[ Page 2495 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Forest Act (Bill 14) amendments. Hon. Mr. Waterland.

Introduction and first reading –– 2495

Land Titles Act (Bill 30) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2495

Mr. Macdonald –– 2497

Second reading –– 2497

Conveyancing and Law of Property Act (Bill 31) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2497

Second reading –– 2497

Execution Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 32) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Gardom. –– 2497

Second reading –– 2498

Attorney-General Statutes Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 37) . Hon. Mr. Gardom.

Introduction and first reading –– 2498

Good Samaritan Act (Bill 2) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2498

Mr. Macdonald –– 2498

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2499

Second reading, report and third reading –– 2499

Dykes Maintenance Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 16) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 2499

Mr. Skelly –– 2499

Second reading, report and third reading –– 2499

Development Corporation of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 21) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 2500

Mr. Lauk –– 2500

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 2500

Second reading –– 2500

Report and third reading –– 2501

Commodity Contracts Trading Act (Bill 36) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 2501

Mr. Levi –– 2501

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 2501

Second reading, report and third reading –– 2501

Consumer and Corporate Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 33) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 2501

Mr. Levi –– 2502

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 2502

Second reading, report and third reading –– 2502

Petroleum and Natural Gas (1965) Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 29) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 2502

Second reading –– 2503

Petroleum and Natural Gas (1965) Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 29) Committee stage.

On Section 1.

Mr. Macdonald –– 2503

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 2505

Report stage –– 2506

On third reading.

Mr. Macdonald –– 2506

Public Libraries Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 20) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 2507

Mr. Nicolson –– 2507

Mrs. Dailly –– 2507

Mr. Gibson –– 2508

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 2508

Second reading –– 2509

Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 11) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 2509

Mr. Stupich –– 2510

Second reading –– 2510

Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 11) . Committee stage.

On section 1.

Mr. Stupich –– 2510

Report and third reading –– 2510

An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter (Bill 403) Second reading.

Mr. Strongman –– 2510

Second reading –– 2511

An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter (Bill 403) . Committee stage.

On the preamble.

Mr. Lauk –– 2511

Report stage –– 2511

On third reading.

Mr. Lauk –– 2511

Land Titles Act (Bill 30) Committee stage.

Report and third reading –– 2512

Conveyancing and Law of Property Act (Bill 32) . Committee stage.

Report and third reading –– 2512

Execution Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 32) Committee stage.

Report and third reading –– 2512

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

FOREST ACT

Hon. Mr. Waterland presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: amendments to Bill 14, Forest Act.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I ask leave to move that the said message and the accompanying amendments to the same be referred to the committee of the House having in charge Bill 14.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Orders of the day.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 30.

LAND TITLES ACT

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, my remarks to this statute will be short in nature. I will be addressing, at this point in time, remarks to the three bills because they are totally complementary one unto the other.

I would say, by way of preliminary observation, Mr. Speaker, in the events leading to these three bills, that we are very fortunate tonight and I am extremely pleased to have with us on the floor of the House Mr. Vic Di Castri, QC, who is known as Mr. Torrens of British Columbia. He's a learned author and an extremely dedicated public servant of this province. He retired last year after 50 years of service, but he's back in harness for the completion and presentation of these three pieces of legislation that he himself and so many others have worked so hard and so long and so efficiently upon.

Our B.C. land registry system was started more than 100 years ago with the first registration statute being the Vancouver Island Registry Act. That statute didn't provide for compulsory registration of title, nor the certainty, the clarity and the precision of immediate indefeasibility of title, nor was there an assurance fund to protect owners and others from loss arising from the operation of the land registry system.

These features that I have just mentioned, which we now look upon as very necessary components of our land registration, were introduced between 1860 and 1921, which was the year of the passing of our present Land Registry Act. I think it's a great credit to the drafters of the 1921 statute that it has served so well for over the last half century with only moderate changes being made from time to time to accommodate the developing and contemporizing social and commercial trends in British Columbia.

But Mr. Speaker, in recent years much of the required flexibility in the system has been achieved by informal grafting on to it of salutary practices by the registrars of titles to meet changing needs, and I'd say that with the more than half million transactions passing through the registry offices in a year, which represent the land transactions valued at several billions of dollars, it has become quite necessary, in order to secure a continued, prompt and reliable service to the public, to codify and recodify and review our procedures.

And for the interest of hon. members and so you may know the amount of work that has gone into these extremely technical measures, I'l like to mention that in the latter part of 1973 the revision of the Land Registry Act was discussed with the ministry; it was subsequently prioritized under my colleague, the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) . In 1974, it was placed into the legislative programme and an in-depth study resulted in a preliminary draft bill about a year later by Mr. Di Castri. This was all with the assistance, Mr. Speaker, of the registrars of title in the province, and I would like to name them: Mr. Carlo, Mr. Groves, Mr. Hooper, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Raven, Mr. Schooley and Mr. Sturch.

Subsequently, Mr. Speaker, subcommittees were formed to assist with the revision, the first being comprised of Mr. Di Castri, Mr. Carlow, Kennedy and Sturch; secondly, involving Messrs. Di Castri and Kennedy. Finally there were extensive consultations with officials of the Ministries of the Environment, Highways and Public Works, and Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Then, Mr. Speaker, in June of last year, all of these proposals were outlined and they were taken throughout the province to the various bar associations, some 22 separate ones. In addition, there were several meetings with notary groups and representatives of the Corporation of B.C. Land Surveyors and a

[ Page 2496 ]

number of officials of the various ministries. So you are able to see that there has been an abundance - indeed, a great abundance - of research and consultation to this point.

Now this culminated, Mr. Speaker, in me presenting to the Legislature in September, 1977, these three bills under different numbers at that point in time. As I explained then and would reiterate now, they were tabled in the House by virtue of the very highly specialized and technical nature of the documentation in order that those people who are interested and technically involved in them could have an opportunity for one final review.

That course of action was adopted; it was followed. There have been hundreds of comments since then by professional bodies and practitioners and lay-people. And all of these have been considered and, where useful, have practicably been dealt with and they've been edited by legislative counsel, and by Mr. Kennedy, the now director of land titles. The three bills that I'm presenting this evening, although in substance the same bills as were reviewed last year, reflect the effort and the input received since that time.

