LEVI: If we used a table of contents, I will have nothing to raise until I get to the audit section. If you wanted to deal with passing it on the basis of the table of contents, I have no objections.

HON. MR. MAIR: That's up to section 40, is it?

MR. LEVI: I would have something to raise, just for the interest of the minister, under audit, just to find out about the audit. Then I would go to the amendment.

Sections 1 to 16 inclusive approved. On section 17.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 17 as amended approved.

[ Page 5315 ]

Sections 18 and 19 approved. On section 20.

HON. MR. MAIR: On section 20, 1 move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 20 as amended approved. Sections 21 and 22 approved. On section 23.

HON. MR. MAIR: On section 23, 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. MAIR: On section 24, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. MAIR: On section 24, 1 move the second amendment standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 24 as amended approved. Sections 25 to 30 inclusive approved. On section 31.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 31 as amended approved. Sections 32 to 39 inclusive approved. On section 40.

MR. LEVI: In respect to what I raised in second reading with the audit requirement, as I understand it there's been some change. It does exclude the two directors who are not necessarily belonging to chartered accountants, certified general accountants. Is that the case? These are the only people who can do the audit, making reference to the brief that was submitted by the church group.

HON. MR. MAIR: I'm sorry, Mr. Member, I wonder if you could clarify that for me again. I'm not sure that I have your point.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I believe you're dealing with section 42.

MR. LEVI: Yes, I'm dealing with section 42; 1 apologize.

Sections 40 and 41 approved. On section 42.

MR. LEVI: The auditor of reporting society, under section 42, must be a member, or partnership whose partners are members, in good standing of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants and Certified General Accountants, a person who is so certified by the Auditors Certification Board established under the Companies Act. So we're really only dealing with accountants here; nobody else can do an audit.

MR. SPEAKER: That's right.

MR. LEVI: And that is a change, as I understand it.

HON. MR. MAIR: That is a change from the old Act but only reporting companies, of course, are required to fulfil this provision.

Section 42 approved.

Sections 43 to 55 inclusive approved. On section 56.

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

On the amendment.

MR. LEVI: As I said in the second reading, I simply do not buy the minister's reasoning on this. I don't think you are going to get great masses of people going out. What you do get if you're going to have protest is that people simply gang up and join. I think we had some example of that recently with

[ Page 5316 ]

what happened at the Vancouver General Hospital. One way or another, if that's the intent of the group, it's going to happen. I think that it's simply worthwhile and it's something very desirable to have citizens being able to go to annual meetings. I don't buy the argument that they might go there for other purposes, because they can get there for other purposes simply by joining. There are people who are prepared to go to see what's going on. I think it has to be the effect that you are creating, the accessibility – after all, they are taxpayers. That's really the principle, not the other things that we talk about, that they're going there for some ulterior motive. That's taken care of by simply spending a dollar and joining the society.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, in addition to the reasons that I raised in second reading, I'm afraid the government can't accept this amendment for one other reason, and I think it's a very good one. Other ministries advance funds to groups and protect the public interest by ensuring through the lending agreement that some representation of the government be felt in the affairs of that particular organization, whether it be to attend meetings or to receive certain documents, or evidence that the money is spent well, one thing or another. As custodians of the public funds going to a society, I see no harm in the government, whether it be this government, or any other government, insisting in the lending agreement that some such protection be written in. I think that that is their obligation as custodian of the public funds. I don't think, however, that the public really expects, if indeed they have the right, to flood meetings in order to protect the investment made on their behalf by the government. I think that's something that the government ought to do, and ought to protect the public in an appropriate way. So I'm afraid, Mr. Member, that the government cannot accept your amendment, with respect and regret.

MR. LEVI: Well, I accept your regrets. I'm going to go way out on a limb and say that can't be the policy of the government, Mr. Member, because as I understand – and I'm going to break all the rules now – there's a bill before this House which recommends exactly that. Under the Public Schools Act, the public may be admitted to school board meetings; that's a policy of the government.

HON. MR. MAIR: They're public bodies. They're elected bodies, public bodies. We're talking about private organizations.

