[ Page 5325 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

"Smile" campaign contracts. Mr. Barnes –– 5325

Disposition of Oakalla lands. Mr. Gibson –– 5326

Minnekhada Stock farm. Mr. Barber –– 5327

Repayment for ineligible ICBC safe-driving discounts. Mr. Wallace –– 5327

Presenting petitions.

Postponement of Bill 65. Ms. Brown –– 5328

An Act to Amend the Psychologists Act (Bill M 217) Mr. Gibson.

Introduction and first reading –– 5328

Land Commission Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 88) Committee stage.

On section 1.

Mr. Skelly –– 5328

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 5329

On section 4.

Mr. Macdonald –– 5329

Mr. Gibson –– 5329

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 5329

Mr. Wallace –– 5329

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 5330

Mr. Macdonald –– 5330

On section 7.

Mr. Gibson –– 5330

On the amendment to section 7.

Mr. Skelly –– 5331

Mr. Macdonald –– 5333

Mr. Wallace –– 5334

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 5335

Mr. Gibson –– 5336

Mr. Skelly –– 5336

Division on the amendment –– 5336

On section 7.

Mr. Gibson –– 5337

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 5337

Mr. Wallace –– 5337

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 5338

Mr.Skelly –– 5339

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 5339

Mr. Wallace –– 5339

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 5339

Mr. Skelly .. 5340

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 5340

Mr. Nicolson –– 5340

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 5340

Division on section 7 –– 5340

On section 11.

Mr. Gibson –– 5341

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 5341

Division on third reading –– 5341

Public Recreational Facilities Act (Bill 90) Second reading.

Mr. Nicolson –– 5341

Mr. Wallace –– 5344

Ms. Sanford –– 5345

Mr. Lockstead –– 5346

Mr. Barnes –– 5346

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 5347

Committee stage and third reading –– 5350

Automobile Insurance Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 71) . Committee stage.

On section 2.

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5350

On the amendment to section 2.

Mr. Cocke –– 5350

Mr. Mussallem –– 5350

Report and third reading –– 5351

Colleges and Provincial Institutes Act (Bill 82) Committee stage.

On section 1.

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5351

On the amendment to section 1.

Mr. Cocke –– 5351

On Section 1 as amended.

Mr. Cocke –– 5351

Mr. Wallace –– 5351

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5352

Mr. Gibson –– 5352

Mrs. Dailly –– 5352

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5352

Mr. Cocke –– 5352

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5352

On section 3.

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5353

On section 3 as amended.

Mr. Wallace –– 5353

Hon. Mr. McGeer 5353

Mr. Gibson –– 5354

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5354

Mrs. Dailly –– 5354

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5354

Mr. Cocke –– 5355

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5355

On section 4.

Mrs. Dailly –– 5355

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5355

Mr. Cocke –– 5355

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5355

Mrs. Dailly –– 5355

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5355

Appendix –– 5356

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome some special visitors today. They are from Kansas City, Missouri: Mr. Alan McLeod and Anthony D'Agostino. They were visiting British Columbia and the Pacific National Exhibition. As you know it was a great success, Mr. Speaker, and we are pleased that they were able to visit one of our main tourist attractions in British Columbia and our great agricultural fair. We welcome them to British Columbia.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, I introduced a petition two days ago and I was notified yesterday that it was ruled out of order. My research also indicates that a petition has not been accepted in this House during this session. However, the people who are concerned about the Vancouver Resources Board are determined people. So I would like your permission to re-introduce this petition in the hope that this time it is in order. Now, may I do that now?

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. There are two points, hon. member, that I would like to verify. First of all, is it an identical petition to the one submitted previously?

MS. BROWN: No, Mr. Speaker, because the one presented previously was out of order. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Is it in identical terms?

MS. BROWN: No, Mr. Speaker. It has been altered to meet with your ruling. This is a new petition.

MR. SPEAKER: The second point is that the time for introduction of petitions is after oral question period, which will also give me an opportunity to determine between now and the end of oral question period whether it's permissible to introduce for a second time a petition on the same matter in the same session of the Legislature. That, hon. member, I'll determine.

Oral questions.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): First would you permit me to express my condolences to the HON. Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) . It appears as though he suffered some slight adversity.

HON. MR. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Graham won't even be here!

"SMILE" CAMPAIGN CONTRACTS

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, once we've assumed order again, I'd like to address my question to the hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) . In her answer to order paper question 98, the minister indicated that Ronald s-Reynolds & Co., a public relations firm being paid some $44,000, are involved in the "Smile" campaign to promote British Columbia. Is the minister aware that this is an Ontario-based company, that 12 of 13 directors reside in Ontario and are smiling all the way to the bank? (Laughter.)

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, first of all, may I just say in response to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre that the question of the amount of money paid to Ronalds-Reynolds is part of other moneys. They have a contract for which, although it is not a written contract, the business was bid by several companies in the province of British Columbia.

They have a British Columbia-based office and they employ British Columbia people in that office. They were asked among several companies to bid for the business. Although there is no firm commitment to any advertising firm that does business with this government, they are among several. We do not give the advertising and public relations accounts to one firm such as Dunsky.

MR. BARNES: I wonder if the minister could advise the House whether or not Labatt Breweries is also a client of this company.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I don't really think that question is either in order or relevant, and I do not know the answer.

MR. BARNES: I think it's quite relevant, because I have with me a document that has "Smile! Someone may be watching." This is Labatt Breweries. I was wondering whether or not the minister had a deal going with Labatt Breweries, because it's obvious this is an old-time campaign. I'm quite willing to file the document. (Laughter.) I'll table the document, if I may, with your permission, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Next question, please.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, give the....

MR. SPEAKER: I would just like to point out to the HON. member that you asked a question which was completely out of order with respect to any responsibility of the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs.

[ Page 5326 ]

McCarthy) or any other minister of the Crown. I allowed it to stand because the Provincial Secretary seemed to be on her feet in answer to the question. But to pursue an out-of-order matter, particularly if it's on a facetious basis, hon. member, is not in order in question period.

MR. BARNES: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I'm not being facetious.

MS. BROWN: It's a used campaign.

MR. BARNES: With respect, I'm quite willing to file this for evidence and, as you can see....

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, this is a logo that is exactly the same as the one the minister is using. I'm simply asking whether this is a new programme or something that is being introduced by this government. It's not out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: A matter concerning....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BARNES: Is she paying for something that Labatt's is doing or is this a government campaign? Whose campaign is it, Labatt's or the government's?

MR. SPEAKER: A matter concerning a logo, if it's identical to something or similar, may be in order, but....

MR. BARNES: Of course it's in order. I'd like an answer.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, because the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) wishes to intimate that there is some connection between some brewery and the advertising firm that is doing the public relations for the tourism ministry, I really wish to make a statement,

First, let me say that we hope that all organizations throughout the province will adopt the "Smile" programme. We have not only expressed the hope, we have even put it in speeches, we have put it in communications to very many people. We have had, Mr. Speaker, the greatest co-operation from the private sector. I'm going to tell you that the "Smile" campaign in British Columbia is working in spite of the frowns from the NDP.

But may I say this, Mr. Speaker: just for the member's edification, because he has raised this subject, let me tell you that we're grateful also to the....

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. The hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan, on a point of order.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister is not answering a question. She said she asked to make a statement. Well, leave has not been granted to make a statement. If she wishes to ask for leave, then that time should be deducted from the question period.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I believe we are in oral question period.

MR. KING: Precisely, and she is making a statement rather than giving an answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. minister confine herself to the answer to the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) ?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Yes, I'd be pleased to, Mr., Speaker, and that's exactly what I'm doing. I wasn't aware that that particular firm did have that logo on their bottlecap, but, if so, I'm pleased that they have. Let me say that I'm also pleased....

MR. BARNES: They've had it for two years.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: You know, it's strange, Mr. Speaker, but the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) says it isn't an original idea. First, nobody ever claimed it to be an original idea. Secondly, could I tell him that a smile is an original idea of somebody's that preceded many, many others in the community and in history? It has no reference to a public relations campaign or the hon. member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. BARNES: Without begging the question further, Mr. Speaker, I realize that this is an idea that was not new and, although the government is paying for an old idea, we're wondering whether they're sponsoring Labatt's or Labatt's is sponsoring them. I would like to ask leave to table this bottle.

MR. SPEAKER: Not in question period, hon. member.

MR. BARNES: After question period I'll ask leave. Thank you.

DISPOSITION OF OAKALLA LANDS

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano):

[ Page 5327 ]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Highways and Public Works. My question pertains to the disposition of lands that are now occupied by the Lower Mainland Regional Correctional Institute. In view of the fuzzy letter recently received by the Burnaby council, I want to nail down something with the minister. Is he no longer prepared to honour an agreement made by the former government that the lands would be developed "in a manner suitable for use by the public as a park"? Is he still standing by that, or not?

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Highways and Public Works): Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of policy, but we have set up a committee to look into the whole affair. You refer to the letter that started the setting up of the committee.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I'm a little worried by the suggestion that it's a matter of policy. It's a matter of already decided policy - now it's in question again. But I want to ask the minister: will he reassure the House that the committee will have an equal number of representatives from both the municipality and the province?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, no, I can't assure the House that at all.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): A question to the Minister of Highways and Public Works: does the minister not recognize that this was a commitment made to Burnaby for park purposes by the former government? Does he propose to dishonour that commitment?

HON. MR. FRASER: I already answered that there is a committee set up to look into it. I might make the observation that there was no legality to that commitment.

MR. MACDONALD: What do you mean? It's an honourable commitment; you should live up to it. You're a bunch of contract breakers.

MINNEKHADA STOCK FARM

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria):. My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. It concerns the Minnekhada farm in Coquitlam, I wonder if the minister might tell us as to the present status of that farm, in whose hands it lies - with the Housing Corporation or the ~Department of the Environment - or if any decision has been made at this date regarding its future.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Mr. Speaker, that information will be available in short notice within a matter of days, I would think. It's being transferred from one ministry to another, but it's not yet completely finalized.

MR. BARBER: As the minister is well aware, there has been a conflict regarding rights to that farm - the haying, the storing of hay, and some other materials. On behalf of the people whose lease expired at the end of August, I wonder if the minister might indicate to whom they should apply at this point, without losing via bad weather or financial difficulties that they've suffered as the result of the change in control of the farm, in order to obtain some redress of the apparent financial losses which they are suffering and might in the future continue to do so.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The question contains a couple of observations which may or may not be correct. For the moment, such a request or inquiry could be directed to me or to the Minister of the Environment or both of us. I visited Minnekhada Farm approximately one month ago, give or take a few days, and discussed the question with at least one of the leaseholders. We're aware of the problems with respect to harvesting at this particular time of year, and every effort will be made to accommodate those who hold the lease.

REPAYMENT FOR INELIGIBLE ICBC

SAFE DRIVING DISCOUNTS

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Education responsible for ICBC with regard to a news release by ICBC stating that safe driving discounts, which were allowed to certain car owners in January or February of this year, may have been ineligible and ICBC would be seeking repayment from those persons. Can the minister tell us why there was this great delay and how many automobile drivers will be involved in having to repay discounts which were wrongly awarded in the first place?

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I'll have to take the actual number on notice, but members will recall that at the time of renewal of Autoplan it was stated that any person who wished not to accept the notice he got in the mail with regard to his ineligibility for discount could nevertheless obtain the discount simply by going to an agent and claiming it. We instructed the agents at that time that they should honour the statement of the individual seeking to renew but at the same time the corporation reserved its right to collect the difference in the event that the records confirmed the ineligibility.

Now when the renewal notices come in, it takes

[ Page 5328 ]

many weeks for these pieces of paper to be processed and updated in the computer. That's why there's a delay between the time at which a person renews and the time at which the true status of his insurance can be reviewed. So that process was completed a few weeks ago and the corporation is now in the process of giving notification to those who took a discount but were not eligible for it.

Presenting petitions.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, prior to the question period, the hon. first member for Vancouver-Burrard indicated to me a desire to introduce a petition. I indicated at that time I would consider the matter.

Hon. member, I would like to point out that in the initial request for presentation of a petition, the petition was found to be out of order on a technical basis under standing order 73 (6) and the Clerks so informed the House of that. I see nothing in our rules that would prevent a resubmission of the petition by leave and it will have to stand the test of the rules of our House whether it can be accepted or not, as I'm sure the hon. member must understand. But you must ask leave to present the petition.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, this is a new petition. This is not the petition that was ruled out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: In that case, it will be examined closely to see if it is in order or not. But you must ask leave, hon. member, to present it.

MS. BROWN: I would like to ask leave of the House to present a petition on behalf of the Vancouver Resources Board.

Leave granted.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker:

"To the hon. Legislative Assembly of the' province of British Columbia and the Legislature assembled. Wherefore your petitioner humbly prays that your honourable House may be pleased to spare the Vancouver Resources Board from extinction or absorption by a centralized department of government, that Bill 65 be postponed by your honourable House until a date six months after today and, as in duty bound, your petitioner will pray."

Dated September 8,1977, and duly signed with original signatures.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask leave to table an exhibit - a document.

MR. SPEAKER: If it were a document, hon.

member, I could accept your request to table it. It's doubtful the material you've presented is a document, but there is nothing to prevent you from asking leave to table it.

MR. BARNES: Yes, may I have leave to table what... ?

MS. BROWN: It's a documented exhibit.

Leave not granted.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I was going to donate it.

MS. BROWN: What do you have against Labatt's?

