[ Page 1093 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings.

Oral questions.

Hometown Lumber. Mr. King –– 1094

Release of government reports. Mr. Hall –– 1094

Functions of John Elliott. Hon. Mr. Wolfe replies –– 1094

Release of government reports. Mr. Hall –– 1095

Report on Princess Marguerite. Mr. Barber –– 1095

Foreign purchase of Peace River farmland. Ms. Sanford –– 1095

Aid to developing countries report. Mrs. Wallace –– 1096

Report of salmon industry. Mr. Hanson –– 1096

Refugee Settlement Program of British Columbia Act (Bill 32).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 1096

Mr. Macdonald –– 1097

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 1098

Committee stage.

On section 1 amendment. Hon. Mr. Williams –– 1098

On section 2. Mr. Barber, Hon. Mr. Williams –– 1098

Report and third reading –– 1099

Automobile Insurance Non- Discrimination Act (Bill 33).

Second reading.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 1099

Mr. Hall –– 1100

Mr. Brummet –– 1101

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 1101

Committee stage.

Report and third reading –– 1102

Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act (Bill 20).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 1102

Committee stage.

On section 1.

Mr. Hall –– 1102

Mr. Hanson –– 1103

Report and third reading –– 1103

University of Victoria Foundation Act (Bill M 209).

Second reading.

Mr. Smith –– 1103

Mr. Barber –– 1103

Committee stage.

On section 9.

Mr. Barber –– 1103

Mr. Smith –– 1104

Report and third reading –– 1104

Legal Services Society Act (Bill 27).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 1104

Mr. Macdonald –– 1104

Mr. Hall –– 1105

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 1105

Committee stage.

On section 3.

Mr. Hanson –– 1105

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 1106

On section 5 amendment.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 1106

On section 9 amendment.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 1106

Mr. Macdonald –– 1106

On section 11 amendment.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 1106

On section 14 amendment.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 1106

Report and third reading –– 1107

Energy Amendment Act (Bill 23).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 1107

Mr. D'Arcy –– 1107

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 1108

Committee stage.

On section 1.

Mr. D'Arcy –– 1108

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 1108

On section 3 amendment.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 1109

On section 6 amendment.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 1109

Report and third reading –– 1109

Industrial Development Subsidiary Agreement Loan Repayment Revolving Fund Act (Bill 28).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 1109

Committee stage.

Report and third reading –– 1109

Land Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 16).

Report and third reading –– 1109

Metro Transit Operating Company Act (Bill 26).

Committee stage.

On section 12 amendment.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 1110

On section 2 amendment.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 1110

On schedule 2 amendment.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 1110

Division on report –– 1110

Report and third reading –– 1110

Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 31).

Committee stage.

On section 6.

Mr. Stupich –– 1111

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 1111

On section 10 amendments.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 1111

On section 28 amendment.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 1111

On section 29 amendment.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 1111

Report and third reading

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 30).

Committee stage.

On section 16 amendment.

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 1111

On section 19 amendment.

Mr. Nicolson –– 1111

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 1112

Mr. Macdonald –– 1112

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 1112

Mr. Barber –– 1112

Division on the amendment –– 1113

On section 19.

Mr. Barber –– 1113

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 1113

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 1113

Mr. King –– 1114

Mr. Barber –– 1116

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 1116

Mr. Barrett –– 1116

Appendix –– 1120

MONDAY, JULY 30, 1979

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I bring sad news to the attention of the House. Mr. Arnold Alexander Webster passed away Friday last. Mr. Webster was a Vancouver East MLA from 1953 to 1956, during which time he served one year as Leader of the Opposition. He was Vancouver-Kingsway Member of Parliament from 1962 to 1965. Mr. Webster was born in Vancouver in 1899. He took his BA and MA at the University of British Columbia, and took his Bachelor of Pedagogy at the University of Toronto. In 1940 Mr. Webster entered civic politics as a commissioner on the Vancouver parks board. He acted as board chairman for four of those years. Following the resignation of Harold Winch from provincial politics in 1953, Mr. Webster was chosen to succeed him as party leader. He was subsequently elected as MLA for Vancouver East and entered the Legislature as Leader of the Opposition.