MR. LEVI: The principle we're talking about, surely, is that people who are taxpayers should be able to go to the meetings. That's being made possible under another piece of legislation. I don't think it has anything to do with whether people are elected or not. It's simply that the principle I'm using is the issue of public funds. That's why people go, because they're dealing with the expenditure of funds, and policy making.

HON. MR. MAIR: Without intending to unduly prolong this debate, Mr. Chairman, let me observe then that the logical corollary of the public being able to attend a public meeting of a society in order to protect their investment through the government would be that they're entitled to speak out on the matter. You're going to have to give two and a half million British Columbians the right to go to a B.C. Automobile Association meeting to speak out on behalf of their investment of perhaps $100,000 of government money in B.C. Automobile insurance or whatever it may be. I simply don't accept that as a principle.

The government was given the obligation by the people to loan money under certain circumstances, and they're also given the obligation to protect that investment. It is the government that ought to make the appropriate arrangements. It is not appropriate, in my view and in the government's view, to allow the public to simply flood into a meeting in order to express their views on an investment.

MR. LEVI: Well, I'm not wishing to unduly prolong this. I don't agree with this corollary; I don't think it's a logical one because we have proceedings in which people go to public meetings. If they attend a public meeting based on a society that's holding the meeting, there are provisions within the society's bylaws that say that only people who are members have a voice and vote. You know, that's rather an exaggeration of the situation.

What we're talking about here is access. It may be that nobody will ever go. But there are people who do go who can't go, and that's the kind of thing, I think, that we have to think about – you know, the kinds of problems that you have now with school boards where at times you couldn't go because of the whole secrecy of some meetings. I appreciate there are times when the public must be excluded – personnel matters and those kinds of things. But there has to be that option and that option is not there.

Amendment negatived. Section 56 approved. Sections 57 to 70 inclusive approved. On section 71.

[ Page 5317 ]

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

Amendment approved.

On section 71 as amended.

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

On the amendment.

MR. LEVI: I just want to read one letter and then I'll leave it at that, because the minister did make mention of golf clubs. I won't mention the name of the person because I wasn't able to get hold of her to ask her permission to quote her name, but I'll certainly read the letter and I'm quite prepared to share it with the minister.

The individual states as follows: "I noticed in a letter in a local newspaper that you're proposing an amendment to the Societies Act which will prohibit sexist discrimination in club membership rules." Now that may be the way the newspaper story reported it. "From the short article I realized you weren't going to be satisfied with an amendment that would rectify the injustice to just one woman, but rather to abolish discrimination in all elitist clubs."

And then she says: "I realize this is a very touchy subject with women as well as with men because of the costs involved." She refers to elitist clubs, and I hope this includes golf clubs. She goes on to say: "There are many ways of equalizing costs but it's sexist discrimination of the worst kind when women cannot have full voting and share membership in any golf club. For nearly 25 years I have been an associate member of" – I won't give the name of the club. "Twice I have applied in writing for full membership when I saw an ad in the paper asking for new members. Both times I was refused because I was a woman. I'm anxious to rectify this injustice in any way I can. I feel as though my case would make a good test case because the club would have no excuse to refuse me membership."

Now that particular situation . . . . Here we have somebody who lives in a small town, is a member of a club for 25 years, and she's never been able to vote or participate in the functions of that club simply because she's a woman. That's a pretty incredible situation. I mean, that's a live one. That one goes back to 1948 or 1949.

That's the kind of thing, one of the perhaps equally important examples of why there should not be allowed any sex discrimination in this Act and the amendment should be adopted.

The minister said before that the Imperial Order of the Daughters of the Empire might get upset because he was going to become a member. Well, frankly, I'd be pretty upset if I had to be a member of the Imperial Order of the Daughters of the Empire too. And as for the Women's Christian Temperance Union, they do great work but I wouldn't want to be a member of that either.