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE PSYCHOLOGISTS ACT

On a motion by Mr. Gibson, Bill M 217, An Act to Amend the Psychologists Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): I move the House proceed to public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 88.

LAND COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

The House in committee on Bill 88; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): The original idea of the Land Commission was to give expression to the province's interest in lands as a whole throughout the province and to assist in planning in the use of those lands. I understand that the practice has been over the past few years to emphasize the agricultural aspect. But the idea still remained that the Land Commission was to assist in land-use planning throughout the province for all lands in which all people of the province had an interest.

I'm wondering if the minister would care to explain whether all of the other interests have been stripped away from the Land Commission and

[ Page 5329 ]

whether the total emphasis in the Land Commission is now on farmland exclusively and on the administration of the agricultural reserve.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of the Environment): Yes, that will be the intent. The Agricultural Land Commission, or the Land Commission as it's now known, will be exclusively involved in agricultural lands.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On section 4.

MR. MACDONALD: Section 4 says that the commissioners are subject in their terms to the pleasure of the Lieutenant-Governor. Then it goes on to say that apart from the chairman, they shall not hold their positions for more than four years.

Now it's not too unusual that members of a body as important as the Land Commission should hold office during pleasure, but it's very unusual in this case. As you know, Mr. Chairman, this government, in one fell swoop, dismissed four of the land commissioners and replaced them with its own appointees. Frankly, I don't think this government can be trusted with respect to the Land Commission. I think these commissioners should have a definite term of office and not be subject to dismissal at the instance of the cabinet; that's what this Section 1s saying.

I concede that when the bill was originally written the terms were at the pleasure of the Lieutenant-Governor, but I did not expect that there would be the kind of interference and mass firing that is actually taking place. I think what is happening here, Mr. Chairman, is that with this amendment to this section 4, these commissioners are being placed very squarely under the political gun. The appeals are being liberated to go to the cabinet more easily, and the cabinet - it's very clearly spelled out here - can terminate the appointments of the land commissioners at any time. I say the agricultural reserves of the province of British Columbia are in danger.

What we're seeing under this government is the beginning of the end of the Land Commission. I don't know what more I can add to that. I think what's happening in this province is a tragedy. No courageous sweep of the surgeon's knife in getting rid of the Land Commission, but little by little, step by step, you're putting it under the political gun. And we all know what that's going to mean in terms of green space for future generations. I think it's a shame to write this section. What you are going to do is post it up in the Land Commission offices and make it plain to them, day by day, that at any time an order-in-council can come down firing any one of them. That's what you're telling them. The politicians are taking over, and the politicians cannot be trusted to safeguard agricultural land in this province.

MR. GIBSON: This section says that section 3 is repealed and another Section 1s put in its place. The current section 3 is the one that states the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council shall designate one of the members as chairman and another as vice-chairman, I want to ask the minister: do the current appointments continue? Do even the current memberships of the commission members continue, or will there have to be further orders-in-council re-appointing? If so, will they be the same personnel?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The present persons appointed will continue, yes. The repeal of section 3 was just a matter of convenience in numbering. The modification has been made that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council shall designate one of the members as chairman. We have modified it so that we may designate another as vice-chairman, so as not to be in violation should the person appointed as vice-chairman leave for any reason. Those who are now appointed as members of the Land Commission shall remain. In response to the mild outburst a moment ago, as is pointed out in the new section of the bill, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council retains the right to appoint at pleasure, but has made it clear that it is our desire that such persons serve a term not exceeding four years. This is to avoid the possibility that for persons in such a high profile position - and there are a lot of tensions and difficulties in that job - there is no danger of them becoming stale or bored with their work.

MR. GIBSON: I just want to ask the minister if he would apply that four years limitation to high profile, tense positions to ministers as well.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make the same general comment that was made by the member for Vancouver East. No matter how one tends to speculate as to what the government may or may not do, this section unquestionably diminishes the apolitical, or limited political, involvement of the Land Commission. When the appointment is at the pleasure of the cabinet, that's clearly a situation that makes the chairman of the commission very much aware that if he voices opinions or strong ideas that displease the government of the day, he's very liable to be told by the cabinet that he's no longer the chairman.

I thought that all sides of the House were agreed that the real value of a commission of this nature was to ensure that there would be complete freedom. The chairman and the commissioners could speak out and take any action which they felt was within their

[ Page 5330 ]

responsibility. That basic concept is sadly compromised when the chairman holds office at the pleasure of the cabinet.

I think that it would have been much better to have a specific period of office, even if that were limited with certain clauses stating the grounds under which the chairman could be removed from office. That's no great request I'm making, because we just had it the other day in the legislation dealing with the rentalsman. The rentalsman is a very important person, with the same kind of responsibilities, in many ways, as the chairman of the Land Commission. The rentalsman cannot be dismissed without cause, and clauses in that legislation point out what the rentalsman might be doing to merit dismissal.

This section 4 of the bill which provides a new section 3 (l) is simply the government saying to the chairman, "well, you're chairman, but you may not be chairman tomorrow if you give us problems that we just don't want politically." I think it's very unfortunate that the government would make the power to hire and fire the chairman of such an important commission so easy to be used by the cabinet. This is one of the reasons that I am against this bill.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Just in response to the member for Oak Bay, nothing has been changed with reference to the chairman. The chairman was always appointed at pleasure. The changes that you see before you, Mr. Member, simply clearly identify that the members of the commission, other than the chairman, will have terms not exceeding four years. We did not wish to limit the chairman to a four-year term and we excluded the chairman from that requirement of a maximum term of four years. But the chairman has always been appointed at the pleasure of the Lieutenant-Governor. Nothing has changed in that regard.

MR. WALLACE: Well, it's still bad, in other words.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: We wanted to identify the other members to be limited to a four-year term, but the chairman remains as he was previously. We deliberately excluded him from that four-year term.

MR. WALLACE: Just let me make my position abundantly clear, Mr. Chairman. I am opposed to the appointment of chairmen or commissioners at the pleasure of the cabinet, without spelling out in the legislation some sort of guidelines as to why they might be fired. The way it is written now, the cabinet has the power to remove the chairman or the commissioner as they see fit without reason, without any justifiable cause, other than perhaps for political embarrassment.

Again, I just say that I thought the whole thrust of this' legislation was to have an authority of some sort, where the decisions could not only be non-political, but be seen to be non-political. I just don't see how that basic thrust of the legislation can be realized when this kind of power to hire and fire is given to the cabinet.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the minister shouldn't use the term "term of four years" for the commissioners. It's a term ... it's no term at all. They could be terminated at any time. There's simply a proviso in there that they can't be in office for more than four years, without reappointment presumably. Now that's not a term of office at all, and I entirely subscribe to what has been said by the member for Oak Bay: that there should at least be cause shown.

I'd much prefer to see a fixed term, because this would be an independent body, without the government being able to breathe down its neck. They should have a term of years. I'm pretty sure -and I'm just speaking from memory - we did that with the Police Commission because the exercise is not a judicial function but an independent, quasi-judicial function. They should have that independence built into the position that they hold.

I repeat - there is no cause here. It can be dismissal at political whim, and under this government, of all governments, I think that's an extremely dangerous step.

Section 4 approved.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

On section 7.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the debate yesterday, I placed an amendment on the order paper, which is not quite self-explanatory. The concern that I held, a concern expressed as well by the hon. member for Alberni, is that appeals being taken to the Environment and Land Use Committee by persons dissatisfied as to the actions taken in the refusal of the Land Commission to exclude their land were appeals that would be held in private before a partisan commission. That is all the worse, because we are being asked by this section to repeal the previous section, which did provide for some public municipal council input.

I appreciate that the Environment and Land Use Committee, the municipality or the regional district and the Land Commission and the appellant may all be parties to the hearing, but the public is excluded. The public previously had a look in at the municipal hearing, but that's now cancelled, and they're excluded from the Environment and Land Use

[ Page 5331 ]

Committee hearing. So that committee decision will be made and the evidence heard in private, without the press having access. It will make decisions that will relate to very considerable property values for the appellant, if the decision to exclude is made, which may well be justified. There are, as I said last night, lands currently in the land reserve which should not be there. But I am concerned with the old principle of justice being seen to be done. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, whether you consider it as one amendment or a series of amendments....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just one, hon. member.

MR. GIBSON: Just one, that's fine. The effect of this amendment would be to change the words "Environment and Land Use Committee" to the words "Standing Committee on Agriculture." In other words, appeals under this legislation passed by this House now would be taken to a standing committee of the House. The appeal would naturally be heard in public if it was a standing committee of the House. At least, I would anticipate that would be the practice of the committee.

Perhaps most importantly, the appeal could be heard not by a single-party group, which in this case happens to be the government of the day, but rather by a legislative group that is multiparty. This is a procedure that has had great success in other nations because it takes away the particular partisan tone, and it takes away the inevitable accusations of partisanship and favouritism in the giving of particular public favour.

Therefore I would move this amendment and hope that it would be one that would commend itself to the government's attention.

On the amendment.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, our party intends to support this amendment. I'm not sure about the technique involved in appealing to a select standing committee of the House, but certainly it is a public procedure rather than the private one which takes place in the Environment and Land Use Committee. We would support anything that brings that appeal procedure into the public view.

As I've stated before, our main concern about this section - and this is the major change in the Act - is that, in the minister's own words: "It provides a parallel appeal procedure to the Land Commission." In other words, it makes the Land Commission appeal procedure a laughing stock and a mockery, and the political appeal procedure will supersede that one. It really does away with the Land Commission. In principle we would support any appeal procedure which eliminates that private one which Socreds, hacks, or whatever, can take advantage of in order to take land out of the agricultural land reserve in this province. It is a private procedure.

A few months ago, I wrote to the minister when we were discussing the Brett Chevrolet case. Just to refresh your memory, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Brett from Chilliwack had applied under the old section 9 (7) , which this Section 1s amending, and with the assistance of the hon. member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) , who had an office in Mr. Brett's building, he managed to take that....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. member, you're indulging in attack at this point. We're discussing an amendment to section 7.

MR. SKELLY: This is not a personal attack, Mr. Chairman, it's a matter of public record.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please continue on the amendment.

MR. SKELLY: Okay. Please don't interrupt me ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! You are on the amendment.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, where it's in order to discuss this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the ruling is that it was not in order to make a personal attack on a member who is here. Now I expect you to abide by that order. Please continue on the amendment.

MR. SKELLY: Where is the personal attack, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. On the amendment, please.

MR. SKELLY: To continue, Mr. Chairman, it is a statement of fact that the member for Chilliwack did intervene in this appeal procedure, and it's a matter of correspondence between the ministry and myself, which I intend to read into the record, if you like, Mr. Chairman. When I wrote to the minister after bringing up a question in the House relating to the Brett Chevrolet case, the minister said that he would make information available to the House. He later reneged on that promise and said that the information and the background papers provided in this appeal procedure by the ELUC were private papers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. The amendment is that the words "Standing Committee on Agriculture" be substituted. If you can

[ Page 5332 ]

relate your remarks to this, I would be very happy to receive them.

MR. SKELLY: If I can do that without interference, Mr. Chairman, I'd be very happy to do that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're bullying the Chair.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I wrote to the minister, and now we're talking about a public appeal procedure - one which goes to a select standing committee of the House rather than to a secret committee of cabinet. That's a political procedure and we would like to bring it out into the open. Here are the reasons why we plan to do that, Mr. Chairman - why we hope to do that.

I wrote to the Minister of the Environment asking for information about the secret appeal procedure that was held in the Environment and Land Use Committee. He indicated in the House that he would make this available. There were background papers involved that were provided by the Environment and Land Use Committee, and recommendations and technical data provided by the Land Commission and its staff. I wrote to him on March 22, and asked for that information. In spite of what I took to be his promise to provide that information, he didn't. What he said was that the proceedings in the Environment and Land Use Committee are secret.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Is that what I said? Quote! Where does it say that?

MR.SKELLY:

"With reference to your letter of April 12, in relation to 9 (7) appeals and the roles of local MLAs, I'm sure you are aware that the secretary of the Environment and Land Use Committee advises by mail the regional district and/or the municipality, and others who may be involved in the original section 9 (2) application of the hearing. Any MLA would be advised by their local government, or by the appellant, that such an appeal is about to take place and is welcome to attend."

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Where is the "secret" you mentioned?

MR. MACDONALD: Where's public?

MR. SKELLY: Good question: "Where's public?" Where is the information? You promised to give it to us in the House and then you reneged on your promise and you didn't give it to us because it was a secret appeal procedure. You didn't give us the information.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: You're making up facts again.

MR. SKELLY: We requested the information. You had the facts and you wouldn't give them to us.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: You're making up facts again.

MR. SKELLY: You had the facts and you wouldn't give them to us. You wouldn't make it public. Is it too embarrassing for you - the fact that that was a straight political job on that land in Chilliwack and that you did it over the objections of the Environment and Land Use Committee, the Land Commission, and the technical staff of the government?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Environment and Land Use Committee? You're confused again.

MR. SKELLY: Well, you said in....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Only one member may speak at a time.

MR. SKELLY: Based on the information provided by the minister, which was sketchy, it's enough to cause confusion. He said that background papers were provided by the Environment and Land Use Committee. Now maybe that's not true.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Read it again.

MR. SKELLY: You have a copy of Hansard, Mr. Minister of the Environment; you should read it yourself occasionally.