I'm going to mention this for the interest of hon. members and with the hope that these instruments will meet with the approval of the Legislature at this time: it will be my recommendation that they will not be proclaimed for a number of months. During that time, a programme of education and the changes that are being proposed will be undertaken and a new land titles practice manual will be published to familiarize those people who'll be working with the new statutes.

So the only thing I'm going to refer to tonight, Mr. Speaker, is just a few of the highlights in the three bills and I'm going to compress my remarks.

I think one important thing is the fact that we'll be able to create satellite offices. This will be the anticipation of the computerization of the land titles system. Provision will be made for these satellite offices under the control of the registrars. What we are envisaging is that there could be a terminal, say, in Surrey having access to the computer records in the New Westminster titles office, which would permit searches and registration. Ultimately, we could end up with a procedure much like that that's been followed by the banks with their automatic savings account passbook systems. These offices would be computer terminaled to the parent office, with microfilm capacities for relevant documents deposited.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, for public convenience and customer convenience and to increase the do-it-yourself potential, there will be compulsory forms of transfer. This will be another step towards making dealings with land easier and complement the proposed computerization. What is suggested is a compulsory single-form page of transfer to cut down on the paper volume and eliminate redundancy.

We're also going to propose the end of tax certificates in respect of lands in municipalities. These have already been disposed of in unorganized territories. They've created a lot of difficulty and annoyance to the general public because of delays in obtaining certificates. I think they've created problems of expense and difficulties to the municipalities because of the continuing costs of processing. So from now on, it will be incumbent upon a purchaser to make his own inquiries to find out as to the state of a tax account. The purchasers, in order that they can be effectively jogged, will see on their application forms a reminder to them to specifically check tax situations.

Vis-à-vis the processing of small estates, no longer will it be necessary to obtain grants of letters probate where the estate doesn't exceed $50,000 in' the cost of resealing, say, where the bulk of the estate is in another province and a mortgage or agreement for sale is the only small balance which happens to be owing and it's registered in B.C.

No longer will duplicate certificates of title be issued automatically. About threequarters of those are now held in the land registry offices. It's a cumbersome and expensive repository system. So in the future, these will no longer be issued automatically, but only on request.

Another important item of the very few that I am going to mention is the judgment registration improvement. At the present time there is an alphabetical register of judgments maintained separately from the certificates of title. There have been a variety of problems concerning identity and similarity of name arising by virtue of the John Q. Smith and Mary P. Brown type of thing. This has resulted in a great deal of expense and inconvenience to the public. The proposal will do away with the judgment register and permit registration in the land titles office only where a judgement debtor happens to be the registered owner.

A mortgagor will be given the right to mortgage statements and also apply to the court for discharge where his mortgagee or mortgage company refuses to furnish one.

[ Page 2497 ]

Owners of homes that are built near lot lines will be permitted to apply to the court for permission to enter the next-door property to make repairs. This is a rather important point. The land titles survey fund will provide compensation for owners for certain survey errors. For example, a survey may be required but to do so the surveyor, for technical reasons, must resurvey a huge part of the surrounding country. At the present time all of those costs are usually borne by the owner, despite the fact that adjacent property owners will benefit from the new survey. This is, indeed, all well out of proportion to the benefit the individual receives, so there would be an application to this fund.

The other two statutes, as I have stated, are complementary in nature. One deals with judgments; the other one deals with conveyancing and the law of property. Some of those measures I have referred to. I do feel that there certainly has been an abundance of caution taken in the preparation of these three bills, which are highly technical.

Accordingly, I move second reading of Bill 30.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I join in the good words that have been said about Vic Di Castri. I hope Mr. Rogers has checked over his work. He nods his head. I don't think that made any difference. I think the draft as prepared by Victor and the others was word perfect.

I want to assure the House that there are only 336 sections in the land titles bill. I've checked them all over, so you don't need to read them. You know perfectly well that when I have checked over a bill, you don't have any problem with it. It's good socialist legislation. It's kind of refreshing. Here we are giving away the forests, the mines, the province, and here we have something that has have something that has the public interest clearly spelled out and simplifies procedures. It's a good bill and we owe a lot to the people who prepared it. We should be proud of our land registry system in British Columbia. Even as a colony our land registry system was one of the things where we were far ahead of other places, like Ontario and many parts of the world. It has been continuously improved and it's very good.

I said I had checked over the 336 sections and I'm worried for the lawyers. There is not too much ambiguity in there that would enable a lawyer to take a case to court. There is a little softness in the language around section 250 and on both sides of section 250, so the lawyers won't be completely out of work.

As the Attorney-General mentioned all three I guess we all can. With the Execution Act, what are you trying to do - bring back capital punishment?

HON. MR. GARDOM: No.

MR. MACDONALD: You know, if you had a chance you would, and we know perfectly well that we ought to be suspicious of you. We've got every reason in the world to be suspicious of that gang, so we may have to watch that Execution Act and read that very carefully. Otherwise they are good.

HON. MR. GARDOM: That's what happened to Burrard.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, already you've decapitated.... Car-dealer government!

MR. SPEAKER: The Attorney-General closes the debate.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I again move that the bill be read a second time.

Motion approved.

Bill 30, Land Titles Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 31.

CONVEYANCING AND LAW OF PROPERTY ACT

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I would like my remarks to be applied mutatis mutandis.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 31, Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 32.

EXECUTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I'll just say that this is the third bill in the land titles trilogy, and it will provide machinery for the new judgment registration procedures that I have mentioned. Administrative procedures are being planned which will provide notice to

[ Page 2498 ]

holders of such judgments and also to the clerks of the courts, furnishing them with full information as to the proposed changed in the law. I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 32, Execution Amendment Act, 1978, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Introduction of bills.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

Hon. Mr. Gardom presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Attorney-General Statutes Amendment Act, 1978.

Bill 37 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 2.

GOOD SAMARITAN ACT

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, this bill is designed to encourage the rendering of aid to injured or endangered people by removing the existing civil liability that they face, and placing the same kind of a test upon such an individual as has now been placed upon a medical practitioner, namely the test of gross negligence.

This is a matter that has been considered by a number of associations in our province, and most recently by the Registered Nurses' Association. At their 1977 annual meeting they urged that we enact this type of legislation. I think their concern, Mr. Speaker, arose particularly out of an incident last year in the interior, when 12 people watched a 19 year-old youngster die after he was thrown from his car. A constable who arrived at the scene about 45 minutes after the accident said: "The dead man might have survived if the bystanders had given aid. Several bystanders wanted to help, but were warned by at least two others not to become involved."