You see, we are not again talking about, in a rather facetious way, whether we would or would not want to be members of these clubs. There are situations, because there is no clause in this . . . . If this amendment is accepted we will obviate a lot of the problems, particularly the problem for the lady who wants to be in the golf club. There are thousands of women who are in golf clubs who go through this problem. And then there are all the other examples that I used, but this is a day-to-day one. There's nothing terribly esoteric about that. She's a member of a golf club and she can't participate in the operation. Why not? She wants to, but she can't. Now I find that incredible.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, where there is a case of legitimate discrimination on the grounds of sex or any other basis, I quite agree with the member. But I think that the vehicle through which we attack that problem is not the Societies Act but the Human Rights Code or some other such vehicle. And to attack it here, we're bound to throw the baby out with the bath water and we're going to open up more problems than we've now got.

I think that what would be appropriate would be some amendment to the Human Rights Act to the extent that if there was discrimination on the basis of sex – not a decision to have an organization of one sex or the other sex, or of one religion or another religion, but it was in fact discrimination – then that is against the law. I think that is only appropriate, but I think to do it here, in this manner, is not the appropriate way. For that reason, the government cannot accept the amendment proposed.

Amendment negatived.

Section 71 as amended approved. Sections 72 and 73 approved. On section 74.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 74 as amended approved.

[ Page 5318 ]

Sections 75 to 80 inclusive approved. On section 81.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 81 as amended approved. Sections 82 to 96 inclusive approved. Schedule A approved.

On schedule B.

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

Amendment approved.

Schedule B as amended approved. Schedule C approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 50, Societies Act, reported complete with amendments.

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

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

Leave granted.

Bill 50, Societies Act, read a third time and passed.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): Second reading of Bill 71.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, this is a series of housekeeping amendments to the Automobile Insurance Act which are designed to follow through on the policy of the government to remove the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia from the direct control of the government of the day. These amendments, coupled with some to the ICBC Act itself having to do with one of the officers of the corporation, will receive favourable consideration by the opposition, I hope.

Now there are a number of changes, section by section, to this particular set of amendments. The main thrust is to make it clear that private insurers have a role to play in British Columbia and therefore certain parallels are established by these amendments between ICBC and the other insurers.

First of all, the unproclaimed sections of the Act which gave the corporation a monopoly on auto insurance in B.C. will be repealed. The intent is to make it clear to the other insurers that they are permitted to sell non-compulsory automobile insurance in this province. In line with this, the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia will now set its own premiums for that non-compulsory coverage. This is because the private insurers who come in will be free to set the insurance rates for non-compulsory coverage and therefore ICBC should be free to do the same. However, compulsory insurance – that which is required in order to obtain a valid licence plate and decal – will still be reviewed and set by the cabinet itself.

Again in keeping with the removal of ICBC and its operation from the sphere of politics, the corporation itself will negotiate with the agents, set the remuneration for the agents, and handle the appointment or – hopefully never necessary – the suspension of agents without reference to the cabinet itself. That's what section 2 is about.

I should notify the opposition, Mr. Chairman, that there have been some requests for wording changes in section 2 which will be on the order paper before we get to committee stage of the bill, but the principle by which the remuneration for agents and their appointment will be undertaken by the cabinet rather than by the corporation will be changed. It will now be the corporation's responsibility and that exercise will be removed from politics.

To protect the Autoplan fund, the Act provides that in cases of hit and run, or uninsured motorist claims, a non-resident of B.C. may not recover more than a B.C. resident could receive in the non-resident's home jurisdiction. In other words, it's just putting those who are visitors to B.C. on the same basis as a B.C. motorist would be if he were in their jurisdiction.

Another amendment will create a deductible of $150 on all hit-and-run property-damage claims. Presently, we've got an anomalous and unsatisfactory situation where if it's under $200 ICBC pays nothing,

[ Page 5319 ]

and if it's over $200 it pays everything. It's not only unfair; it's an incentive to people to go out and do additional damage to their car in the case of a hit-and-run accident in order that they can get all of the loss paid for by ICBC.