In any case, Mr. Chairman, those background papers were made available to an MLA seeking that information. And remember, this is not an appeal that is within the local interest exclusively. Every person in this province has an interest in the farmland and food production land, not simply a local MLA who happens to be a friend of a person who wants to get the land out of the agricultural land reserve and in fact is receiving some benefits from that person who wishes to get the land out of the reserve. That is why we would like this.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I refer you to standing order 40 (l) , in which this member is speaking disrespectfully of a member of this House who is not here to defend himself; and standing order 43, where he persists in irrelevance even though he has been

[ Page 5333 ]

called out of order, I would ask that he desist.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your point is well taken. I have brought this to the member's attention on previous occasions. Please continue on the amendment.

MR. SKELLY: I have no intention of speaking disrespectfully of any other member, and especially a member who is not here to defend himself. That's why I brought it to the attention of the House when that member was here, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member is not here now, hon. member.

MR. SKELLY: The reason he's not here now is because the agriculture committee is attending hearings around the province, and that member cannot be here because of the government's insistence on bringing this bill before the House in contempt of that committee. Part of their terms of reference are to examine....

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: We are stuck with having it today.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that's a reflection on a vote. Would you kindly continue with.... Order, please. It's a ruling of the Chair. Would you kindly continue with the amendment.

MR. SKELLY: In any case, anything that would bring this appeal procedure into the public view we would support. Therefore we support the amendment proposed by the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) .

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I think we should understand what we're talking about in terms of these appeals. Somebody has farmland - 300 acres, maybe less - and it's worth.... Well, let's forget the 300 acres; let's take a farm worth $300,000 - not uncommon in B.C. - on the borderline as to whether it should be included in the agricultural reserve or not.

Now this appeal body, ELUC, can by its decision rezone that land and make it available to be used to build a shopping centre or residential construction or a sawmill for industrial purposes. Now depending on the new use, that $300,000 in land value, by a stroke of the pen of this committee, can become $1 million.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Have I exaggerated that? Oh, less commission. That's another question. But I don't think I've exaggerated the particular example I have given.

What I'm saying is that in this appeal procedure millions of dollars are at stake. If you've only got five or six major cases in the course of a year throughout British Columbia, millions of dollars are at stake. Those are speculative land profits we're talking about, Mr. Chairman, that are subject to no taxation except the capital gains, which has many exemptions. There's no real tax in this country on speculative gains of that magnitude, and there should be.

Now the minister comes into the House with a bill that proposes that the Environment and Land Use Committee may, behind the green door of secrecy, decide what it calls an appeal.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, Mr. Attorney-General, I challenge you to get up and speak on this bill and see whether or not you can defend closet justice. I know perfectly well that you will not because it would be counter to everything you said when you were in opposition - counter to everything.

A decision of this magnitude can be made under this bill in secrecy. I do not accept for one minute the assurances of the minister that it may be open. That should be written into the bill and it should be written into the bill that reasons will be given on the appeal. You're dealing with land values of astronomical amounts in this bill. The power to rezone, when it moves in the direction of favouritism, has brought down government and has brought mayors of municipalities throughout Canada. It's certainly the kind of decision that's got to be made in the open.

Whether the solution proposed by the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) is the correct one or not in terms of that direction I don't know. But the principle he's supporting is one of open hearings.

Would any court in the land presume to deal with hundreds of thousands of dollars in terms of land values in secrecy? Let the Attorney-General answer that one. The answer is perfectly obvious: they would not think about it. The Labour Relations Board has built-in protections right in the legislation, saying that the~ must give reasons and that their hearings shall be open so that they will be above board. That's what we're talking about, Mr. Chairman: so they would be above board and they would give reasons for their decisions. Do you think thy Police Commission would be able to sit upon the case of an officer who was accused of brutality or excessive force or something of that kind and conduct that hearing in secrecy? No, because it was built into that Act, which the Attorney-General administers, that the hearing must be open. It's an adjudication between the community and the rights of the citizen or an officer.

[ Page 5334 ]

I challenge once again the Attorney-General, who has never in all these transgressions of this government of the kind that we're dealing with today - centralizing power in their hands, having all the strings of power end up in the minister's office where they can be pulled and pushed. You can't push a string; you can pull it.

I know the Attorney-General is making pleasant of this, but everything he stood for when he was on this side of the House is being destroyed today, and he's an Attorney-General of that government. None of you defend each other; I've noticed that in this House. The Attorney-General hasn't defended one of these cases where centralized power is being pulled into the hands of the cabinet - not one. And he won't. If he does, we'll read his own words back to him.

But getting back to this, Mr. Chairman, I support strongly any amendment that brings into the open -and insists it be brought into the open - a proceeding of this kind. Otherwise, it's a denial of justice that these proceedings can be in secret. The minister should take back this section. What is the hurry anyway, Mr. Chairman? What's the hurry about this bill? Is there something we don't know? Why is it being pushed through here, before the agricultural committee has discussed it? What's so important?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we're dealing with the amendment,

MR. MACDONALD: All right. But why hurry it through? Why doesn't the minister take this back and build in some safeguards? If you're going to take it to a committee of politicians, for heaven's sakes, let it be out in the open; let the people hear the evidence. What's the use of having a public hearing down the road and out in the community and then, when it comes to the final decision, have it made in secrecy? That could be written into this legislation perfectly plainly and the minister won't do it. He won't provide that they give reasons. It's political interference with the land values in the province of B.C.

MR. WALLACE: I would just say to the member for Vancouver East that I noticed none of my caucus ever get up to defend me either when I'm in trouble.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: They would if they could.

MR. WALLACE: For the same reason that I opposed an earlier section, I just want to support the amendment from the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) . I think the credibility of this legislation and the way it is implemented will be greatly enhanced if there can be no doubt left whatever as to the reasons for that ultimate decision. I suppose it won't matter in these cases where the Environment and Land Use Committee finding agrees with the commission finding of a former date, but where the Environment and Land Use Committee decision countermands the decision already reached by the commission, then again it is a matter of justice not being seen to be done because that final decision would be made within the confines of the cabinet committee.

Again, I just have to say to the minister that I think it would be in his own interests and in the government's own interests to be above public suspicion on this issue. If, as the minister has suggested to the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) , background papers and a great deal of information are always made available to the Environment and Land Use Committee, what has the government to fear? The only reason the government could be afraid of accepting this kind of amendment would be that they don't want all the information on which the decision is based to become public knowledge.

The next thing that a suspicious mind would make me think is that sometimes the committee would want to reach a decision not in keeping with all the background information. Now that may be a very unfair allegation for any outsider like an opposition MLA to make. But really, Mr. Chairman, if the government sincerely wishes to implement the thrust of this bill, which is to preserve farmland, and there's to be all these various levels of procedure and levels of appeal culminating finally in the involvement of the committee of cabinet, surely it just makes good sense that the grounds and the information and the data on which that very important final decision is made should be available to the public. It seems to me that not only makes sense per se but it makes a lot of good political sense to the government of the day, whether it's this government or any future government.

Certainly the public or the man in the street is going to wonder how it is that the highly skilled commissioners with all the expert advice they get could perhaps reach a decision not to take land out of the land reserve; it then goes to a meeting of cabinet or a committee of cabinet who meet in secret and then decide to contradict the earlier decision of the commission. On that basis, Mr. Chairman, the public could come to no other conclusion than the fact that the government did it for some reason other than the reasons supported by all the technical and appropriate information that the experts have provided to the commission and to the committee.

Surely if this government wants any of its legislation to have a high level of public credibility, then again we keep coming back to the goal of open government. Here again all four parties represented in this House fought the last election on one of the basic ideas of accountability and open government.

[ Page 5335 ]

Unfortunately, we see not only in this bill but in other discussions that have taken place in this House that this government isn't really quite as committed to being an open government as many people had hoped.

One fundamental issue which was of overriding public interest was the whole question of land legislation as originally introduced by the NDP, and as opposed by the Social Credit Party at that time. When we recall the tense bitterness and criticism which was voiced from all corners against this legislation, and the degree to which this government, despite the amendments we're now debating, has not radically altered it, one has to conclude that perhaps the general thrust of this legislation was long overdue in this province.

Now that we have it, and the government is amending it in this section and other sections, it would appear that it is trying to accomplish two things. One is to limit and diminish the ultimate authority and apolitical nature of the commission. The second is to give unto itself, through a committee of cabinet, an authority to make decisions without informing either the parties to the decision, of the public. Those are the grounds on which that final decision was reached. To me that is the crux of this whole bill, that in various sections, including this section, these two goals are being pursued. The member for Vancouver East, using a medical metaphor, said that there was no clean sweep of the surgeon's knife, we're going to nibble this thing to death. Surgeons never nibble, Mr. Member, it's always a clean sweep, but I think this is a stop in that direction. The commission, once this bill is implemented, will be more politically involved than they would wish to be, or is good for the credibility of their decisions. Secondly, the cabinet will be taking decisions in secret, which will further lessen in the eyes of the public the credibility of this bill, and the fact that decisions are made on a professional basis of the best use of the land. The factors which should alone be used to make these decisions are determining what is the best use of the land, not what is best for the person who owns the land. We may well stand to benefit in a large financial way by having the Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet contradict an earlier decision of the commission.

I do feel that this amendment referring it to the standing committee of the Legislature, where the hearings and meetings would be open and there would also be participation by all parties in the House, would give a great boost to the credibility, not only of the legislation but the way in which it's implemented. Not only is it good that we have an open government, but I would have thought that it was in the minister's own self-interest to have a credible operation of his ministry. If there is one element in this minister's ministry that has overwhelming public concern, it has to be on the question of land use legislation which will try and bring about the best use of farmland.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The amendment, even if accepted, would as written serve no more purpose than the Act as written, because nowhere in the amendment does it say anything about a public hearing. As members of this House would know, the standing committee on agriculture has met in other than public circumstances. The amendment doesn't suggest that it be made in public to consider such things. The amendment doesn't modify that.

MR. GIBSON: Put in a subamendment.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The comments from the member for Alberni were ridiculous. Comments from the member for Vancouver East were somewhat humorous, particularly with respect to closet justice and other well-known clichés, principles and , , above board, " the rest of it. I'm confused by the member for Vancouver East. Were these principles different when the original bill was drafted? Were these principles different when your government chose to allow appeals to be heard by the Environment and Land Use Committee in secret? Surely the situation hasn't changed that much.

The original Act was written so that appeals could be heard under certain circumstances by the Environment and Land Use Committee, so being done, we intend to continue with that. Nothing has changed. The system remains the same. The Environment and Land Use Committee is a committee of cabinet. It hears the appeals as your Environment and Land Use Committee used to hear appeals. That wasn't done in public.

The regulations provide that any person may appear before the Environment and Land Use Committee for purposes of these appeals, and we have had numbers of persons appearing. Regional district, municipalities are invited to attend or send in information, The appellant is there with his lawyers, representatives or agents, and so on, as can be the opponents who appeared at the original hearing which is held before the public. The amendment in no way would improve the situation. The Environment and Land Use Committee has jurisdiction under the Act to take care of appeals as they come to them as they go through the process. That situation hasn't changed from the manner in which it's been handled for the past few years since the Land Commission Act has been in place. Principles remain the same. If they were good then, they're good now. If they were bad then, they're bad now. It's up to you, Mr. Member, to admit that your principles at that time were bad, if you wish to do so.

[ Page 5336 ]

I'm not suggesting that they were. The Environment and Land Use Committee is doing the job as designated under the legislation, and we intend to continue to do so.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, somehow I don't think the minister has quite caught the spirit of the amendment. The hearing by the standing committee of the Legislature would naturally be a public hearing. You shouldn't try and bind the committee of the Legislature in that way. Naturally it would be a public hearing. Almost all legislative committee hearings are public, and when for any reason they're in camera, it's a matter of public note. The press says: "Why is this in camera?" and you have to justify it. You can be assured that these kinds of meetings would be in public.

MR. SKELLY: There's Hansard.

MR. GIBSON: There's Hansard. A very good point, Mr. Member.

The other point that the minister didn't seem to catch and didn't speak to at all is the point that you would take the partisanship out of the question by doing this. By having a multipartisan committee, you would free yourself of the accusations that are inevitably going to come along that in this closed meeting you're favouring your friends. I would think that the minister and the government - any government - would want, wherever they could, to get out from under that kind of burden.

I think it's a very important principle. As the member said, if they don't want to get out from that kind of burden, it must be because they get some benefit from shouldering it. I don't like to think that. I'm just trying to help them with this amendment. I'm going to persist with it.

MR. SKELLY: The situation has changed. And what's happening in this amendment is that the situation is being changed. Now it will be almost impossible for a person concerned about change in farmland status to become aware of that change. Instead of having municipal authorization to appeal under this section, that municipal authorization is now being deleted. So there is no opportunity for a person to become aware that an appeal is being made under section 9 (7) to cabinet.

All municipal bylaws are passed in open, public meetings. Now that open meeting is being eliminated from the bill. So there is no way that the public, in an area affected by a deletion of agricultural land, can be aware that an appeal is taking place. The minister may think it's ridiculous to ask for that information. Possibly it is ridiculous to ask him for information about appeals, but that information was requested of the minister. All I requested from the minister was an agenda of the Environment and Land Use Committee relating to section 9 (7) appeals. I just asked him to let us know what is happening before the committee, and the minister refused.

MR. MACDONALD: Not even the agenda.

MR. SKELLY: He refused to even allow us access to the agenda, so we could know which properties were being dealt with. Before we at least had some access to local government and we could find out. The fact that an appeal was taking place, at least, was public. Now, that access to local government is being eliminated under this section, so the situation has changed. There is no way now, Mr. Chairman, unless under this amendment we can have a public meeting of an all-party committee. There is no way that a member or anyone concerned about change in farmland status in the province can be aware of that change, or even that an appeal is taking place.