Good Samaritan legislation, Mr. Speaker, is not new to this country or to this continent -or to the world, for that matter. It is in place in other provinces in Canada and in a number of states in the United States.

However, in B.C. it is only physicians, under the Medical Act, who operate under any type of Good Samaritan legislation, and they must be found guilty of gross negligence before the court will assess any damages against them for making the condition of an endangered person worse in an emergency situation.

Apparently one of the arguments for this was the fear of potential malpractice cases, but very, very few of these ever related to Good Samaritan circumstances, and only about 10 out of 40,000 of these suits ever had any kind of difficulty arising from a Good Samaritan situation. So it would seem, Mr. Speaker, that the danger is imaginary, but the fear was, perhaps, quite real.

The bill clearly states that the giving of medical aid to an ill, injured or unconscious person at the immediate scene of an accident will not be liable for any damages he might have caused that injured or sick person unless, within the process, he happened to be guilty of gross negligence.

The first Good Samaritan legislation appeared in the Netherlands about 100 years ago, and in some European countries it's even a crime not to come to the help of endangered people. It didn't arrive in our own country until 1969, as I have mentioned, but now variations in the law cover nurses, dentists and lay people, as well as physicians in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, I accordingly move second reading.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I an sure the intentions are very good, and the bill should be supported.

I don't like that term "gross negligence." We finally got rid of it in the insurance legislation, and it's not a very sound legal concept. It's supposedly a higher degree of negligence. Somebody goes to the aid of a victim and he might not be the brightest person in the world, but he has good faith. He's really trying to help. He could still be guilty of gross negligence. I wish there was a way we could express our statutes a little more simply, so we would say that somebody who acts in good faith and isn't deliberately reckless or deliberately callous or something of that kind, but is trying to help another person would be exempted from liability. It would do more to encourage people to help others.

We're saying that if you're ordinarily negligent, you can't be sued for damages. Well, that's good. But if you're negligent in a higher degree you can be. But you still might have complete good faith and you might

[ Page 2499 ]

have gone in a volunteer capacity to help somebody, and still, because of negligence, even of a high degree, you're liable for damages. So I'm not too happy. It's a step in the right direction, but I wish there were some simpler way we could express a statute of this kind.

MR. SPEAKER: The Attorney-General closes the debate.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I have just one or two words in response to the remarks from the hon. member. I do thank him for them. They're the type of observations that I think are very helpful. Certain ones can be taken into consideration maybe in the future. But what we're doing is paralleling existing legislation which has proven to work very, very effectively in the areas which it is in. We're also paralleling the existing legislation which is being repealed by virtue of this statute under the Medical Act. Gross negligence is a very high degree of negligence. It's wanton and almost callous or culpable disregard for the consequences that may follow from one's act, so I do feel that we do have an effective test.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to refer Bill 2 to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered now.

Leave granted.

Bill 2, Good Samaritan Act, read second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

The House in committee on Bill 2; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 2, Good Samaritan Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 16, Mr. Speaker.

DYKES MAINTENANCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, the Dykes Maintenance Amendment Act is a housekeeping bill which nullifies the definition of dykes and some other legal language in the Act and also permits the inspector of dykes to have jurisdiction over dykes which are to a large degree funded with public moneys.

The Act also permits the repeal of a section which required all dyking authorities to have a financial reserve. This has become redundant with the inclusion of dykes and dykes works within jurisdictions of junior levels of government or some other type of district, such as water improvement districts.

The principle of the bill is simply to update and modernize some of the language and also to provide added protection for those persons whose property may be protected by dykes which use public money.

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

MR. SKELLY: The opposition has no objection to this bill.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 16 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 16, Dykes Maintenance Amendment Act, 1978, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

The House in Committee on Bill 16; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Sections 1 to 5 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.

Bill 16, Dykes Maintenance Amendment Act, 1978, reported complete without amendment,

[ Page 2500 ]

read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 21, Mr. Speaker.

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF BRITISH

COLUMBIA AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: This is really just a routine bill enabling the government to purchase more shares in the Development Corporation. This is necessary, of course, because of the increased activity of the Development Corporation in fulfilling the function for which it was created by the NDP. However, because of the loans that the Development Corporation has put out and because of the industrial parks that we are developing, money is not turning aver as fast as it could, so it is necessary for the government to increase the share capital of the corporation. I'm sure the opposition agree wholeheartedly with this. As a matter of fact, the chief critic for the New Democratic Party stated that we should be pumping more money into the Development Corporation, so I'm sure they will be very agreeable to this minor amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there a motion, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes. I move second reading.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the opposition will vote for this bill, but very reluctantly. Since 1976 when this administration took office, we have argued that they were moving away from a policy of supporting the community businessman in this province to a policy of supporting the large corporation. We have seen every evidence of this in the forest bill passed. We have seen evidence of this in the last three years with the Development Corporation itself. As a matter of fact, the board of directors of that corporation voted a resolution to move away from the support of small business and to get involved in large joint venture operations. They are pie-in-the-sky dreams and pie-in-the-sky promises made to the people in this province. They never come to fruition, like the northeast coal project and Volkswagen and so many other pie-in-the-sky promises made by this minister and by this government that just raise the expectations of the people of this province and do nothing to help community businesses throughout the province.

We are voting for the funding because the Development Corporation as a concept is a good one. It should be available to any government, including the next one, which will be New Democratic, in spite of the blatant gerrymandering we have seen this afternoon. That New Democratic government will need a well-funded and well-supported Development Corporation to give assistance to the ordinary, community businessmen within this province.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I could certainly get into a full-fledged debate on how the corporation has helped the small businessman and how other policies we have brought in are helping the small businessman. Sure, the member can talk about pie-in-the-sky developments like Duke Point and Prince George and Kamloops and Tilbury Island, but a couple of announcements were made recently in which the Development Corporation was very instrumental. I'll name just a couple, like Trigull.

MR. LAUK: Trigull was my idea.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, and we had to rescue it, my friend. It was in its dying days and we had to come and rescue it. If it had gone the way you were taking it, my friend, it would have cost the people of this province tens of millions of dollars, but we rescued it. We brought it out of the doldrum ; we shoved it into new management; we helped it; and we nursed it along. Now it's going to be a success.

Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 21 be now read a second time.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: With leave, Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 21, Development Corporation of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1978, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

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

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

[ Page 2501 ]

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 21, Development Corporation of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1978, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 36, Mr. Speaker.