There will also now be a requirement for a person to report a hit-and-run claim within six months of the accident. There is, of course, a longer period of time for everything but hit-and-run. But in the case of somebody damaging a vehicle and then disappearing, well, that fact has to be reported of course to the police for there to be a valid claim by ICBC. But ICBC itself needs to be notified within six months, which seems to be a pretty generous time limit.

There is a rather complicated section which has this effect: the Act will be amended to give ICBC the same rights of subrogation enjoyed by other insurers. Subrogation is the right to recover a loss from the party who was responsible for the accident, and usually involves out-of-province vehicles. At present the Act imposes certain restrictions on the corporations's ability to recover such losses, so that this again is merely giving the corporation the same opportunities that are enjoyed by other insurers.

Mr. Speaker, I think that covers all of the amendments that are included in this particular set. As I say, they're mainly housekeeping amendments and the thrust of them is twofold: one is to make it clear that private insurers have a place in the non-compulsory field, and to remove ICBC from control of politics. I move second reading.

MR. COCKE: The common term when the minister stands to move some amendments to legislation is that it's housekeeping. Sometimes they get a rather large room for their housekeeping, but in any event it's housekeeping in the minister's eyes.

To remove ICBC from the direct control of the government, if in fact it were destined that way, I would suggest would be an interesting thing to speculate on. It hasn't worked with the BCR to date. We note that it's ministers who are making the decisions, and the cabinet certainly has a great input into that corporation, as they will regardless of whether or not the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) is president or whatever.

You see, Mr. Speaker, the thing the cabinet fails to indicate clearly is that they have the power of appointment of all the directors. Well, you appoint the directors and the directors displease you in some way, then you reappoint those who have displeased you. So it is direct government control no matter how you slice it. No matter how housekeeping you might like to make it or suggest that it is, that's the way it is. Nobody knows that better than the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) who shakes his head.

Mr. Speaker, removing this corporation from the sphere of politics certainly would have been a recommendation of mine had I had hindsight. A few months ago I would have liked to have seen the corporation out of the clutches of the member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster), but unfortunately that's the way it worked out – politics in its worst form.

But, Mr. Speaker, hopefully the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) can do something about that member and keep him out of the 33rd floor of the Royal Centre, at least for the foreseeable future.

Private insurers have a role to play; there's no question about that. The minister and his government have made this an objective. Our only fear is that their role become increasingly greater and ICBC's role becomes less and less significant to the point that our premiums – the premiums of the people of this province – go back to Bay Street, back to Hartford, Connecticut, back to New York, and back to the areas where they used to go at one time.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: You know, Mr. Speaker, the member for Coquitlam is getting nervous again. If I was that member, I'd be nervous, too.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): I wasn't nervous at all.

MR. COCKE: I would go out and look for your missing Mustang, Mr. Member, who has no conscience whatsoever, as he has suggested when he says, "I'd do it all over again."

MR. KERSTER: You're darned right I would.

MR. COCKE: Look at that; an incredible performance! Mr. Speaker, the corporation will set its own premiums for the non-compulsory and the cabinet will set the premiums for the compulsory. We trust them, but we don't trust them all the way. It's significant, really. I really don't think that it matters much, Mr. Speaker, because I still suggest that the Minister of Education and the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom), if they're the ones left on the ICBC board, will still be calling this shot as I outlined in the first place. They are the people. This government is the people who appoint the board of directors, and if the board of directors displeases that government, out they go and in comes a new lot who will do the bidding of the ministers. That's politics. The Minister of Education knows it.

HON. MR. McGEER: Don't you wish it were that way.

MR. COCKE: He knows perfectly well that he

[ Page 5320 ]

calls the shots down there – he and his colleagues in this government.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the $150 deductible. I think it's a great idea. We were not particularly pleased with the hit-and-run aspect. The minister knows we were under a great deal of pressure at the time. I was one of those calling for fair play. I feel that $150 deductible hit-and-run is fair play.

The six-month reporting period is generous. Frankly, as a matter of fact, it might be a little over generous. We noted some time ago that a claim was made after some 9 or 10 months, after having sat in limbo. I don't really think that we should encourage that sort of thing.