Something must be done to insert into this section a provision for public notification of an appeal. Now the minister could undertake right here and now to say that agendas of the Environment and Land Use Committee relating to section 9 (7) appeals will be published and that the information will be made available on request.

AN HON. MEMBER: And then the hearing would be open.

MR. SKELLY: Certainly, that would open up the hearing procedure, and the hearing would be open. The other alternative is to provide a subamendment to this motion that would bind the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture to hold public hearings, if the minister feels that this amendment in itself is inadequate.

As it is now, at least we have the municipal bylaw to give us notice and to alert us that there is an appeal taking place under 9 (7) . Once this Section 1s passed, we won't even have that. And the minister's refusal to provide agendas for the Environment and Land Use Committee on ALR deletions leaves the public with no knowledge at all that an appeal is taking place. Perhaps the minister could stand up now and give us an undertaking that the agendas will be available, that information will be available and that the hearings will at least have some opening to the public and to interested people.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS - 15

[ Page 5337 ]

NAYS - 23

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

On section 7.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, now that we have fought on the beaches and lost that one, let us move into the streets and ask the minister: since the Environment and Land Use Committee is now going to be hearing these appeals, will the minister undertake to make the meetings of that committee that hears the appeals open in the same manner that, for example, the Minister of Labour opened up the hearings on the Revelstoke Dam Committee after a great deal of pressure and recognized that it was only right that these sorts of things should be heard in public? Will the minister give us that undertaking?

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The member said: "Now that they will hear them. . . ."

MR. GIBSON: They always have - all right.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Now that they continue to hear them.

Referring to the regulations, which I referred to last evening, the Environment and Land Use Committee shall hear the representations and evidence of the commission, the appellant, the regional district, municipality and other persons who made representation or gave evidence on the original application, and such other evidence as the Environment and Land Use Committee may consider necessary. So the authority is there if it is considered to be necessary.

You mentioned the Revelstoke Dam appeal. It was the decision of the chairman of that committee to let the press come in and listen to the appeal. It was the decision of the chairman of that committee, and circumstances, as you suggested, were such that the chairman decided this should be done. I'm saying to you, Mr. Member, that the regulations as presently written - and we intend to retain those - allow this discretion of the chairman.

MR. GIBSON: Aren't you the chairman?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Yes. If the chairman chooses to have such persons there as desired, it can be done.

MR. GIBSON: Well, fortunately we have the chairman of the Environment and Land Use Committee here today and he's talking to us all. I just want to ask him: in his power as chairman, will be allow the press into all these meetings on appeal? It's a simple question-, that's the long and short of it.

MR. WALLACE: Talk to yourself severely.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No.

MR. BARBER: When you were a hotliner you would have, demanded it.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, in this section we're discussing the rather elaborate and detailed ways in which appeals can be heard. I wonder if I could ask the minister a question which was not satisfactorily answered in estimates. I'm referring to the Laws Declaratory Act in section 44. It's very simple; the language in my view is quite clear. I just would like the minister to relate it to section 7 of this bill. Section 44 of the Laws Declaratory Act states: "An enactment that would, except for this section, bind or affect the Crown in respect of the use or development of land does not bind or affect the Crown." I've missed out part of it for simplicity's sake. I haven't read the whole section, the key section. It says: "Any enactment that would, except for this section, bind or affect the Crown in the respect of the use or development of land does not bind or affect the Crown."

Section 44 of the Laws Declaratory Act seems very plain and blunt and unmistakable. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that in regard to the Crown under section 7, all these appeals and procedures and so on are really meaningless because the Crown is not bound by the kinds of decisions that the commission might reach, for example. If I as an individual own a piece of land and a certain decision is made by the commission, or I go to the commission, I'm bound by that. I'm bound by the decision of all the levels of appeal through the municipal or regional board or otherwise. But section 44 of the Laws Declaratory Act seems to set the Crown completely and totally apart from any legislation binding the Crown in the use or development of land.

So I wonder what the purpose of going through all this lengthy debate and manoeuvre is if in point of

[ Page 5338 ]

fact another piece of legislation, namely, the Laws Declaratory Act, puts the Crown in a completely different and separate position of authority as to the ownership and development of land.

I wonder if the minister would care to comment on that.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I fully appreciate the member's concern as he has outlined, although I must admit that I don't fully understand the legalities that he's hinted at. Our lawyers have been offering us some explanations as to what this may or may not mean. The member for Oak Bay, I presume, is speaking of Crown land in this instance.

MR. WALLACE: Yes.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The Crown at all times has applied for such exemptions on Crown land. Now that's not necessarily because they were compelled to do so by law if your interpretation is correct. I can only take that matter under consideration to determine if perhaps by way of regulation this may be clearly identified.

I may point out to the member that to say the appeal procedure, therefore, really is a bit of a sham, no matter how it is written, if the Crown is exempt at all times anyway.... The Crown can, under the Act, amended or as it was originally drafted, exclude any lands, without any hearing or appeal of any kind, on its own. Simply by order, it can exclude any land. So that overriding power has always been there - that it could be excluded.

It would certainly not be the intent, and I don't believe that any person who has been responsible at any time in drafting parts of the original bill or the amendments was suggesting, that the Crown should exclude itself from this appeal procedure. I'm only offering an opinion on this.

I'll take it under advisement - that's all that I can offer to you at this time - to see in what way it may be modified at some future time or whether, by way of regulation, we can make it clear that the Crown is obliged to follow the appeal procedure, as would any other owner of land, if the Crown is considered to be the owner of the land.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, the minister's answer has raised an additional point about that I would like him to clarify. I may not have heard him correctly, but I got the impression he was saying, regardless of the point I've raised, the Crown now has the authority to take any piece of land out of the reserve and put it to another use. Presumably, that power exists within the existing Land Commission Act. The point I was raising was the question of Crown-owned land, where the Crown would appeal to have the, land removed from the reserve and have the appeal refused or turned down, or part of the land might be allowed but not all of it. I'm saying that section 44 of the Laws Declaratory Act makes it quite plain that if the Crown appealed to get land out of the reserve and the commission said no, section 44 makes it plain that the Crown can do what it likes.

I have always felt that although the Crown had to have the final authority in a democratic system of government, all this verbiage that we've been debating at great length and which applies to you and me as individuals, Mr. Minister, doesn't apply to the centralized authority of government, which can do whatever it likes. Is that what this means?

I might inform the minister that section 44 of the Laws Declaratory Act was brought in by the former NDP government some time after the original Land Act was introduced. I raised the question at that time in this House and got no satisfactory answer. If, in fact, the Crown can do what it wants with land, which is tantamount to what the minister said - that they do have the authority to take Crown land out of a reserve - what really is the purpose in trying to amend legislation and argue about single words and very small matters when, in point of fact, we have two separate applications of jurisdiction?

There is the law that is applied to Scott Wallace, who goes through the municipality, the regional board, the commission, the Environment and Land Use Committee and has to go through all that palaver. But the Crown doesn't have to bother to go through any of that if this section of the Laws Declaratory Act means anything at all. It just says that the Crown, in respect of the use of development of land, would not be bound by any other enactment. I presume that "by any other enactment" means any other enacted statute, which, in this case, happens to be Bill 88.

1 don't want to spend a long time on this. I just want to know. It seems to me that we have two systems here, Mr. Chairman. We have all this complicated stuff in section 7 that applies to the individual citizen, but as far as the Crown itself is concerned, it could go through the motions of going to the commission and appealing, but section 44 of this other Act seems to make it very plain that the Crown is in no way bound to the decisions of the commission.

Why bother with appeals and the Environment and Land Use Committee when, in point of fact, there's an overriding Act which permits the Crown to do what it wants with land in an agricultural land reserve? Again, if this is the case, then I would submit that the credibility of this legislation is just nonexistent.

The government of the day, whether it is in land use or heritage buildings or whatever, is supposed to be showing leadership. It's supposed to be following it's own legislation. It would appear that in this

[ Page 5339 ]

particular application of section 44 of the Laws Declaratory Act, there's a completely different rule for the government than the rule that applies to the citizen. I know that perhaps the minister doesn't have all the legal answers to give the House right at this moment, but it seems to me to be sufficiently clear that there are two sets of rules about land use. One set is for us and there's a different set for the Crown. If that's the case, it just makes a mockery of this whole legislation.

MR. SKELLY: The minister stated, Mr. Chairman, that he would not allow the press to attend Environment and Land Use Committee meetings, where 9 (7) appeals are determined. Is he willing to make public an agenda of which appeals are being heard at an Environment and Land Use Committee meeting?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, the Environment and Land Use Committee, as the member would know, is a committee of cabinet. We do not make cabinet agendas public. I've told the member in correspondence that should he wish to appear before the Environment and Land Use Committee when an appeal is being heard in his constituency, I would appreciate notification. I believe I advised him that he would be quite welcome to attend.

I have not had any requests by MLAS from that side of the House to appear before the Environment and Land Use Committee when an appeal is taking place with respect to lands within their constituency. I've had members on the government side who have been advised by way of their mayors or council that they are to appear or their case is to be heard, and they have made requests and asked if they could appear. In several instances we've listened to the testimony of these elected representatives.

The Environment and Land Use Committee, as I said, being a committee of cabinet, does not publish its agenda in public. I believe the Land Commission advises all MLAs of any appeals under section 9 (7) of the Act that are coming - at least I hope they advise all MLAs. And that MLA, if he is on top of it, will know if the appeal was approved or not approved. I'm sure all MLAs have liaison with their councils, their regional districts or their mayors, and they are certainly informed. They're advised as to when the appeal is to be heard and they are invited to attend. If MLAs have that interest, I'd be very appreciative to hear from them and give them consideration to be heard. We respect the opinions of MLAs with respect to applications on lands which are within their jurisdiction, and we would like to hear from them.

MR. SKELLY: The minister is saying, Mr. Chairman, that because cabinet doesn't do it he's not going to do it. But that's really not a valid excuse for not publishing the agenda. I'm not asking him to publish cabinet agendas on all matters that come before cabinet. That wouldn't make any sense at all. But this is strictly on appeals that are made to the committee of cabinet relative to deletions from the agricultural land reserve.

In the past, municipalities had to make a ruling before these appeals went to cabinet under section 9 (7) . That's been deleted from this section of the Act, so now the municipalities aren't involved in forwarding those appeals to cabinet. In some cases, the MLA and the municipality will not know that appeal is being referred to the Environment and Land Use Committee. They're not involved in approval of that appeal procedure because they've been eliminated under this section of the Act, Mr. Chairman.

It's not really a valid excuse to say that because cabinet hasn't done it in the past, we can't and won't do it in the future. I'm not asking the minister to provide the agenda for total cabinet meetings, although we'd appreciate receiving it. I'm just asking the minister if he will make a concession on this specific point that because we've eliminated the local involvement in the approval procedure, it is going to be extremely difficult for MLAs to be in touch with the situation regarding 9 (7) appeals.

Now in the cases where the Environment and Land Use Committee has heard from local MLAs providing their input and those MLAs have been in touch with the appellant, it isn't always the case that an MLA is going to appear on behalf of the appellant or wishes to appear. If, in fact, the MLA doesn't even know that an appeal is taking place because the municipality has been eliminated from the appeal procedure, it's going to be very difficult for the public to keep control and maintain a watch on what's happening with regard to agricultural land.

We would like the minister to at least make the concession that he will advise the public when these appeals are taking place and allow MLAs to look into the situation and to develop a point of view on these appeals. It's a very small concession.

MR. WALLACE: I noticed the minister consulted with his legal advisers about the question I asked. I wondered if he had any further comment to make about the relative authority between the Laws Declaratory Act as it relates to Crown control of positions on Crown-owned land and the decisions of the commission in this section. Has he any further information he can provide to the House?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, to the member for Oak Bay - no, I'm sorry. As I've said, I will take it under advisement. The present policy of government is that all Crown agencies apply to the

[ Page 5340 ]

Land Commission for such exclusions. Now I appreciate that policies can change if it's not in the legislation, but that is the policy at this time.

I'll take your query under consideration to see if there is a way that it could be modified to make it very plain that they must follow the same rules and regulations as others. But I point out to the member that in the Act, as written originally and continued t h r o u g h t h i s a m e n d m e n t A c t , Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has awesome powers with respect to lands within an agricultural land reserve and, by way of a simple order, could exclude every acre of land from agricultural land reserves in the province. That would not require an appeal of any kind. It would not require a hearing of any kind. It would require a simple order-in-council. Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has that authority to exclude not only all the Crown land, but all land from agricultural land reserves.

As the member would be aware, the land reserves were originally put in place by way of order-in-council. Then the Act followed. The orders-in-council originally froze the land. That authority is there, which means that the section the member quoted is really neither here nor there. That authority has certainly been in the Act since its inception. I might say that it has not been used. The authority certainly remains with the cabinet.

I will take it under advisement and attempt to see what resolutions can be offered.

MR. SKELLY: I was wondering if the minister is willing to change his mind, Mr. Chairman, on the request to publish section 9 (7) appeals - to just notify members and notify the general public that those appeals are taking place.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The municipalities, the regional districts, the appellant, the Land Commission and other such persons who appeared at the original application will be notified, as they are now. Any MLA, I'm sure, will be contacted by the mayor or municipality or regional district representative. Perhaps, if they are in communication with them, they will ask them to make sure they advise them if they hear of such an appeal, because they will be advised.