COMMODITY CONTRACTS

TRADING ACT

HON. MR. MAIR: This bill, very briefly, would cause to be registered those people who deal in commodity future contracts. it's a bill that I believe has received the widest possible circulation. I understand from my friend the critic on the other side of the House that he has read the bill with great detail and has investigated it to his satisfaction, and I therefore move second reading.

MR. LEVI: I hope that amongst all of the momentous things that have taken place today, the public will notice this bill, because, frankly, anything to do with the commodities market literally scares the living daylights out of me. I hope people will understand that this particular kind of activity which is being controlled here has very seriously negative sides to it.

I am in no way suggesting that the major brokerage houses that handle this kind of operation are doing anything but the right thing. But we do have a lot of opportunists that come in, and people have already been ripped of fin this thing. There is a lot of risk attached to this. Somebody was asking me how risky it is. I suggested to them it's tantamount to a swimmer with a bleeding nose swimming towards Jaws - it's fraught with all sorts or dangers. This bill is in line with what is going on in Ontario. It's somewhat different, perhaps, than what is going on in Winnipeg, but at least there is some attempt to exact some kind of standards. As always in this kind of thing that we do, we are looking at the bad apples rather than the good apples, because the good apples seem to be able to make money in a reasonable fashion.

If it was up to me, 1 don't think I would get involved in the commodities market. It's a very difficult process. It's highly technical; it's something that people should understand. Has anybody aver there been dabbling? Has the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) been dabbling in the commodities market, I wonder?

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, in response to the former member for Vancouver-Burrard the answer is no.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, it's not a valid point of order.

MR. LEVI: There's nothing valid about that member. I mean, he's completely bogus from start to finish. I will withdraw "bogus". I wanted to say "phony" but I couldn't get away with it. We will support the bill and presumably we'll have an opportunity in the future to see how it is working.

HON. MR. MAIR: I am grateful to the member for Vancouver-Burrard for his comments. I can only say this: I often wonder why there is this pressing agitation for a Las Vegas or a casino in B.C. when this action is available to anybody who wants to take part in it.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 36, Commodity Contracts Trading Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

The House in Committee on Bill 36; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 to 55 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 36, Commodity Contracts Trading Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 33, Mr. Speaker.

CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

HON. MR. MAIR: Curiously enough, Mr.

[ Page 2502 ]

Speaker, this is also my bill. There is very little I can say about this Act. It amends a number of statutes that are within my ministry. Most of them are housekeeping, and I understand, once again, that the opposition have read the bill and raise no objection. I move second reading.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, this just gives an indication of the massive powers of this minister. He's all over the place: real estate, Companies Act, Securities Act. Perhaps when the minister is summing up he might let us know if the superintendent of brokers is going to be able to make his scheduled move on time, because the only concern I have - not the move; I think the move is a good idea in terms of the value to the community it serves - is about the load this individual is carrying. He's not only superintendent of brokers and mortgage brokers, but he's also in the real estate business and insurance, and it seems to me that perhaps the minister might comment on just what kind of staff complement he has to back him up.

Mr. Irwin is not a young man. He is going to retire soon, and I'd like to see him able to retire and not suddenly be swallowed up by this incredible amount of work that he's been assigned.

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

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that not only is Mr. Irwin a relatively young man, but he's also a very vigorous man and one of the most valued public servants we have.

I am glad of this opportunity to very, very quickly assure the member that the move to Vancouver is proceeding very satisfactorily, notwithstanding some of the remark made by some members of my profession and other professions in Vancouver. I might say it is curious, Mr. Member, that for many years we were damned because we didn't, and now we're being dammed because we are by the same people who damned us when we didn't.

There is no question about it, we are going to thoroughly miss some of the senior public servants in that particular branch who will not be going to Vancouver. However, we have succeeded, with the assistance of my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) , to upgrade a great many of the positions in that particular branch. I cannot, of course, reveal at this time precisely where we are going with the hiring, but I can assure you that we have some very capable people coming on stream.

I have spoken to the professional bodies involved and have advised them that we're going to have some period of time where there are going to be - for want of a better expression - growing pains. We are going to need their co-operation and help. But I am convinced, not only just by my own optimism, but by all of the evidence, that, with Mr. Irwin's help and with the people coming on stream that we have got coming, we're going to be able to do this relatively smoothly. I would not hide from the members of this House that it will probably take us six or eight months before things really are running the way we would like them to. However, the move is long overdue and I think all things are going to go well and it will be a good move.

I move the bill be read a second time.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 33 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 33, Consumer and Corporate Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 1978, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

The House in committee on Bill 33; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Sections 1 to 8 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 33, Consumer and Corporate Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 1978, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

(1965) AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, it gives me

[ Page 2503 ]

unexpected pleasure to move second reading of Bill 29, the Petroleum and Natural Gas (1965) Amendment Act, 1978. The Act does make provisions for reverting of leases from 10 years to five years where access is readily available.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, not really. Those are under terms and conditions. They will be phased in on a gradual and methodical basis. The Act does make provision for metric conversion. The Act does some housekeeping as well. The Act makes provision for appeal to the mediation arbitration board for the purpose of underground storage of natural gas.

Provision is made for reversion to the Grown of rights to oil and gas below the base of the deepest known commercial production, which is commonly called "stratographic revision, " and this will take place at the end of the initial term of a lease or on January 1,1985.

There are provisions for the continuation of a lease beyond its initial terms when drilling is being performed to the satisfaction of the minister. Continuation of lease terms under penalty has been reduced from four years to three years, but the penalties have been increased. That's an incentive for the industry to get on with its activity of drilling, and exploring and identifying additional reserves of natural gas and oil in the province.

Additional provision is made to prevent waste and for the approval of schemes to maximize production of oil and gas. The oil and gas industry in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, has been extremely active. It's been a boom situation in northeastern British Columbia not only with their exploration and drilling but with their acquisition of land for the right to explore and drill for additional reserves of natural gas and oil.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. It deals with title of natural gas and oil; it's a bill that does some housekeeping, and it's a bill that I recommend to the House. I move second reading.

MR. LEA: The minister is not correct. It isn't a good bill, but it is not a bad bill. It is really a bill as he described it when he brought it into the House - a bill that is housekeeping. But I wouldn't call it good or bad - it's just there. We won't be opposing it.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 29 to a Committee of the Whole

House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 29, Petroleum and Natural Gas (1965) Amendment Act, 1978, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

The House? in committee on Bill 29; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, there are several sections to this bill. I just have a quick reference here to the last one.