HON. MR. McGEER: Which claim was that? (Laughter.)

MR. COCKE: I can't remember the claim number. But I don't think we should encourage that sort of thing. So, Mr. Speaker, I bet that next year we have another housekeeping amendment that will provide for less time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Everybody doesn't get that kind of chance.

MR. COCKE: That's right. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to deal with one specific aspect, an overriding principle of this bill . . . .

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: If you need a smoke, just go outside the door, Mr. Member.

MR. KERSTER: If I need a smoke, I just have to watch your ears.

MR. COCKE: The question that I would like to raise with the minister is the question in section 2, and that's the reasoning behind the decision to involve the provincial cabinet in the dismissal of an independent Autoplan agent. In the Act as it is now, and is to be changed, Mr. Speaker, we thought that over very carefully. We felt that Autoplan is indeed a monopoly, no question about it. Being a monopoly, agents can be faced with unfair practice, unfair play, favouritism, et cetera, unless politics is involved. If the last decision – that is, the decision made by the cabinet – is the final decision, then you do involve political people, and there is a political obligation, Mr. Speaker, to see to it that fairness is in fact brought to the fore. Otherwise, the government can suffer.

Mr. Speaker, when it is done behind the closed doors of ICBC, some agents become the favourite and other agents are not so favoured. Then, Mr. Speaker, I think you are jeopardizing the agency programme of ICBC.

I would like to just recall for a second our reasoning for making cabinet responsible. I would like the minister to think this over very carefully because he has amendments coming forward.

First, because Autoplan was a monopoly, as I said, it was felt that decisions to withdraw certification of any agent for cause should be subject to review. Therefore cabinet endorsation was written into the legislation to ensure a second look was given every decision of that kind. I think it is very important to think about that.

Secondly, involving cabinet automatically would make it a protracted process, thus giving the assurance that such decisions would have meticulous scrutiny and not be taken lightly. Look at this process, Mr. Speaker. The corporation may at any time by notice in writing cancel the appointment of an agent and terminate any agency agreement without compensation, and the notice takes effect on its delivery to the agent or on the third day after it is mailed. That is pretty significant. In three days time an agent can be terminated, just like that – not bringing it back to the responsibility of the government to give it that second look but letting ICBC deal specifically with those agents in any way they might feel is best for ICBC.

Mr. Speaker, it's not uncommon – and some people know that I have spent a number of years working with insurance corporations – for an agency person to get in the bad books. It may be for a limited period of time, but tempers might flare. In a three-day period, Mr. Speaker, the damage can be done, and damage without even compensation. I want to deal with that in a few minutes, in terms of what some members of this House have said about that practice.

Mr. Speaker, the third point is that involving the cabinet automatically would make it a highly visible process. This again was part of our thinking, part of our feeling. Since a public cabinet order would be needed to decertify an agent, that's a pretty high-profile situation. Members of the press gallery will know about it within a day or two and then the whole world will know about it if, in fact, it's a significant situation. Mr. Speaker, to ensure that no political machinations were involved in a particular decertification . . . . If there was any vestige of politics in such a decision, then it would be seen to be political by the public at large. Really it's not bringing politics into ICBC by having the government as the last line; it's actually taking it out, because the government would fear picking on a person without real cause. If they have real cause, then any government will stand up and do the right thing.

Mr. Speaker, I think that points 2 and 3 guaranteed that decertification, except with the

[ Page 5321 ]

consent of the agent – you know, when he quit the business, or moved out of the province, or whatever – would be used only as a last resort and with justifiable cause. For that reason, compensation was not required under our Act. The member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) raised a little bit of Cain, and I'm going to quote a few things he said about that. But that's why we suggested, Mr. Speaker – because there was that kind of protection for the agent – there was no need to compensate the agent under those circumstances. We see now that the minister has brought this in and still continues the process without any compensation to the agent. Therefore ICBC gets angry, fires an agent whose whole life depends upon his agency contract with ICBC, and he's gone without any compensation whatsoever. Whoever remains in that particular area picks up his business without any cost.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: No, there's no appeal.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the minister look at this very carefully. I suggest that the bureaucrats, somehow or other, have managed to get this in. I don't think that it's healthy and I don't think that it's good, and under these circumstances, with the monopoly aspect – and you do have monopoly aspect on the major part of car insurance in this province – Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that this should be deleted. This aspect should be amended. I can't imagine, unless the agents haven't read this bill, why there isn't one heck of a hue and cry right now.