MR. SKELLY: But those municipalities, Mr. Chairman, now have no authority in approving the appeal procedure. It's strictly a case of seeking information from the municipalities. It's done on a clerical basis; the clerk will receive a letter from the Environment and Land Use Committee or from the regional district requesting information. The information will be passed along from the planning staff of the regional district or municipality. There's no requirement at the municipal level to publicly advise anybody of what's happening and there's no way that the public has of knowing that this clerical procedure is taking place. It's done strictly on a civil service basis.

Regional district boards can't deal with all this correspondence that runs on a civil service basis between the Land Commission and local governments. There will be no way of knowing. Some regional district directors themselves, Mr. Chairman, won't have any way of knowing that this information is being sought and for what purpose.

All we're asking from the minister is to make it public. What does he have to lose by making public the fact that an appeal is taking place, by just informing the public that an appeal is taking place? He has nothing whatsoever to lose. Nobody's asking to get a key into the cabinet room. Nobody's asking anything like that. It's just simply the information that an appeal is taking place. What does the minister have to lose? Why is he refusing that small concession?

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Chairman, I'd just make a suggestion. I believe the Environment and Land Use Committee has at their disposal a secretariat; you do have personnel. I would think that just as a matter of policy, the minister could perhaps direct those personnel that when they are notifying the other agencies which have been involved in the appeal to that date, they could add to their list the local MLA.

1, for one, will not be offended if I should mistakenly be notified about something happening. For instance, take Castlegar. My riding services part of the rural area which uses the Castlegar address; rural route so and so, Castlegar. Actually, if it were to be sent to the member for Rossland-Trail by mistake, I wouldn't be offended. I would look upon that as a reasonable error. But at least some effort is being made in that regard.

It's being done on many different levels, Mr. Chairman. I think that the minister could give direction to his staff in the secretariat, that when such appeals are coming forward, what the member for Alberni has asked for could be complied with.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'll take the suggestion under consideration, Mr. Chairman.

Section 7 approved on the following division:

YEAS - 22

[ Page 5341 ]

NAYS - 14

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

Sections 8 to 10 inclusive approved.

On section 11.

MR. GIBSON: On section 11, Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister why a perfectly good regulation section that ran to what looks like some 20 or 30 lines here, and particularized the kind of regulations that may be passed, should be replaced by this offensive little sentence that we're seeing in more and more bills saying the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations without any particularity at all as to those regulations. Why is this perfectly good regulation section, which gave them all the same power, being changed?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, this is in conformity with the manner in which legislation is being prepared in this modern era and, as the member said, yes, you will see this in bills, that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations. That is the only explanation I can offer you: it is to be consistent with most of the other Acts.

Section 11 approved.

Sections 12 to 15 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Bill 88, Land Commission Amendment Act, 1977, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS - 23

NAYS - 16

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned second reading debate, Mr. Speaker, of Bill 90.

PUBLIC RECREATIONAL FACILITIES ACT

(continued)

MR. NICOLSON: This Act is one that some people have been looking forward to for a very long time. While there has been on the books of this Legislature one of the best pieces of legislation probably in Canada to assist community recreational facilities, there has been a pause placed on the programme. Indeed, the government of the day has done little more than to honour the obligations and promises which were made prior to December, 1975.

We've had two budgets, Mr. Speaker; we've had two sittings of the Legislature in which time there was ample opportunity to bring in a bill or change legislation and to make such a change. But we've been waiting for this piece of legislation now since December, 1975, or January, 1976. Letters went out to many, many organizations that had sought to take advantage of the community recreational facilities fund. They were sent letters, first of all, by the minister and the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) . That's where this thing really went wrong.

The fact was that that particular member, perhaps one who was more politically motivated rather than motivated in terms of the interest of providing good community recreational facilities - and I would lay the blame there and not with the present minister

[ Page 5342 ]

(Hon. Mr. Bawlf) - was responsible for setting up this whole holding operation, keeping everybody up in the air.

In ridings all over this province there are projects that were half started. There are projects that have indeed been completed. Community organizations have had to go to the bank in order to complete projects without any help from the provincial government, still in hope that they will be able to get that assistance. We see in the Act - let's give credit where it's due - that there is an increase from a third of a million dollars to $400,000, reflecting the diminished purchase power of the dollar which has taken place since the original legislation was introduced in 1973. We welcome that. We welcome the increase to $400,000. We also will vote in support of this Act.

To a great extent it's really unnecessary to repeal the old Act. One could just as easily have kept the name Community Recreational Facilities Act, perhaps, and take out the word "fund" if they want to change from having a fund to having it funded through the estimates of the department. That's something that I don't intend to take great issue with, that change in philosophy, one way or the other.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a very inordinate delay and there are throughout the province many organizations which have been put to great inconvenience by this delay. To say that the fund was expended really begs the question. The fund could have been replenished. It could have been replenished in the 1976 session, or this 1977 session, through a simple amendment. What have we waited for? I'd like to read out one of several copies of letters, and I thank the minister for sending me copies of correspondence to persons in my riding. I also have some copies of correspondence that have been sent to other areas of the province, but I'll read one to one of the areas in my riding. I do have a letter in here from the Provincial Secretary and she said that there's been a pause because the fund is exhausted. Of course, civil servants have had to pick up the same sort of theme and there's an extensive file on this. That certainly has been the theme. Let's get the records straight. Something could have been done about it. There certainly have been two opportunities. Indeed, other projects which were well along were funded, and funds did go forward.

This year we voted for a certain amount in this minister's estimates. That's one of the things that has happened here. There has also been another fund which I believe was originally brought in through the department at such time as Mr. Wesley Black was the Provincial Secretary. I believe that the title of the Act was the Elderly Citizens Community Recreational Facilities Act, or something very similar to that. That Act was transferred to the Minister of Human Resources, and it's my understanding that it has now been passed to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation.

This new Act, the Public Recreational Facilities Act, will incorporate both what we have had as the Community Recreational Facilities Fund, and that other special type of funding which was just up until recently under the hon. Minister of Human Resources.

I have a letter to the Creston senior citizens branch No. 28, which acknowledges receipt on behalf of the minister concerning financial assistance for a senior citizens recreation project forwarded by the Minister of Human Resources. I listened carefully to the minister in his opening remarks in moving second reading last night, and there was no reference to this.

Mr. Speaker, it would be indeed regretful if this is a little change in name, and a slight change in the manner in which the funding is to be directed -through an estimate vote rather than through special appropriations in the Legislature, and through the increase in the dollar amount of the maximum loan. If this second thrust of government which was in place through the previous Social Credit government, continued by the New Democratic Party government, and has been put into holding pattern for some time, it would indeed be regretful if that were to go ahead.

There are many areas in my riding which are in difficulty. In the Creston area, we have both the Creston senior citizens branch 28, which have gone ahead with the purchase of a building for recreational use, and there's another organization, the Canyon Hall. They went ahead. The walls, the floor, the huge building has been put in and built. This is replacing an old structure that burnt down. That one has also been in this holding pattern. This holding pattern has been going on for some 19 months.

HON. R.S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Twelve million dollars in grants.

MR. NICOLSON: The minister says there have been grants but, on the other hand, I keep getting information from his department that they are only trying to clean up the projects which were initiated by the previous government or applications that came in at that time. I have been informed of that. If the minister wants to get into a dialogue, I perhaps will read out more of the correspondence which I have. I certainly do have copies of some of the announcements and, yes, I have one that is about $3.9 million. One announcement: a list of projects and where they were all over the province.

Another thing that I am concerned about is a reference in many of these letters. I'll just quote one letter, and this was signed by the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) when she was in charge of the Act. I have others which were signed by the present minister to the same effect.

[ Page 5343 ]

"I should also advise that the revised terms of reference for the fund, which are currently being prepared, will contain the stipulation that supplementary grants will not be available."

Mr. Speaker, this is very regrettable because a small community could very well go ahead with building a tennis court, put up the fencing, put up the paved area, and then, in a second effort, maybe a year or two later, ask for a supplementary grant in order that they could build some change room facilities, showers or such things which would enhance the thing. A small community might not be in the position where they could go ahead and build the entire thing. What they are really going to have to do now, it would appear, if this policy which I see here.... Here's a letter from the minister: "Please note that under the revised terms of reference for this programme, there will be no consideration of requests for additional capital through supplementary grants." This was to Mr. Bronough of the Nelson rowing club - the minister's letter of February 3,1977.

So because of this new policy, it would put a small community project in the position where they will have to go all or nothing. They will probably have to go and borrow and run into interest payments and such things rather than perhaps paying as they go and holding raffles and various things.

I'm thinking perhaps that the minister does not look at things in context, having had experience as a fairly large city alderman and such. I notice references in here and in his speech to the input by regional districts and municipalities. But a lot of these projects are initiated in very small, unorganized villages and communities in which this is the cohesive force of the community, the binding of the matrix of that community. I see this as a problem. Even for some of the larger grants, it was a policy under the former government that supplementary grants could be applied for.

For one thing, there could be overruns. There's never been a way of predicting what the ultimate costs would be with a fantastic amount of certitude because cost of concrete and various other things can go up without notice. But even looking at cost overruns as one thing and accepting that, okay, maybe that's going to be their policy, I would really urge the minister to reconsider his policy as to giving supplementary grants for first or second stage. Perhaps he could just clarify that if I misunderstand the intent of his letters.

To come back to the point which the minister seemed to try to deny, I know that some grants have gone forward. Here is a letter, one of many, and it says:

"As you are no doubt aware, the Community Recreational Facilities Fund was suspended last year to permit the development of a new and m ore comprehensive recreational facilities assistance programme. The new programme is this ministry's top priority and, as anticipated, it will be introduced sometime in September."

This letter was written on August 23,1977.

It was suspended last year - referring back to earlier letters, many of which I have from the Provincial Secretary. Yes, grants did continue to be issued, It appeared to me that most of these grants were on projects that had already been very much down the road in progress. But for groups that have gotten together since January, 1976, it's my experience that they have been most unsuccessful in terms of getting their grants on the road. They have been told to wait for the new legislation. What have they waited for all this time? They have waited for a huge bill of all of six sections which replaces the old bill which had all of five sections on one page. It's been a long wait. We've waited and we've got it here today.

I should also comment on the per capita grant of up to 33-1/3 per cent for planning of recreational facilities and preparation of comprehensive plans for an area. We welcome that as well. But in terms of this review, which has taken about 19 months, it has created real hardship. I hope the minister takes that seriously. It has created a great deal of hardship, and these are not people who are working in their communities for profit. These are people who are giving freely of their time for non-profit societies. These are people whom the community leans on, whom the community depends upon.

When I think of little unorganized communities such as the Canyon community and the Canyon community hall - the Canyon community just outside of Creston has been there a good many years and it will continue to have a community spirit -there are only so many people in that community who can be depended upon to show leadership and to put in the time to write the numerous letters that have to be written back and forth in order to set up proper correspondence. These people, senior citizens' groups.... Some of these senior citizens, you know, if we don't do something for them soon their chances will have evaporated to take advantage of this legislation. They have their dreams, too, and things which they'd like to fulfill, Mr. Speaker, before things have become so difficult for them that they can no longer participate.

I say thank goodness this Act has finally come, but really, because of the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) , we have trifled with one of the most successful pieces of legislation. There's no piece of legislation that is so successful that it can't stand some improvement, but we have trifled with that thing for 19 months. We've created a tremendous amount of uncertainty and, I think, needless misunderstandings and delay, so this bill is not just a hallmark. All I can say, with a sigh of relief, is that I

[ Page 5344 ]

will support this legislation only because finally we'll almost be back where we started with very few changes that couldn't have been made over a year ago.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, this was a good bill when it was introduced by the NDP. I think it's just fair to say that this is one of the positive and very good steps which the NDP took when they were in government. All I want to do is give my strongest support to the minister on this bill and just ask one or two questions.

I might say, first of all, that I think this kind of programme does a great deal more in a positive way than some of the large sums of money we're pouring into Alcohol and Drug Commission programmes to try to deal with young people after they are already in trouble. I think the concept of making community recreation facilities available on as wide a basis as possible is the most useful preventive measure we can take in dealing with many of the problems among our young people. I have no hesitation in saying that Oak Bay has been one of the municipalities in the whole of B.C. to benefit most, not only by judicious application and by the hard work of the Oak Bay council, but also by the money made available through the government in this legislation. I just want to acknowledge that and to say that the recreation centre in Oak Bay is an absolute hive of activity seven days a week, and I don't say that just because my own family benefits, as indeed they do. Anyone can see that it's just a fantastic source of interest, activity and healthy pursuits for a whole range of age groups. So the original bill was good and this bill is good.

I'd like to say that the third of a million dollars maximum which has been raised to $400,000 is the government's acknowledgement of inflationary costs. I think they should be credited for doing that.

With regard to the comprehensive plan, which again I think makes a lot of sense to avoid the duplication which the minister mentioned in introducing second reading, I would just like to know if the actual consideration of that comprehensive plan will include existing private facilities even though this legislation obviously does not provide any funding to private facilities. The minister knows well some of the controversy that has taken place in the greater Victoria area in regard to the Racquet Club, which was a private recreational facility which has encountered some financial problems with the creation of public facilities such as the Oak Bay Recreation Centre.

The government is to provide 33-1/3 cents per capita of the population of a municipality or regional district, or $25,000 - whichever is the least - to draw up these comprehensive plans. I think it would be most important to ensure, perhaps by regulation, that although this fund cannot be used for private facilities, those existing private facilities should surely be an integral part of any planning.