There are at least 330 sections to it. Would there be any objection to doing it 50 sections at a time?

AN HON. MEMBER: Call section 1.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hopefully, hon. members, if you have an objection we can go back to the sections involved.

On section 1.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, we're passing tonight, in the dying hours of the session with legislation being brought in at the last minute, a little touching up of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act. We're hearing the craziest speech from that minister, who is the minister of giveaways on a scale in this province that is unbelievable. As we're talking tonight....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Stick to the bill. We're dealing with title.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, I'm dealing with the title. It should be called the giveaway bill.

It's just incredible that this minister stands up and boasts about how he's selling off the ground in B.C. at such a fast rate with 30-year leases, and at the same time increasing the prices to the consumers of this province.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's nothing to do with section 1.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, certainly it is. Why, should we pass a section where on July I of this year you're going to allow another bump in this province from the petroleum we're producing - another dollar and another 3.5 cents at the pump?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Talk to the dominion

[ Page 2504 ]

government.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, the dominion government! You know perfectly well that when Premier Bennett went down to Ottawa, one of the first things he did was say that the price per barrel of oil should be $13.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Take your hands out of your pockets.

MR. MACDONALD: No, I want you to take your hands out of the pockets of the people of British Columbia. It's just incredible the profits you're pouring into the oil industry at the expense of the consumer and taking none of it back into the public treasury. Now you o re going to do the same thing again -another dollar on July 1, which after the 60 days is going to mean to the motorist and the people with home heating oil another increase in their bills.

HON. MR. CHABOT: A good speech for another day.

MR. MACDONALD: I challenge you to debate that question with me anywhere in the province of British Columbia. Where? Let's get that settled. I challenge you - where? Name the place and the time and loll be there. loll pay for the hall, and I'm serious about that. I challenge that minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Victoria Racquet Club.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: We've never known such a giveaway to international oil companies, Mr. Chairman, as we have. It has even got you out of your seat.

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I think at this hour of the night I could read the sections of the standing orders dealing with strict relevance. But due to the lateness of the hour and the length of the session, I think it would be tedious and repetitious. I would just ask that the members perhaps consider this in their deliberations and try and be strictly relevant.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, this bill has a lot of technical amendments in it on the length of leases and a few things like that.

Behind the thing, behind the bill, what you've been doing is increasing the consumer prices at a period of inflation to the people of this province on a scale that is absolutely unbelievable. How long have you been in office -two and a half years?

MR. STUPICH: Too long.

MR. MACDONALD: What you've done to the person at the gas pump, to the person with home heating oil, to the person who's on natural gas is simply unbelievable. So you come in with a bill with a few technical amendments of this nature.

You've got the Minister of Finance sitting there. Do you know how much money has gone out in terms of the public treasury to international companies to be reinvested somewhere else? I just cannot believe what is happening to this province in terms of a giveaway of resources. I think the only thing the people can look forward to with some confidence is an election.

Where is the Attorney-General? He is the one who hit his desk. You'll carry Point Grey and you will carry West Vancouver. You put me into the Point Grey riding under that crazy thing that was brought in this afternoon. I won't be able to vote for Burrard candidates.

But I'm serious about this, you know.

Again, on July 1, you're going to play the same con game with the people of B.C. and pretend that the companies are really incurring the same costs as the Arab nations and push up the price of a barrel of oil, going along with the connivance of this government, and take none of it back into the public treasury. By September 1, it's going to cost another 3.5 cents to 4 cents per gallon to the motorist at the pump and about the same amount for home heating oil. None of it is coming back into the public treasury. Then you say that you're bottom-line businessmen. It's an unbelievable government, Mr. Chairman. I've said all I'm going to say. The rest should be said outside.

But what I said to that minister, I mean. You name the time and the place. I don't care when it is, as long as it is in the province of British Columbia. I will pay for the hall out of my own pocket. I'm serious about this. I'll debate that this is the darnedest giveaway government that ever hit this province. The sooner this coalition of opportunists is broken up by a popular vote, the better it will be for this province. We'll get back to some resource management where the public interest has got something to say and will at least be present in these decisions.

[ Page 2505 ]

Whatever the oil companies want, you give them. Whatever the gas companies want, you give them. You pass it on to the people who are the consumers of this province. You've turned us into the worst colony in terms of economic exploitation of our resources, our depleting resources, on a scale that has never happened before. You've never answered these arguments.

In the meantime, you boast about how you sold off so many leases of ground. You got $195 million in last year and you've got the drilling going. You've got a surplus of gas, haven't you, that you cannot sell? Now the companies come along and say: "No shortage any more, guys. Allow us to export it." You're not protecting the public interest in this province and it's the darnedest giveaway I've ever heard of.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to remind the member that ....

HON. MR. CHABOT: He was out of order all the way.

MR. CHAIRMAN: ... section by section and clause by clause reading of the bill in committee does not afford the proper time for making challenges for members to meet them in other locations.

MR. MACDONALD: On a point of order, just in terms of the acoustics, I did not hear the answer of the minister to my challenge to him to debate the matter before a public audience.

MR. CHAIRMAN: As I pointed out, this is not the proper time to make that request.

MR. MACDONALD: He won't do it and he knows it. Come on, get up and name the place!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On section 1, 1 would be prepared to debate that issue at any time, providing he is prepared to tell the truth. He has never dealt in this bill in what he had to say a few moments ago. He dealt with an issue that is being dealt with by the national government. It has nothing to do with natural gas; that has to do with oil and gasoline pump prices. That has nothing to do with this bill, and you know it. If you will stick with the facts and tell the truth, I will debate this issue, the price of natural gas in British Columbia, the export price, the reserves, and any issue on natural gas and oil in this province at any time with you at any place in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Once again, just before I recognize the next speaker, I would remind all members to perhaps take a moment to peruse this small red book which you all find on your desks on standing orders, which sets down quite clearly what are the procedures for committee.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I'm glad that the minister is beginning to take up my challenge. But all I'm asking is: will he agree within 48 hours to name a time and a place?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 1 pass?

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I'm on my feet. I just want to reply to what the minister said. Forget this Ottawa government, eh? We're talking about our own resources, which are not too great in terms of oil but they're great enough. We send about 40,000 barrels of oil a day down from the Peace River. This minister has been increasing the price of that oil to the consumer. The cost to the industry has not gone up.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's not true.