He was a constant champion for the dignity of the common man, urging the government to establish a bill of rights. He pleaded in the name of human decency for the discontinuation of atomic testing and nuclear weapons stockpiling. Mr. Webster, upon leaving this assembly, then served in the federal House as a member from 1960 to 1965.

Arnold Webster once described his philosophy of democratic citizenship in these words: "Every thoughtful person knows that building democracy in Canada is unfinished business. Citizens must be aroused to understand that only a strengthened and inspired democracy will survive the twentieth century. This condition will not be achieved through the cultivation of individual virtue of kindness, honesty and toleration alone. Enlightenment and determined group action is also essential." He will be missed by all who knew him, and by his wife who was also a member of this Legislative Assembly.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, if I may join in the tribute to Arnold Webster and the mourning of his passing, I too had the pleasure of knowing him. His family attended school in the Kelowna area during the early 1940s. I also knew Arnold Webster as a politician when he was in this Legislature. He was a gentleman in every sense of the word, and brought great distinction to political life in this province, and it is true that all British Columbians will mourn his passing.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps it would be acceptable for the Speaker to offer the appropriate message of condolences.

HON. MR. MAIR: As members of this House know, I have had the privilege of representing this province in constitutional matters for two or three years and meeting the federal ministers involved in that exercise, and I am very pleased today to introduce to the House a gentleman who is going to see a lot of me and vice versa, I hope, in the next little while. The very personable new minister of federal-provincial relations for the Government of Canada is seated behind me, and I would ask the House to welcome Hon. Bill Jarvis.

I wonder, while I have the floor, Mr. Speaker, if I might also bring to your attention and to the attention of the House that Mr. Jarvis's assistants, Mr. Tim Wolstencroft and Mr. John Miller, are also in the House today. Along with them — but probably neither group knows the other is there — is a constituent of mine, Mrs. Jean McAlpine, and while I have the floor I'll ask the House to welcome her as well.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I had a very fruitful meeting this morning with three gentlemen, and I would like to introduce them to the House and ask the House to bid them welcome. They are the mayor of Abbotsford and president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, Mayor George Ferguson; the executive director of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, Mr. Jeff McKelvey; and his assistant, Mr. Jim Sewell.

MR. BARBER: There are two people in your gallery today, Mr. Speaker, whom I would like to introduce. One of them is a former friend of mine, Michael Ewen, the other his bodyguard, Jim Bozo, and I ask the House to make them welcome — more or less. [Laughter.]

HON. MR. BENNETT: In your gallery, Mr. Speaker, visiting from Redditch, near Birmingham, England, are Mr. and Mrs. Long. They are friends of noted columnist Jim Hume. Mrs. Long is the deputy head of a special school in England, and is quite prepared to offer to the Minister of Education any advice he may require during the months she and her husband will be in Victoria. Will the House make them welcome.

MR. LEVI: I'd like to join the Premier in welcoming Mr. and Mrs. Long, even though they are friends of Jim Hume. [Laughter.] I just want to extend greetings to them, because as one Brummie to another, I welcome you.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: In the gallery today are students from Charles Tupper High School, accompanied by their teacher, Robert Tomson. I would like to ask the members of the Legislature to welcome them. Also will they please welcome Commissioner Andy Livingstone and Mrs. Marie Livingstone. Commissioner Livingstone is a member of the Vancouver Board of Parks and Public Recreation; that is one of the only two organizations of parks and public recreation that are elected in North America.

MR. HEINRICH: I would ask the House to welcome two relatives of mine who are in the gallery today and are accompanying Mr. and Mrs. Andy Livingstone. They are my aunt and uncle, Mr. and Mrs. Bud Heinrich, who live in Ruskin, British Columbia.