The funding is the last item I would like to ask about, because during the debate on estimates, I did ask some questions as to exactly where the funding was recorded in the estimates. Originally, the Community Recreational Facilities Fund, which we're now repealing under this bill, was included in vote 246. That vote was entitled "recreation facilities programme." But I gather it was only the money involved in the actual administration. There's no mention in either vote 245 or 246 of the actual money spent in the fiscal year, as the total number of grants provided.

Now I looked back to the Provincial Secretary's vote to try and see if the money was recorded there, but I can't find for the 1976277 fiscal year a sum total of the grants that were paid out. Now maybe I've missed it; I would just like the minister in this debate, if he could, to tell us what was the total amount of money made available from April 1,1976 to March 31,1977.

Secondly, could I ask him to just perhaps enlarge on his news release, which stated that the new programme will be the responsibility of the community recreation division of the new recreation and fitness branch of the ministry? Because again, I've looked up the recreation and fitness branch, which is vote 245 in the estimates, and I can't find any mention of any capital funding at all. So that leads to my third and final question. But presumably, there is not any figure in the estimates - even a ceiling figure - as to what might be spent. from April 1,1977, to March 31,1978.

It would seem to me that this particular allocation of funding would be very much in competition with all the other demands that are placed on this ministry. If anyone looks at the estimates, Mr. Speaker, it's obvious that the Department of Recreation and Conservation is a very large one, with a total budget for the fiscal year we are now in of almost $5 5 million - $5 4.9 million. There's a total of about 20 different votes. So while I'm very well aware of the fact that money doesn't grow on trees for recreation, just because it is, in my view, a very positive and useful way to spend money, I would like to think that if the funding for new recreational facilities is just to be lumped in as part and parcel of the total ministry budget, then the whole matter becomes a much more competitive one to find the funding for these facilities in competition with the other 19 or 20 votes, within this minister's ministry.

Now I may have misunderstood the minister's comments last night; it was late when he introduced second reading of the bill. But I think that the fund or the legislation's purpose is so good, so positive, so productive and so preventive, as I mentioned, in regard to our youth, in the sense that it keeps many

[ Page 5345 ]

of them healthy and out of trouble; I would hate to think that by placing it within the minister's overall responsibilities in the estimates, there would be a very serious pressure on the minister to perhaps spend less through this part of his ministry than would have been the case had the fund been set up separately, as it was originally, with perhaps a block amount of money available for the year.

I presume - and again, I would like the minister to comment on this - that the new process of funding is meant to give flexibility and priorities to the requests that come into the minister for assistance. In other words, if you had a block amount of $20 million, let us say, and eight months through the year, the $20 million has all been spent, then presumably some very worthwhile requests in the latter part of the year might not come to fruition, whereas, I suppose if there is a more feasible arrangement, perhaps certain applications can be delayed in the course of a year, so that some more worthwhile projects can go ahead. I don't know if that's the thinking behind it, but this is the main criticism I have about the bill: there's very little detail or outline as to how the funding will be determined, or whether or not, as I say, it will just simply be competing with all the other demands made upon this minister within his own ministry. On that note, I am a little negative, but my overwhelming feeling about this bill is one of strong support and optimism and perhaps the minister can answer some of my doubts.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): I have a grave concern about one aspect of this bill which makes some changes in terms of those people who are now going to be eligible for funding under the bill. One section refers to "an organization approved by the minister." Mr. Speaker, I'm really alarmed and hate to have to state that Indian bands are going to be excluded under this bill.

HON. MR. BAWLF: No, no.

MS. SANFORD: They are going to be excluded according to the information sent out from your department to people within my own constituency.

HON. MR. BAWLF: In error. That's wrong, and you know it.

MS. SANFORD: It is not wrong, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I should outline for the information of the minister exactly....

HON. MR. BAWLF: But you've already been told that was written in error.

MS. SANFORD: Written in error?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Yes, it was written without consultation with me.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased if the minister is in fact saying that Indian bands will not be excluded under this section. What happened with the Campbell River Indian band which applied for assistance under this fund in May, 1976, was that they were told in July, 1977, that it appeared as though their application would be eligible for funding and that the ministry or the branch needed more information, which the Indian band provided for the ministry. They spent $7,500, committed it to planning, committed it to obtaining the information that they would need in order to fulfill the requirements, and dutifully went ahead as requested in the letter. Now the letter did state, Mr. Speaker, that this was certainly not a formal acceptance of their application but that that information would be needed.

Now after they had spent $7,500, Mr. Speaker, they got yet another letter, which the minister tells me now has been sent out in error, saying that grants from the Community Recreational Facilities Fund will no longer be available to Indian bands or to projects on designated reserve lands.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Who was it signed by?

MS. SANFORD: Well, it was signed by Mr. John Thompson, who is the co-ordinator of the recreation facilities fund.

The letter also states that the First Citizens Fund will likely be expanded to accommodate applications from Indian bands in the province for the development of community recreation facilities. I would like the minister, when he is summing up during second reading, to tell me whether in fact any applications will be received for capital projects through the First Citizens Fund, or will the Indian bands of the province be able to apply directly to this Community Recreational Facilities Fund and will that be the only source for funding for the development of recreation facilities on reserves? I wonder if the minister would, in summing up, indicate what is going to happen.

Is it likely that under these projects which are going to be approved by the minister - or the organizations that are going to be approved by the minister - Indian bands will be accepted as they were before under the previous legislation? There were several Indian bands in the province that received the one-third grant under the previous Act and went ahead with the development of community recreation facilities.

Mr. Speaker, I was really disturbed by the copies of the letters that were sent to me by Chief Roberts of Campbell River. If they were sent in error, I

[ Page 5346 ]

apologize to the minister for making an accusation which is perhaps untrue. But I would like some clarification about applications.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): I too have about one or two brief questions for the minister. I might point out, Mr. Speaker, that I will be supporting this bill along with other members of our caucus because, under the Community Recreational Facilities Fund Act which was enacted by our government, I think, in 1974, it proved to be an extremely successful endeavour in our communities, in my riding and in many other parts of British Columbia.

We have a beautiful rec centre in Powell River and smaller recreation facilities now in areas like Sechelt, Gibsons and other communities in my riding. I do know that there have been numerous applications from my riding alone over the last 20 months from various organizations, municipalities and regional districts throughout the province. I wonder if the minister could give us perhaps an approximate number of applications that have been received and will be acted upon in the next year or so,

Mr. Speaker, our government allotted the sum - as I recall - of approximately $22 million over two and a half years to the Community Recreational Facilities Fund, which is being repealed by this Act and replaced by the Public Recreational Facilities Act.

I was wondering if the minister could tell us now how much money he anticipates will be expended over the next fiscal period in grants to the various communities. There must be some kind of rough figure that the minister has for his budgetary figures and for his estimates, Mr. Speaker. Is it $5 million, $10 million, $20 million or whatever? I assume these funds will be coming out of general revenue, but perhaps the minister will tell us.

One final point, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased to see the minister has put the Section into this Act that will allow the government, the minister and his ministry to appropriate funds for studies. I think this is a good Section 1n the Act, and an improvement.

We have areas like the Central Coast Regional District which is a wide-flung area with very poor communications. There could be duplication of services in areas like that. I know that it will be of great assistance to the Central Coast Regional District, particularly, to receive funding to do a study on the need for recreational facilities in that area.

Other areas that I might talk about are areas like Pender Harbour, which is contemplating a recreational facility to serve that whole area of about 3,000 population, and many other communities just like that, Mr. Speaker. What I am really saying here is that I hope the minister will give these grants without too much red tape. I know that applications will be coming in from all over the province for these grants to do studies. Perhaps the minister can just enlighten us on that aspect, as well.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, 1, too, rise to support this new bill. It's interesting that the minister has changed the name from the Community Recreational Facilities Fund Act to the Public Recreational Facilities Act. I would like him to comment on the implications of that change - "public" - indicating, perhaps, a more centralist approach to recreation as opposed to community emphasis. It certainly would be in line with other legislation that has been introduced by the government in terms of trying to centralize control.

Recreation is a unique field, Mr. Speaker, that has been enjoyed by various groups in the community. Ethnic groups, particularly, feel it important to have their own autonomy and independence from government control. There is a danger of emphasizing too much the availability of funds for planning by municipalities, in regional districts at the risk of losing the autonomy that these private societies have enjoyed. I would like the minister to ensure that that isn't going to become a problem, where a group would be reluctant to apply for a grant for fear of being in conflict with one of the larger central bodies also applying on the master plan.

It is important, too, to have the minister give us some idea of the thrust of his ministry respecting recreation for the community, knowing something of the history of funds being available in this province for the furtherance of recreational programmes and with capital funding, prior to 1973, having been virtually non-existent as far as the construction of new recreational facilities was concerned. In this respect, I must congratulate the minister for just changing the title. He hasn't changed the thrust that was started by the previous administration of giving help to such groups. This is something that has been needed. It is a very new thing and I'm glad to know that the minister is continuing it.

Many programmes have been eliminated and are being eliminated by the government that were useful to the community groups. There was nothing, though, in the new Act to indicate whether the government would like to assist in the operation of such facilities. We talk a lot about volunteerism, Mr. Speaker, especially in services to people. Societies are generally looked upon as being able to operate with volunteers and at great sacrifice to individuals.

It should be kept in mind that at our institutions of higher learning, we train people to do some of the jobs that we also expect volunteers to do. There's a conflict there in terms of, on the one hand, spending public funds to educate people to do recreational work. It's a fairly good-sized school at the University of British Columbia. The outlets are questionable in terms of people being able to stay in the province and

[ Page 5347 ]

practise their profession because most of these facilities, once built, have to skimp and scrape to operate. Except for grants from municipalities, that are quite often limited to hiring an executive director and an assistant, and perhaps a few part-time people working maybe only two or three hours a day, recreational facilities, as a rule, are still run by volunteers.

This has been traditional but, I think, having worked for a number of years myself in the field, I know there is a great disadvantage in relying too heavily on the volunteer to carry on in a consistent way with a long-range, real commitment to a particular institution where the work is fairly specialized and requires expertise and some consistency in order to really make that major capital outlay pay off.

What you have in many communities are beautiful facilities with a real lack of qualified people to carry out the programme. I think we could do a lot to assist in this area without undermining the value of volunteers and utilization of services that are available free of charge in these communities. I don't think the making available of funds would in any way alter the role of the volunteer.

I'm thinking also specifically of applications that have been placed recently. There's one I know of in my riding, and they're feeling that they don't get direct answers. In other words, they're told: "Well, the grants are not being processed right now. We're going to be looking at them perhaps in the spring of next year, or something like that." But what happens is that people apply for a grant, and then don't hear anything else. It's not a very encouraging process. I would like to feel that the ministry is enthusiastic about its programmes and wants to inspire people who are applying and make them feel that the government sincerely cares about what it's doing in this area of providing recreational capital funds for the construction of recreational facilities, and to meet with these people and communicate with them and encourage them to do the work that's necessary so that you can make a decision, and to be committed to a timetable of some sort so they can make plans.

This is mindful, Mr' Minister, of your programme in co-operation with the Ministry of Labour where you provide funds for summer works projects. Sometimes decisions are just delayed so long that the applicant has difficulty making plans and not really knowing how to project or arrange their schedule. I think that part of it could be done, even though a grant may be disapproved at any particular time. I think the ministry should be committed to being expeditious about what they're doing and assist the applicant, because there are two sides to every story.

I would just conclude by re-emphasizing a point I made earlier about the importance of the separation between the concept of public recreation and private recreation. I know that the government is quite articulate in distinguishing between, at least in political terms, private and public when it comes to the economy and the generation of money, et cetera. But I'm thinking now in terms of public services.

Ethnic groups need to be independent for a reason in our type of culture and society. There's a danger of having to refer too much to the state, to a central force other than their own community. I would caution the minister on what may happen where there are political persuasions in various communities that may deny proper input from certain ethnic groups where the municipality or the regional district has too much control, where you've maybe made a commitment to provide funds for recreational needs in an area. They may not be too well organized; they may not have a chance to do the lobbying that they need to do to ensure that they're protected. You may say: "Well, we can't accept your grant because in that particular area a plan is already underway."

You have to be very careful that you don't allow a central organization to dominate or just simply bypass the interests of the various communities within some of the communities. As you know, the Italian recreational-culture centre is adjacent to the Grandview Community Centre - at least, they're separated by perhaps a few hundred yards - and yet those are two different types of facilities, both essential and both compatible. Would that have happened under the one section where you're going to provide funds for the study of recreational facilities in an area where you don't want conflicts to occur? What guarantees would you have had, say, in that situation to permit the Italian cultural centre to proceed without the risk of being disqualified under a master plan? That could undermine, I'm sure, what you're attempting to do.

I would just caution you to ensure that there is some protection for this important feature which already exists. It's one of the things that you have inherited and it's underway. I hope we're not overlooking something in this Act that will tend to discourage ethnic interest in the future.

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

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, I will try to address myself to these numerous questions that have been posed by the members opposite. First of all, I will deal with those matters raised by the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) . He went on at some length about the inordinate delay which he alleges occurred here in respect to the introduction of this programme. I would like to just remind him that since I was appointed minister at the end of last October, some $12 million in grants was committed under the old programme and, in fact, numerous of

[ Page 5348 ]

those projects are still proceeding at this time. It is true, commencing the first of the year, that we did advise people making inquiries that the programme was under suspension for a time. It was our intention it would be about six months. As it has turned out, it has been seven going on eight months - eight months, I guess.