MR. MACDONALD: It certainly is. You say I'm. not telling the truth. Go out and get a hall. Name the place and the time. I defy you to do that. That's just two words: a place and a time. You're afraid to debate it. I'll tell the truth and loll back it up with facts and figures. There's not a place, not a corner, not a hole in this province of British Columbia in which the minister can hide. Name the time and the place!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Sections 1 to 55 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, the member for Vancouver East had ample opportunity during my estimates to debate the question of oil and natural gas in this province and he refused to come into this House to debate it. He was more interested in playing squash than debating that issue when he had an opportunity.

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. First of all, I

[ Page 2506 ]

would like to remind the minister that when we have completed a bill and the chairman calls, "Shall the title pass?", the duty of the minister sponsoring the bill is then to move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with or without amendment, as is appropriate, and not to take that opportunity to make a speech in the House.

Since the Chairman was standing at the time the motion was made, would the minister care to now stand and make the correct motion?

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 29, Petroleum and Natural Gas (1965) Amendment Act, 1978, reported complete without amendment.

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

HON. MR. CHABOT: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'm not exactly sure what that minister was referring to. We debated this question of the increases in natural gas prices to the consumer and the fantastic profits that have been lavished on the companies.

HON. MR. CHABOT: We are debating the third reading.

MR. MACDONALD: I am, very extensively. The minister said in committee - and I know the House doesn't recognize what was said in committee - that this matter has not been extensively debated in this House. Of course it has - very extensively. I pointed out that the amount of profit that this minister has lavished on the international oil companies is $120 million per year. And the amount of additional profit that he has given to a few oil companies - including Imperial Oil - that have the oil rights in the province of B.C. was $38 million a year. And now, on July 1, they are going to give them another $1 additional profit per year.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's got nothing to do with the province. Can't you understand that's a federal initiative?

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the minister is saying from his seat that it is a federal matter. Does the minister not know that it is our oil? The royalties system is ours; the BCPC is ours to control. Under an NDP government we husbanded that resource and brought back profits to the people. And we didn't increase the price to the consumer.

This business of blaming Trudeau for everything that happens in the province of British Columbia is the last refuge of that gang over there. That is not something that is at all believable when it is our oil, our natural gas, our control of royalties and our control of B.C. Petroleum Corporation. The blame for the increased gasoline prices, the blame for the increased home heating prices, the blame for the increased prices in natural gas to the consumers and businesses of this province is solely upon that minister and upon that Premier.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: "Lights out" policy!

MR. MACDONALD: What in the dickens does 'lights out' policy" mean?

Let me add to my peroration this, that when the NDP were government - if this is what that minister is referring to - not a single consumer in the province of British Columbia ever went short of natural gas - whether it was a residence or a business. We never had any lights out.

It's a sellout. I challenge that Minister of Mines, once again, to name a time and a place. He won't do it. He's afraid to do it.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, w have just gone through a procedure which is not usual in this House, and that is debate on third reading.

May I take just a moment to acquaint members on the procedure in debate on third reading. "The procedure on third reading of a bill is similar to that described in relation to the second reading, but the debate is more restricted at the later stage, being limited to the matters contained in the bill." Just in case any members are wishing to use the device of debate on third reading, I'd like you to remember those restrictions from Sir Erskine May, 17th edition.

Bill 29, Petroleum and Natural Gas (1965) Amendment Act, 1978, read a third time and passed.

[ Page 2507 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 20, Mr. Speaker.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

HON. MR. BAWLF: Bill 20 replaces the Library Development Commission with a Library Advisory Council, being responsible for the administering of grants and services to libraries fully under the ministry. The bill also makes a number of minor housekeeping adjustments to the Public Libraries Act to correct anomalies and inaccuracies that have existed for some time.

The primary purpose of this bill is to clarify the role of the provincial advisory body on libraries and the relationship it bears to the library services branch. The director and staff of the branch would, under this bill, report through the ministry to the minister. The Library Advisory Council, which this bill would establish, will not direct the functions of the branch but will advise the minister on policies aimed at the furtherance of library services throughout the province.

I move the bill be now read a second time.

MR. NICOLSON: This bill is yet another case of centralization. It disbands a commission. It really says that people in the community have no place in taking a large part, only to act in an advisory role in pleasure of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. After these years of Social Credit government, it still leaves us with less library service in most parts of this province than we had in 1975. No bookmobiles, that I know of, are operated under the terms of the Act, under section 7, 1 believe. Sections 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 pertain to the Library Development Commission. Under section 7 the decisions were made by commissions in the past to operate a system of library service to individuals and to communities which, in the opinion of the commission, are not in a position to adequately organize local public library services, or to become part of a larger unit of service.

We don't have the open-shelf library here in the province available to individuals any more. Individuals cannot write in to the open-shelf libraries, as they once could. We certainly don't have the bookmobile operating in some areas of the Kootenays where it was operating. We have library books being mothballed around this province - books that were available. We have the complete shutting down and the lack of offering of anything as an alternative to the setting up of regional library development boards and commissions, or whatever you might wish to call them.

There has been a refusal to allow even a referendum to go forward, speaking again of the East and West Kootenays, something that many volunteers worked many, many hours toward. Rather than reaching out into the communities, this is drawing back from the community. It is centralizing the types of decisions that are going to be made. After all these years, we see this housekeeping amendment, as the minister calls it, disbanding the public library commission which, of course, is really rescinding legislation that originally took place and was passed by the Social Credit government, particularly in 1968, although some aspects of this go back many years even before that. In looking at the amendments in the legislation, it is a concept which has existed for some time. There were certainly amendments made, I believe, in 1974 and 1975.

It is another case of centralization. If, in keeping with this move, there was some kind of a major thrust.... After the promises of the budget speech we would expect that there would have been some vigorous type of a move in terms of library development, but we see that libraries are left completely hung up.

Many, many people who serve on library boards throughout the province are more than frustrated by the lack of action, the lack of any sort of a clear directive from this ministry in terms of library development and funding. The minister has promised a rationalized system. I suppose he's referring to the Cariboo-Kamloops regional library board or something, which I guess he considers is overfunded, and others which are underfunded. But there is nothing really contained in this piece of legislation that leads us in this direction. Certainly we don't see in our area that this is happening. It could certainly be done through the library commission if referenda were not being stopped and tubed at the provincial government level.