Mr. Speaker, it's quite incredible. This is a far-reaching amendment and, coupled with the fact that it occurs without any compensation, I suggest that is unjustifiable. Let me read to you, Mr. Speaker, an amendment put forward by Mr. Phillips: ". . . to move in Committee of the Whole on Bill 35, intituled Automobile Insurance Act, to amend as follows: that section 16(8), line 3, to delete the words after `one' and substitute the following: `upon payment of fair compensation as determined by an independent appraisal or by arbitration.' " That member then, in all conscience – if he has one . . . .

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. COCKE: Oh, I shouldn't have said that. That was really an unkind remark. That was the kind of remark I should have directed to another area in this room.

Mr. Speaker, that was the position of the member then. I wonder what his position is now when not only do you have the corporation being vested with the power to fire an agency, but you also are leaving with the corporation the "no compensation" situation. How about your amendment now, Mr. Minister?

Mr. Speaker, he wasn't the only person who dealt, in those days, with some of these aspects. Here is another one. This is from the member for Langley, the now Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland). He said, when he was debating this bill, Mr. Speaker: "The other thing that bothers me is the short shrift . . . ." Listen to this – "the short shrift." I didn't even know he knew the word.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I have a splint in my mouth. I've had it for about a month and a half and this is the first time you've noticed.

He said: "The other thing that bothers me is the short shrift we're giving to the agents in British Columbia. We might as well accept the fact that this corporation, when it is fully effective, will effectively do away with the private insurance agents in B.C. That bothers me." Well, talk about short shrift. The short shrift is occurring, I suggest, right now.

Mr. Speaker, there was another member and that was the now Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom), the Attorney-General who is now on the insurance board. He said:

"Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding the amendment, it seems to me that this is another one of the steps toward the slow slaying of the industry, short of destroying them inch by inch. If an agent would happen to be in the minister's favour, it would appear that he would have the ability to live. And if he doesn't happen to be in the favour of the minister, it would seem that he would have almost infinite capacity to perish. This seems to me very much a process of selective livelihood."

I suggest it's even worse if, in fact, he had any kind of a contribution to make that day.

I'm not going to – as the minister expects – quote some of his material because I'm running out of time. I know that the minister wants to answer and certainly I must forgive some of the things that he said when he was on the other side of the House. Mr. Speaker, I would admonish the minister with respect to this one section of the bill.

HON. MR. McGEER: I must say, the member for New Westminster has cited some extremely persuasive arguments for taking a second look at section 2 of the bill. I want to assure the member that I agree with what he says. When we get to committee stage there will be amendments taking into account his arguments.

I should say that we still believe that while agents must be fairly treated and must be seen to be fairly treated, I'm not sure that the political process is the best way to ensure that. But you are quite correct,

[ Page 5322 ]

Mr. Member, we've got to be perfectly fair to these people and we will attend to amendments. They may not satisfy you, and we can discuss that particular section if it isn't patched up to the full satisfaction of the opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading. Motion approved.

Bill 71, Automobile Insurance Amendment Act, 1977, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Second reading of Bill 90, Mr. Speaker.

PUBLIC RECREATIONAL FACILITIES ACT

HON. R.S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): The purpose of this bill is to establish a new programme of assistance for the provision of recreational facilities to communities across the province. The bill provides that the minister may make grants for the renovation, construction or equipping of recreational facilities which are intended for public use. The provincial grant available will be up to one-third of the cost of the work, to an overall maximum of $400,000 for any single grant. Municipalities, regional districts or other organizations approved by the minister will be eligible for grants.