That was, in our view, a very necessary step when you consider that, including the grants committed in this past year, some $5 3 million has been committed to recreational facilities in the province by the provincial government. That represents one-third of the cost of those facilities. Therefore we have had something on the order of $160 million worth of recreation facilities built in the province. I'm sure that all members would agree that a programme of that magnitude is bound to have some pitfalls. Given the speed with which these facilities were built, the time had come for a serious reflection on the pros and cons of the programme. I will come to some of those concerns in a few minutes.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BAWLF: No, $12 million was committed in grants in the past year.

I'm going to come back to some of the questions underlying this concern, but mention was made of the senior citizens' recreation facilities Act and the question was asked: "Is the government going to continue to support such groups?" Of course we are, but I think again that the members would recognize the wisdom of bringing these programmes together in one ministry - in fact, in one programme, to the maximum extent possible - so as to provide co-ordination, the best possible advice, review of needs, and co-ordination of projects, in consultation with the communities, to establish some priorities. Indeed, the senior citizens stand to benefit by reason of the greater likelihood of the development of multiple-purpose facilities.

The planning aspect of this Act is very important, in our view. The experience which I touched on briefly last night is that many communities are verging on duplication of facilities. We're concerned that some form of overview of future facility development in their area be developed. We want to assist that and encourage it.

On the question of supplementary grants, there was confusion, I think, in the mind of the member for Nelson-Creston on this subject. We consider that before a grant is finally committed, we expect to have in hand - and this has been the practice in the past - a firm set of costs based on plans, the bid of the contractor, and so forth, and on confirmation that the other sources of funds are in fact there. We will not encourage a blank-cheque approach to overruns on a specific project, but that's a very different matter from a staged development. If a community sees that it's within their means and preferable that they proceed on a staged basis -tennis court A this year, tennis court B the next year, and so on - we are quite prepared to consider that. That is not what we consider to be supplementary grants. That is a sequential grant, if you like. So I think the member was confused in that regard. We want to control overruns. We have an obligation to do so rather than have an open-ended commitment, but this by no means pre-empts the notion of staged development of a facility.

I thank all the members for their support of this bill. The member for Oak Bay too, was supportive, and he extends his congratulations to the former government for their introduction of a form of this programme. Congratulations are due to a point. There are reservations in the area of people responding to this carrot that was held out, building ambitious facilities, and then being faced with serious operating deficits, and the burden that that represents for many communities. We consider that the key conclusion of our review is that the carrot must be balanced with sound planning and advice. In fact, we must have a great deal more of this.

Do we plan to extend the planning process to private facilities? Yes, we do, because we think that it's vital that communities assess the capability of service clubs, entrepreneurs, the whole range of non-governmental initiative to meet recreational needs. We indeed want to encourage them to take cognizance of the role that those organizations can play, have played in the past, and can continue to play. For every dollar that those organizations supplement by way of volunteerism, by way of private fund raising, this is a dollar less burden on the public, while serving the recreational needs.

The member for Oak Bay was asking where the money was in the estimates. Vote 247 provided $8 million in the current fiscal year. I'm sure the members will understand that this is a cyclical kind of programme. A commitment made last November will be on a project which may take two fiscal periods to be constructed. As a rule, funds provided tend to be covering stages of developments which have been committed to by the government. The $8 million in the current fiscal year estimates is to meet the backlog of obligations which have occurred. These are constantly accumulating and we must be mindful of them. The member for Comox was concerned about Indian bands being excluded from assistance by the provincial government. I want to say categorically that any implication to that extent in the letter that was sent from my ministry was in error. Once again, we have been concerned about trying to provide a well-coordinated focus for this kind of programme in government, so that the accumulation of information and knowledge in the whole area of recreational

[ Page 5349 ]

facilities is available to everyone concerned. As for Indian bands, alongside was this question of: should the First Citizens Fund be expanded, or in some way provide part or all of the assistance? But there's never been any question of not assisting the Indian bands. In fact, that avenue has not been pursued to any great extent. It was misconstrued that it had been, via a member of the ministry. We will continue to receive and process inquiries from the Indian bands through this programme until such time as we have a definite alternative, but there will always be a source of support in our thinking.

The member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) was concerned about how many applications we have on file. The applications were sent back. Those that were left after we'd committed the $12 million in grants at the end of last year were notified that the programme was in a state of suspension.

We have had several hundred inquiries and we're maintaining contact with all these people. I've had meetings with dozens of them and tried to assure them that the programme was on its way. In fact, we will be sending out to all of these people who have made inquiries application forms immediately the programme is active again.

As to the amount of money that would be committed, I'm not able to say that now because you'll appreciate we're just getting into the preparation of estimates for next year. But I expect that it will be a substantial sum. I don't think it will be inconsistent with past experience. So I just have to leave it at that.

Red tape. The member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) is concerned. Red tape, no; advice, yes. Here we have a problem with many, many small communities. They may only build one facility in a decade. In so doing, there's a danger that they're going to re-invent the wheel and make all the mistakes that everybody else has made before them. One of our basic objectives in this programme is to try to develop a central repository of information to make available to people so that when it comes to building the 57th ice arena in the province under the programme, they won't make the mistakes of the 56 that have gone before them. In fact there will be some kind of a handbook of information on what kind of truss is the most economical, what kind of ice plant and so forth to try and assist them in finding an economical and successful design.

We have had experiences, I might say, with the former programme that were rather the reverse in this area. Small communities hired an architect or an engineer, got off on a design, and the thing has turned out to be a can of worms. It's cost them a great deal more than they expected. Well, we won't mention any.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Vancouver Centre. The member was concerned about centralization. Are private societies out? No, but in fact, as I said, we want local governments. We want to consult with them; we want to see that there is not needless duplication of facilities. But beyond that, we want to encourage them to harness these various other groups. Okay?

But the facilities must be public; they must be open to the public. That's the reason for the change in name, Mr. Member. The term "community" is misconstrued in some people's minds to assume that as long as we and they constitute a "community, " that's good enough. It has to be public-, it has to be open to the public. I think there's an important distinction there because a number of organizations have tended to think that any group of people could define themselves as a community and trot merrily on their way and not have to accommodate the public.

So, as for centralization, no, this isn't centralization; it's more local consultation, more assistance to local government and local organization in making their plans and decisions, not less. Non-governmental organizations will always have access to the minister and to the government. They will not have to be some big local government lobby group to have access to this programme.

Assist their operation? No, because, again, it's an open-ended proposition. To assist the operation of facilities becomes a blank-cheque situation. There are many opportunities as a result of these facilities being built for the professional recreation director. There are a couple of thousand of them employed in B.C.

He mentioned the need for volunteers, but the need not to rely too heavily upon them. The problem the volunteers face is in being stuck with administrative jobs. You're not going to get people to maintain volunteer interest if they're shoved behind a desk to answer a phone. You may get some of those people in your political organization. But those people interested in sport aren't interested in doing that. They want to be out working with the kids while somebody else does the administration. So our emphasis has been on the hiring assistance grants -and this is getting off the bill - for recreation directors.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I believe I've answered the concerns and questions that were raised. I move that the bill be read a second time now.

Motion approved.

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

Leave granted.

[ Page 5350 ]

Motion approved.

Bill 90, Public Recreational Facilities Act, read a second time and referred to committee of the Whole House forthwith.

PUBLIC RECREATIONAL FACILITIES ACT

The House in committee on Bill 90; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Leave granted.

Bill 90, Public Recreational Act, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Committee on Bill 71, Mr. Speaker.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

The House in committee on Bill 71; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, last evening I indicated to the member from New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) that we would be prepared to consider the arguments he raised and make changes to section 2. Therefore I move - and the opposition parties have been given copies of this proposed amendment - to delete subsections (4) and (5) ; to substitute for subsection (4) the words: "no agent shall have his appointment terminated without just cause"; and to substitute for subsection (5) the words: "the corporation may, after consultation with an agent, fix annually the commission and other remuneration to be paid an agent."

On the amendment.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Chairman, talk about service. I am very pleased with the amendments, to say the least. Our great problem with this section certainly diminishes. The minister and I have a little disagreement with respect to who should carry the can. I rather prefer that the appeal be to the cabinet under these circumstances. The minister, on the other hand, feels that the appeal could be to the courts, so I am not going to argue that point.

It would strike me that he has also added something that I like very much, and that is "terminated without just cause." I think, really, that makes it very, very difficult for a monopoly situation - which we have, and I have no opposition to that -to take on an agent that in a manner would not be in keeping with good business practice. I have always worried about somebody having antagonized the corporation by having made some kind of a move or another.

Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that what we have before us is something that I can accept and I'm prepared to vote for this amendment.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Mr. Chairman, I too would like to compliment the minister on his attitude in the matter of this amendment. It just shows that this government is most prepared to listen to the constructive criticism that has come from other parties as well as our party. We are not always right; we admit it, and changes are made. I think that it is time that we should recognize the very judicious effort on the part of the minister and say to him: "Well done!"

Amendment approved.

Section 2 as amended approved.

Sections 3 to 10 inclusive approved.

.Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

, The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 71, Automobile Insurance Amendment Act, 1977, reported complete with amendment,

[ Page 5351 ]

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

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

Leave granted.

Bill 71, Automobile Insurance Amendment Act, 1977, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 82.

COLLEGES AND PROVINCIAL

INSTITUTES ACT

The House in committee on Bill 82; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, a number of minor wording changes have been suggested as a result of representations we have had from various groups. They are all on the order paper, except for one in section 33, which I will send in advance to the member, in case we get that far today.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes. It's just giving a little general background for the members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Were you going to move the amendment?

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

On the amendment.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, just give us the time to get the opening....

Mr. Chairman, on the amendment. The amendment pertains to the professional employee, and here the minister has deleted the words "directly or indirectly, " which means that the professional employee therefore is a person who provides educational services to students. That includes an employee who is a librarian or an administrator. It would strike me that this is an appreciation of the member for Revelstoke's comments, and others, with respect to the clarity of the definition. We understand it now. Frankly, I rather approve of that particular amendment, which is not to suggest that I approve of many other significant factors surrounding this bill.

Amendment approved.

On Section 1 as amended.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, dealing with the section as amended - Section 1 of the bill. What we find here is a number of new bodies created, such as an academic council. We find a management advisory council and we find the other aspects, including the Universities Council, which, incidentally, has already been defined in other bills, but certainly is here....

Mr. Chairman, one of the grave problems that we see around this bill in this particular area is the fact that these councils are adding a layer of bureaucracy that we feel is going to hamper rather than help the educative process at the post-secondary level, particularly at the college and the institute level. So, Mr. Chairman, we'll get into more detail on that when we get to the particular sections where we deal specifically with these. But, in general, because of all these definitions, I just wanted to make that point.

MR. WALLACE: I just want to make the same point - so we won't become repetitive in this debate.

As I said in second reading, this bill is a little difficult to understand - no matter how frequently one reads it - because of these new creations under section 1, the councils, which the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) has just mentioned and which I won't repeat. I would say that this is the concern of many of the groups who have spoken out with some apprehension about the way the provisions of this bill will be implemented. And might I just say that since I spoke in second reading and made some of these points, the deputy minister was kind enough to offer to have a meeting with me to point out some of the different interpretations that might be placed on some of my comments. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to hold that meeting. But it did remind me of the fact that when we dealt with another bill in this House, the minister concerned arranged for the official to have meetings with the opposition parties to go over the bill. I'm talking about the rentalsman in this case. I think that while it's too late on this occasion, perhaps it would have been a fruitful endeavour.

I wonder if the minister would care to comment that perhaps in future he would arrange for his officials, who know a lot more about the legislation than we do on this side of the House, to have prior consultation and discussion with opposition leaders so that we can perhaps contribute a more informed and a more positive effort in the actual debate. I understand that some of the points that I raised in debate may not be accurate or valid, and we would save an awful lot of time in this House if, in fact, ministers would make their staff available prior to debate. On an option - maybe some leaders wouldn't want that advantage, but I certainly would. I just say in passing that there are so many definitions, so many new entities under Section 1 of this bill, we would be in a better position to debate it

[ Page 5352 ]

intelligently if we had some prior discussion with the minister's staff.

HON. MR. McGEER: In response to that, Mr. Chairman - of course. Probably it's my fault for not having encouraged more of that sort of thing sooner. But I would like to say, just in a general way, that I hope all members of the Legislature would feel completely free at any time to seek the advice of any member of the Ministry of Education on any subject. But we'll make a particular point of arranging, when it comes to legislation, precisely the sort of thing that the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) requests.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I just want to briefly second what the hon. member for Oak Bay said, and welcome the words of the minister. I think it will contribute immensely to the debate, as we saw in the Residential Tenancy Act, and I hope we will see it in this ministry in the future.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the minister. In section 1, under the definition of "benefits". . . . I think the minister is probably well aware of the question I'm going to ask because I know that the faculties of the colleges and BCIT are certainly very concerned about this. Is it the intention of the ministry to exclude working conditions from those items that are negotiable?

HON. MR. McGEER: I'm not sure that that is a question that can be exactly answered because , I suppose, a certain amount depends on the choices that people make in subsequent sections. But it would be the ministry's view, Mr. Chairman, that there be some kind of standardized approach to these matters all around British Columbia. If that weren't to be the case, then of course it would result in shifting of programmes away from one institution in favour of another one, which might work to the regional disadvantage of that particular area of British Columbia, But with that kind of generality, I think it's a little hard to pin down specifics, simply because of the range of choices that are given in later sections.

MR. COCKE: I made a point in second reading of the bill around the whole question of occupation and occupational training. In this section we deal with the occupational training council, and all through the bill we find the words "occupational education." I know the minister, because of his background of having gone to private schools and so on, hasn't had the exposure to the public school system that some of us have had. That is, to some extent, an unfortunate aspect and a lack in his education.