This bill is sort of a nondescript thing to even debate. There is a very important concept in it in terms of once again doing away with commissions. This is an oft-repeated story in these sessions of the Legislature. I'm certainly disappointed with this. I would have hoped there would have been a little bit more hope, particularly out of this session of the Legislature, that the government had finally decided to make an adequate type of a move to at least restore library services to the level that it was in 1975.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

MRS. DAILLY: I listened to the introductory remarks of the minister on this bill, and I'm

[ Page 2508 ]

still puzzled, as I am sure many people are who are concerned about the operation of the public libraries in the province of British Columbia. I hope when the minister closes the debate, he can tell us why he has brought this in.

It seems to me to be a major change, as the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) just said, towards more centralization. Now if the minister can tell us that the public library system of British Columbia is going to benefit from this change, well then perhaps we'll have some more understanding. But why are you doing it? Why have you abolished the library commission? Now maybe I missed something in your opening remarks, but I've talked to a number of people out in the province and they are asking the same question. Did you consult with people who are actively working in this area? What's the rationale for this?

The former Social Credit government brought in this Library Development Commission. It apparently seemed to be working. Now you are scrapping it without too much consultation, and yet you have not told us why we should be supporting you in this.

My main question to you, Mr. Minister, is: is this going to benefit the public library system in British Columbia. Can you tell us now?

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I am a bit shocked and surprised at the timing of debate on this bill. It was introduced only June 9. My understanding, certainly from the North Vancouver library board - and I believe on behalf of other library boards around the province - is that they have some serious concern about the disbanding of the Library Development Commission. They've been seeking a meeting with the minister.

Now it seems to me it would only have been appropriate to postpone the debate on this bill until such time as that meeting had been held. There is nothing, I suppose, that the opposition can do to prevent second reading tonight because of the force of the government numbers, but I can assure the government that I will certainly not give unanimous consent to proceed to any further stage tonight. I do hope that the minister will undertake to meet with representatives of library boards around the province, if he has not already done so, and he has certainly given us no evidence in his opening remarks that he has.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister closes debate.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, I have indeed had the opportunity to meet with representatives of library systems around the province, and on many occasions over the past year. The simple fact is that since Saturday I have been quite busy with other matters, but I've had ample opportunity, including recently, of meeting with the library trustees' association right here in Victoria, covering library trustees from across the province.

Now the problem has been a lack of a clear definition as to the responsibilities of those people who are employed by the government as professional library administrators in conjunction with the libraries programme of the provincial government. There is some question as to whether they were reporting to the Library Development Commission or, in fact, working within the ministry. There is no question that the government upholds the concept of a public advisory body in the determination of policy and administration of the libraries programme generally in the province.

But what has been a problem historically is that the Library Development Commission has been part of a process whereby library development has been negotiated with local libraries on the basis that if certain conditions were met by way of, as a rule, regional organization along certain rigid lines. Then financial assistance would be forthcoming from the province. But it was a case of a very large leap at one go and, at times, a step that was beyond the means of the communities seeking to upgrade their library services.

As a consequence, when I first became apprised of the funding of libraries by the province, we discovered that the range of support for libraries was from five cents per capita to $6.66 per capita and every conceivable point in between, depending on which library system one was considering in the province. The fact is that the comparison between support for individual library systems across the province was just incomprehensible. There were no clear ground rules upon which a community or an aggregation of communities could expect support for expansion and enhancement of their library services. We have recently introduced a programme which will rationalize this and which in fact provides, in the overwhelming majority of instances, a very major - ranging up to 100 per cent -increase in funding over the coming year for library services in individual instances across the province. There are only a couple of instances where library funding remains at a constant, as compared to recent years, and there is one instance where library funding goes down. But that's by comparison of many instances of major increases.

This bill is aimed at clarifying the role of

[ Page 2509 ]

the public advisory body of library services to concentrate upon encouraging by way of information and consultation the gradual development of library services to the aggregation of communities and electoral districts. There will be larger, more integrated library systems, but not in one stroke a quantum leap from a series of dispersed communities into a very costly regional library system which most parts of the province cannot at this point in time afford.

So that is the substance of the bill -simply to provide greater clarity to the role of the branch staff and their reporting responsibilities, and to the role, in turn, of the advisory group, who will be very much involved and whose efforts will be very significant to the future of library development in the province.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

MR. GIBSON: On a point of order, just before putting the motion on second reading, I would draw your attention in terms of standing order 58. It says:

"Whenever the Speaker is of the opinion that a motion offered to the House is contrary to the rules and privileges of parliament, he shall apprise the House there of immediately before putting the question thereon and quote the rule or authority applicable to the case."

Now if I could draw your attention to standing order 54, it states:

"A motion being once made and carried in the affirmative or negative cannot be put again in the same session but must stand as a judgment of the House provided always that a vote in the affirmative may be rescinded and an order of the House discharged on a motion to that effect."

In the light of that standing order, I would draw your attention to vote 247 in the estimates which this House has already passed, which provides for the continuation and funding of the Library Development Commission. In this bill, of course, Your Honour dispenses with and ends the Library Development Commission. I would ask your ruling as to whether or not that doesn't contravene the terms of standing order 54.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On two points, hon. member, your request would seem to be out of order. One is that your analogy is inappropriate. Secondly, what has happened in Committee of Supply has yet to pass through the supply bill in this House. We have not finished with or dispensed with the Committee of Supply.

HON. MR. BAWLF: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

Motion approved.

Bill 20, Public Libraries Amendment Act, 1978, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 11.

FINANCE STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

HON. MR. WOLFE: Bill 11 contains a number of technical and minor amendments to Acts administered by the ministry. Amendments are proposed to the Acts governing nine Crown corporations or authorities.

These amendments are identical for each corporation or authority, are technical in nature, and allow the corporations and authorities to authorize the provincial Minister of Finance - or authorize him to authorize the Finance Minister of Canada - to determine the rate and term for borrowings from the Canada Pension Plan investment fund, and validate and confirm all previous borrowings of this nature. The amendments do not change the procedures used for such borrowings but clarify that authority may be given to the Minister of Finance of Canada to determine the conditions under which a security may be sold to the Canada Pension Plan fund.