The bill provides, Mr. Speaker, for the repeal of the old Community Recreational Facilities Fund Act. The provision of assistance of this nature for recreational facilities is not new to this Legislature by reason of the existence of that former Act, or that Act which this bill would repeal. An important improvement from that previous programme will be the availability of grants to local governments to assist in the preparation of comprehensive plans for the provision of recreational facilities overall within the areas of jurisdiction of these local governments. This is a vital feature of the new programme.

Principally, our review of the old programme has indicated a danger of duplication of facilities between municipal, school, community and private organizations. This duplication can lead to unnecessary competition between facilities, resulting in an added burden for the local taxpayers in the form of large operating deficits on municipal facilities.

In future, we will be consulting more closely with local government to avoid such duplication. We will want to know if existing facilities are being utilized to their full potential; if not, our first priority will be that these be renovated or re-equipped to meet the community's needs if possible. If a new facility is required, we will be encouraging joint efforts to construct and operate these. Co-operation between municipalities and school districts, for example, can reduce the cost to the local property taxpayers. Grants from the Ministry of Education for the construction of such jointly managed facilities will not be deducted from grants made under this programme. The cost to the local community can thus be reduced.

Service and private organizations also represent a vital opportunity for the joint provision of needed facilities, as demonstrated by the actions of these organizations in the past. We will consider grants to such organizations in the name of any municipality that wishes to enter into a joint venture with them, provided public use is assured.

The amount of funding to be committed to the new programme and the form bears a brief comment. In the past this type of programme has been treated as a fund, but in fact the fund has not had anything resembling a perpetuating quality since the funds have been provided each year and in fact committed in the same year virtually, if not over committed.

So it is the government's feeling that funding for such a programme should be made in the normal process of submission of estimates to the House, having similar effect to the administration of the fund as it has existed in the past but with the additional advantage that the Legislature may debate the relative merits of funding for this type of programme as opposed to other priorities in the field of recreation and elsewhere in government spending generally.

The administration of the new programme will be the responsibility of the community recreation division of the new recreation and fitness branch of the ministry. With that, I move that the bill be read a second time now.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Speaker, I think there will be not too much but some considered debate on this bill. I would say on behalf of our party that we would be willing to, at the conclusion of second reading, go ahead probably with committee stage with leave. But in order that some of the members who would like to discuss this – there are some problems I think which have arisen and many things which should be expressed – I would move adjournment of this debate until next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:55 p.m.

[ Page 5323 ]

APPENDIX

50 The Hon. K. R. Mair to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 50) intituled Societies Act, to amend as follows:

Section 17: By striking out "Land Titles Act" and substituting "Land Registry Act".

Section 20 (1) (b) : By adding at the end "but a charitable purpose referred to in section 73 (3) shall not be abandoned".

Section 23: By adding the following after subsection (2):

"(3) The registrar shall not accept a special resolution under subsection (1) that is passed by a society referred to in

(a) section 2 (1) (b), without the written consent of the Minister of Health; or

(b) section 2 (1) (d), without the written consent of the Superintendent of Insurance."

Section 24, subsection (1) : By striking out "from among its members". Section 24, subsection (8):

(a) By striking out "contracted during that time" and substituting "incurred after the expiration of the six months", and

(b) By striking out "number of directors" and substituting "number of members"

Section 31: By striking out "member" and substituting "director".

Section 71 (1) : By striking out "the dissolution and restoration of a society" and substituting "societies and extra-provincial societies".

Section 74: By striking out "commission" and substituting "registrar" and by renumbering the section as subsection (1) and adding the following subsection: "(2) This section does not apply to a society with a charitable purpose referred to in section 73 (3)."

Section 81 (b) : By striking out "Land Titles Act" and substituting "Land Registry Act".

Schedule B, by-law 16 (3) : By striking out "2" and substituting "3".

50 Mr. Levi to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 50) intituled Societies Act, to amend as follows:

Section 56: To add as subsection (3) the following:

"(3) Where any society is the recipient of any operating or capital funds from the Government, all annual general meetings shall be held in public."

To add as section 71 the following:

"71. A person is not disqualified by sex or marriage for admission as a member of any society."