But in the public school system, as I told the minister in second reading, there is a stigma around that word "occupational." That's because some children are consigned, for one reason or another, to the programmes that are designated as "occupational" programmes, and the word has quite a stigma. It strikes me that with a variety of choices that one has, the word "vocational" could have been used throughout this Act and done equally well, taking care of the situation and not have that stigma around it. I'm not joking; I really think it is a situation that the minister should look at very carefully. What's wrong with the word "vocational"?

HON. MR. McGEER: I'm smiling, Mr. Chairman, for two reasons. First of all, I would have thought the word that had a stigma attached to it these days was "academic" rather than "vocational." In "occupational" we mean vocational and career training.

The other reason why I was smiling at the member, Mr. Chairman, was that I would think the father of the deputy minister, who was principal of the public school that I attended, Maple Grove, would be deeply wounded to think that I had had such little exposure to the public school system. After that, there was McGee High School, where the then principal became the superintendent for the city of Vancouver. That's very long-ago history, Mr. Chairman. I quite accept the criticism; I'm not a Harvard man.

But, Mr. Chairman, we think the word has more prestige than the member for New Westminster is prepared to grant at the present time. I can assure him that as a result of this particular Act, its prestige is going to be enhanced considerably more than it is today.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, now I'm even more deeply wounded.

MR. WALLACE: Well, lay down and bleed a while.

MR. COCKE: I thought that possibly because he hasn't been exposed to that scene, there was an excuse for him. Now he has no excuse whatsoever. He knows the problems around this kind of situation and he should have foreseen what would happen.

Just how much trouble would it be, Mr. Chairman, to you and the minister, to make those minor changes throughout the bill just to put this thing in a better light in people's minds? I really think it could be done. Mr. Chairman, whether the minister agrees or disagrees, I can tell you that I can take him all over this province, and the word occupational has that stigma around it, not through any fault of the word but because of a background that has developed in this province around our secondary education programme on that word.

[ Page 5353 ]

1 think the minister is just reflecting upon my suggestion and I'm sure that given another second or two, he's going to stand up and he's going to change this particular term, used unwisely in this piece of legislation, from "occupational" to "vocational." Just look at him; he's ready to go right now.

HON. MR. McGEER: With every respect, Mr. Chairman, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I think that the connotation that may go with the word is more an individual interpretation rather than a general interpretation. I know that the Ministry of Education - I'm talking now about the professionals and not the minister - would not share that view. I don't think officials of the Ministry of Labour would either.

I don't deny that many others may share the member's view, but I don't personally feel it would be justified to change the legislation around just on that premise, because we've had professionals from every aspect of education considering with great care the wording that's gone into all of these sections. While people may overlook the meaning of words -and you'll see a whole long list of amendments as a result of people reading it in a slightly different way than the people who drafted it - nevertheless, the connotation of a word such as "occupational" was not an oversight. It was something that was done I think in good spirit by professional people. After all, they're the ones who will be administering the Act and making it work. Vocational, career, technical -they all lead to occupations.

I think "occupation" is an honourable word. We have an occupation here as politicians.

MR. COCKE: One more word, Mr. Chairman. I'd just like the minister to take the time to ask every child who's been educated in the province what he or she thinks of it. Do you know what he does? He goes to the professionals and asks them what they think. Sure, they used the good old Webster's dictionary, and they don't really think in terms of what might be the outcome of their use of a particular term.

When there is an option, why not use the option? The minister has decided not to use the option. I'm sorry.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

HON. MR. McGEER: Section 3, Mr. Chairman: there are two amendments standing in my name on the order paper, and I wonder whether we should move them both at once or....

MR. CHAIRMAN: One at a time, hon. member.

HON. MR. McGEER: The first amendment is to 3 (l) (a) , line 1, by adding "and boards" after "councils."

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. McGEER: The second one is a typographical error in the bill. Many members may have seen that. So we need to substitute "and" for "as." (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

On section 3 as amended.

MR. WALLACE: Another element in this bill which caused me to oppose it in second reading was the greater centralized authority of the minister. I notice that in subsection (2) (b) , it says: "The minister may designate other functions that a provincial institute shall perform." Sometimes in debates, Mr. Chairman, we like to change "may" to "shall", but sometimes it might be a good idea to change "shall" to "may." It seems that despite the creation of these various councils who are supposed to provide a more co-ordinated programme of planning and supervision of what goes on in these different institutes or colleges, here we have a very clear-cut statement that the minister may designate other functions that a provincial institute shall perform. Doesn't that seem to be a fairly extraordinary degree of dictation from the minister, let us say, to the B.C. Institute of Technology, that they shall take on this function or that function? Perhaps the minister could tell us how he views this sentence, and what particular functions might be involved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of clarification, hon. minister, in the amendment, have you amended the first "as" or the second "as"?

HON. MR. McGEER: It's the second "as": "that provides such services as he considers necessary to an institution and he may require the institution to use the services as provided."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall this amendment pass?

HON. MR. McGEER: We're on to a question from the member for Oak Bay....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, hon. minister, we had it in a wrong spot.

HON. MR. McGEER: Sure. I understand that. Now having passed the amendment, we're on to page

[ Page 5354 ]

3. We're at (2) (b) on page 3 where it says: "The minister may designate other functions that a provincial institute shall perform." These are largely in the service area, Mr. Chairman, where we may need to develop centralized library and computer services, so that we can deliver from a central base complete services to all the areas. It involves in some cases some administrative changeover so that the whole system will work effectively. That's why that particular Section 1s in there.

I might add that it might appear as though the ministry is centralizing power, but really quite the opposite is taking place. All of the things that exist here - and many, many more - until this point in time had been under the total control of the ministry: all of the capital funding, all of the central services, all of the curriculum, all of the requested additional courses. It has been totally controlled by a ministry, Mr. Chairman, that is sadly understaffed for a function of this kind.

So what tends to be the consequence of a situation like this is that some decisions don't get made at all and other decisions get made in a fashion which is too arbitrary, where the power is divested entirely within a ministry because no other mechanisms exist for establishing an alternative way to reviewing requests from the individual institutions. I can well understand the member's concerns, but you really have to recognize how it's been in the past and what a step towards diversity this is.

Would you instruct your eyes across the floor, Mr. Chairman?

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a point here and ask a question of the minister. Section 3 (l) (a) puts forward the very important duty that the minister shall establish, in consultation with the councils, policy respecting post-secondary education and training in the province.

HON. MR. McGEER: And boards.

MR. GIBSON: And boards, right. One of the difficulties we always have in legislation of this kind, Mr. Chairman, is that it's a skeleton. It's enabling legislation; it's not a policy document. It's based, of course, on two or three important studies, but those studies are themselves not the policy of the government. The minister, I noted in the Blues in second reading, set out a couple of pages of policies, but this gives him an instruction and a mandate to establish a general, overall policy affecting post-secondary education and training in the province. I'd just be glad if he could advise the committee how and when he would see the elements of that policy gradually forthcoming as he does consult with the newly established councils and boards.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Chairman, of course this could be done in many ways, and I would hate to predict what future ministers might do in this respect. Speaking for myself and the immediate future, it would be our intention, as rapidly as we were able, to establish the necessary councils and to start launching the individual institutions and colleges as independent corporations, and, as that framework became established, to lay down broad guidelines which would become a matter of public knowledge. This would be in the form, I suppose, of a paper or document which hopefully would be available as soon as it's prepared. We've made substantial progress in implementing the bill - certainly, no later than the next time we meet here in Victoria.

MRS. DAILLY: In the section that was just being d i s c u s s e d b y the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) - the matter of the designation of "technical, " "vocational, " et cetera - I think it's fairly clear what that means. I want to ask the minister, as he has being doing a considerable amount of talking about this great new move into this area of post-secondary vocational and technical training, and obviously has given himself the power here to do this - we'll get into that perhaps later - what articulation is there going to be between the post-secondary institutions and the public schools?

I know we're not discussing public schools here, Mr. Chairman, but I think it's the only place I can ask the minister this question. I think the school trustees are somewhat concerned that despite all the talk of the minister about developing more vocational training, they see no articulation between what's going to take place in post-secondary and the public school. If you know here that you're going to take full charge of this, surely, at the same time, as minister responsible for public schools, you must see a tie-in. Now how are you going to do the tie-in with the secondary schools?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, this question was the subject of, I think, the first address I ever gave to the B.C. School Trustees Association. We've established a committee under Mr. Jim Carter to start making progress in this general area and to begin developing data. I quite agree with the member that it's got to be spelled out better. I had a meeting with the school trustees and they have a committee going, and there is a very capable chairman of that committee.

Just to summarize, it's a matter that will have to be spelled out in the same fashion as the general, overall strategy for colleges and institutes. The reason why something like this is required, Mr. Chairman, is because no single institution is in a position to chart its own course without knowledge of what the others

[ Page 5355 ]

are doing and what the overall sum of individual institutions' programmes might be.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, on this section which was amended, (b) - and it is quite incomprehensible until it was amended - I just want to ask the minister.... If I can just reread it again here, it gives you the power to provide such services as you consider necessary to an institution, and you may require the institution to use the services as provided. That's the way it reads now, right? My question is: can you give us an example of why you found it necessary to put that in?

HON. MR. McGEER: One of the three areas of concern would be libraries, where we intend to develop a union catalogue and central library services with computer facilities throughout the province. The holdings that have been built up at public expense in any one institution would be available through this mechanism to all institutions.

Next, we must develop adequate and consistent data processing services within the educational system, so there will be computer services and computer methodology that will be required for central acquisition and processing of data. Finally, we have the matter of curriculum development. These are the three areas.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, in this consultation in section 30) (a) , does the minister exclude consultation with college boards in the establishment of policy respecting post-secondary education and training?

HON. MR. McGEER: We just made that in the amendment.

Section 3 as amended approved.

On section 4.

MRS. DAILLY: On 4 (d): "The minister may require an institution to issue a diploma or certificate to a student who has successfully completed an accredited course of instruction given by that institution." I have an open mind on this because it sounds good. But I am concerned, and I'm sure the minister, who himself works in the university, and his deputy would be a little concerned about their own academic responsibilities here. This is really in essence, I think, stripping the faculties of perhaps their traditional rights in this area.

Now as I said, I don't have a closed mind on it. But it is rather interesting that this would come forward from you and your deputy. I don't think you would be too happy to have this apply to you in a university. I wonder if you could explain why you put it in. Do you not have any concern about an infringement on traditional rights here?

HON. MR. McGEER: I think the rights that we are trying to protect with this section, Mr. Chairman, are the rights of the student. If they go into a course and it is understood that they complete a required programme, then they really need to have something that certifies that this has been done. It places an obligation on the institution not to lead a student down the garden path. If they are going to offer a programme of studies, then they better be prepared to back it up with a certificate when the course of studies is completed. I think - and I'm sure the member wouldn't disagree with this - the student has to be protected first and the institution last.

MRS. DAILLY: May I just say I'm pleased to hear the minister say that and I hope the same concern can be reflected in what goes on in our universities today also.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to draw the minister's attention to section 4 (g) . I want to ask the minister if this implies an intention eventually to have a system of accredited and non-accredited institutions in the province.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, this refers to courses rather than institutions.

MR. COCKE: Okay, it applies to courses. However, courses are given in institutions, Mr. Chairman. I'm just asking about the implication. I can read the words: ". . . establish a method by which courses of post-secondary education or training may be accredited." But I'm asking the question: does it imply that there will be non-accredited institutions -or institutions that offer non-accredited courses?

HON. MR. McGEER: We want to be certain that isn't the case, Mr. Chairman.

MRS. DAILLY: In section 4 (i) and 46) you require a council and the Universities Council to share staff and other resources and you require an institution to develop or provide a service to another institution council. What would be the budget implications here? If you're going to require this, what responsibility is the ministry going to take in relation to what could be extra budget implications? You're going to have the right to have this done. Are you going to provide those financial resources along with it?

HON. MR. McGEER: I think the objective of this, Mr. Chairman, is to see that public money isn't wasted by a dog-in-the-manger attitude. For example,

[ Page 5356 ]

if we're going to have the Universities Council and an academic council working together, it would make common sense that they should share an executive director and common staff and facilities. Similarly, if one institution can easily provide support services for another, but because of snootiness or some other reason fails to do that, then it would be wasting public funds. We've got that management advisory council to look at this.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

On section 6.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, since we've now come to the heart of the bill, I would move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.

APPENDIX

82 The Hon. P. L. McGeer to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 82) intituled Colleges and Provincial Institutes Act, to amend as follows:

Section 1, line 2, of the definition of "professional employee": By deleting "directly or indirectly".

Section 3 (1) (a) , line 1: By adding "and boards" after "councils".

Section 3 (1) (b) , line I: By substituting "and" for "as".

SS Mr. Gibson to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 88) intituled Land Commission Amendment Act, 1977, to amend as follows:

Section 7 (proposed section 9 (7) ) , lines 4 and 5: Delete the words after the word "the" and substitute the words "Standing Committee on Agriculture".

Proposed section 9 (8) (b) , lines 4 and 5: Delete the words alter the word "the" and substitute the words "Standing Committee on Agriculture".

Proposed section 9 (9) , lines 1, 5 and 6, and 8: Delete the words "Environment and Land Use Committee" and substitute the words "Standing Committee on Agriculture".

Proposed section 9 (11) (c): Delete the words "Environment and Land Use Committee" and substitute "Standing Committee on Agriculture".