Also, Mr. Speaker, the Gasoline Tax Act (1948) , the Gasoline Tax Act (1958) , the Coloured Gasoline Tax Act, the Motive-Fuel Use Tax Act, and the Fuel-Oil Tax Act are being amended to provide for the metric equivalent of the tax per gallon now imposed. This is needed, as the oil industry will be converting to metric measurement on January 1,1979. Unlike most other taxing statutes, the Coloured Gasoline Tax Act does not provide that the tax collected is held as trust funds and has not provided for interest and penalty to apply to any amount due. So amendments are proposed to provide such sections as necessary for tax collection proceedings.

An amendment is proposed to the Financial Control Act to outline a procedure to be followed when the provision of funds in the estimates is not sufficient but there is also a statutory provision for the same purpose. The amendment states the funds in the estimates must be spent first.

The income tax amendments in this bill are

[ Page 2510 ]

proposed to cover four changes. The first is to provide for reimbursement to the province for the federal share of costs for the 1978 economic stimulation programme. This means that the deduction allowed a taxpayer in British Columbia under the federal Income Tax Act will be paid to the province. This will mean no increase in tax to the taxpayer. The revenue accruing to the province is expected to total about $115 million, or approximately one half the cost of reducing the rate of the social services tax from 7 per cent to 5 per cent for one year.

The second change to the Income Tax Act is to state the need to file an income tax return within four years in order to be eligible for the renters' tax credit. The federal government, which administers the provincial income tax, requested this clarification.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The third change is to permit eligible persons to claim a renters' tax credit, less the amount received under the Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters Act, when the amount was less than their entitlement under the renters' tax credit programme. Until now, any person who received a grant under the Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters Act was not eligible for a renters' tax credit. So this amendment will mean that a person aged 65 or over who received, for example, $50 under the shelter aid programme and who is eligible for $80 under the renters' tax credit programme will be able to claim the $30 difference.

The fourth change is, again, at the request of the federal government, with companion changes in their Act. The amendments to reimburse the province for the economic stimulation programme and to give a renter the benefit of the renters' tax credit are retroactive to January 1,1978, to cover the full taxation year.

Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be read a second time.

MR. STUPICH: I suppose it's all right to say that the amendments are minor, but we must recognize that in dealing with these amendments we're talking about, I suppose, legalizing the terms under which something in excess of $1 billion has been borrowed over a period of years. Nevertheless, if there's going to be any discussion of this legislation at all -I'm not sure that there is going to be very much - it would certainly be better done in committee stage and the opposition will support it in second reading.

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

HON. MR. WOLFE: I think any further questions could be, as suggested, better covered under committee. So I move the bill now be read a second time.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 11 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Bill 11, Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1978, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

The House in Committee on Bill 11; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Chairman, now that we've done this, I'm challenged to ask the minister just how much has been borrowed from the Canada Pension funds. In other words, how much are we legalizing with this section that we're considering right now?

Sections 1 to 18 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 11, Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1978, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 403, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE VANCOUVER CHARTER

MR. STRONGMAN: I move second reading of Bill 403.

Motion approved.

[ Page 2511 ]

MR. STRONGMAN: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 403 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 403, An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter, read a second time and referred to Committee of the whole House forthwith.

The House in Committee on Bill 403; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Sections 1 to 31 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

On the preamble.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, just in passing I wish to note to the committee an expression of regret that two provisions asked for by the city council, in their wisdom, in this bill were rejected by the majority in the Standing Orders and Private Bills Committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, it is inappropriate at this time to discuss this matter, especially under the preamble.

MR. LAUK: Oh, it's all right under the preamble; it's perfectly in order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Items that happen in committee are not subject to discussion in this.

MR. LAUK: Oh, I just express regret that there are two things missing from the bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: However, I have called you to order and advised you that it's not appropriate to discuss those matters that take place in committee.

MR. LAUK: I'm not. I'm talking about changes made in the initial bill, which I'm entitled to do under the preamble. It goes back to Elizabeth I.

AN HON. MEMBER: At least.

MR. LAUK: Or was it Howard V?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, perhaps if you have some brief remarks the committee will indulge them.

MR. LAUK: One provision, particularly, the Committee of the Whole House should know about is that the city asked for power to provide for the security and the human rights of single parents who are looking for accommodation in the city of Vancouver and are denied accommodation by landlords because of small children being involved. I'm sure the Chairman has had similar experiences in his constituency, where these single parents come to him as the MLA, completely frustrated in finding accommodation because they are so-called "burdened" with children. I think it is unfortunate indeed that this government has not received the message.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you are totally out of order, and I'm sure you are quite well aware of the fact that this is inappropriate under the preamble. Perhaps at another time on a different form.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

MR. STRONGMAN: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 403, An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter, reported complete without amendment.

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

MR. STRONGMAN: By leave, now.

Leave not granted.

MR. LAUK: On third reading, as I was saying, the other provision of the statute, as requested by the city council, was a provision whereby at least two-thirds of the council would vote on zoning bylaw changes. Again, the government members have seen fit to reject a legitimate request on behalf of a democratically elected council of the city of Vancouver. I'd like to register my protest in Hansard in this Legislature. The government is expressing a certain amount of contempt towards elected officials and municipal councils. The city of Vancouver is a widely representative council and they, in their wisdom, considered very carefully....

MR. SPEAKER: In debate on third reading, we can only debate those matters which are contained within the bill. As I understand it, the matter which the member is now debating was deleted from the bill prior to second reading and, therefore, the debate is out of

[ Page 2512 ]

order.

MR. LAUK: To our everlasting shame, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Whatever. It is out of order. The question is third reading of Bill 403.

Motion approved.

Bill 403, An Art to Amend the Vancouver Charter, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, by leave of the House, I would ask that we discharge the order for committal of Bill 30 and proceed to committee at this time.

Leave granted.

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

Bill 30.

LAND TITLES ACT

The House in committee on Bill 30; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Sections 1 to 336 inclusive approved.

Schedules I to 4 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 30, Land Titles Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed. I

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, by leave I would ask that we discharge the order for committal to Bill 31 and proceed to committee at this time.

Leave granted.

CONVEYANCING AND LAW OF PROPERTY ACT

The House in committee on Bill 31; Mr.

Rogers in the chair.

Sections 1 to 37 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 31, Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would again request leave of the House to discharge the order for committal for Bill 32, and proceed to committee forthwith.

Leave granted.

EXECUTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

The House in committee on Bill 32; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 32, Execution Amendment Act, 1978, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:31 p.m.