MR. BARNES: I'd like to ask the House to join me in welcoming three guests: Ms. Brenda Knight, a psychologist at the Jericho Hill institution in Vancouver, and her two friends, Tracey Bannister and Lisa Dennis.

MR. LEGGATT: I'd like to welcome to British Columbia my sister-in-law, whose husband is a U.S. Congressman — of somewhat right-wing vintage, I might add. But just to display that good Canadian broadmindedness, he's still welcome in our family. I want to welcome her.

[ Page 1094 ]

Also in the gallery is my other sister-in-law, who happens to reside in Ferndale, and whose husband is a judge down there. If you have any trouble, let them know. I'd like you to welcome both good American citizens.

Oral Questions

HOMETOWN LUMBER

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Forests. I want to ask the minister if he has any plans to intervene in the pending movement of Crown Zellerbach's store arm, Hometown Lumber, from British Columbia to Alberta.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the movement of any retail outlet, whether it stays in British Columbia or moves elsewhere, certainly would not be something which falls within the purview of the Minister of Forests.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary, I understand there are some 50 jobs involved here, and it is an associated company, a subsidiary, as I understand it. My question is: has the minister held any discussions with Crown Zellerbach, the parent corporation, affecting this transfer of jobs from British Columbia to Alberta, and if not, does he intend to do so?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I would just repeat the answer I gave to the first part of the member's question.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Economic Development. Is he aware of this pending move of jobs from British Columbia to Alberta? Has he held any discussions? If not, does he intend to?

HON. MR, PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, with the great economic development that is taking place in British Columbia and the amount of movement of commerce, mostly toward British Columbia, I'm not aware of this particular movement, but I'll take the question as notice.

RELEASE OF GOVERNMENT REPORTS

MR. HALL: My question is to the Minister of Health. Is there any delay that the minister would like to inform the House about regarding the non-arrival and non-release of the Black report?

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

MR. HALL: I want to just point out that we have been asking for that report during the whole of the session.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my next question to the Minister of Finance, and ask him if there is any delay or problem in releasing the report on credit unions that the Minister of Finance is in charge of.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Questions on the report have been answered in this House on many occasions in the past, and I would only have to report that this report is no longer in my hands.

MR. HALL: Perhaps the minister could tell us where the report is, because it doesn't appear to have got as far as this side of the House.

I take silence as meaning the minister doesn't know where the report is.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs where the Schroeder report is. Is there any delay in that report? It hasn't got to this House yet.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I missed the second part of that question. The Schroeder report was prepared and offered to the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and it remains within the ministry. There is no intent to release that report immediately.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has in his charge a report on the investment evaluation of BCRIC. I wonder if he could tell us if the opposition may expect release of that report. It's an investment evaluation report which you referred to in your questions on the British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm not quite clear on the question the member is asking, but I'll take the question as notice.

FUNCTIONS OF JOHN ELLIOTT

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'd like to respond to a question asked me last week by the member for Nanaimo. He enquired about the gentleman who worked for the Systems Corporation who allegedly had been employed working in Forests on a project, and had been removed and transferred to another department, namely the Mines ministry. I would just like to respond to that question.

The gentleman referred to — a matter I brought up in public accounts committee, I believe — is Mr. John Elliott, who joined the B.C. Systems Corporation in September 1977 and was assigned to the mineral land tax systems of the Ministry of Mines and Petroleum Resources. On December 23, 1977, Mr. Elliott was given an additional assignment by the B.C. Systems Corporation to review the status of the Forest Service systems group personnel in the Ministry of Forests, and to arrange for their move to B.C. Systems Corporation. During this period Mr. Elliott chaired a couple of meetings, pending assignment of permanent senior analysts by the B.C. Systems Corporation in March 1978. In summary, Mr. Elliott was assigned by the corporation from his primary duties in Mines and Petroleum Resources to help in the transfer of personnel of the then Forest Service systems group. His involvement in the Forest Service was on a fill-in basis, when time was available from his normal duties in the Ministry of Mines and Petroleum Resources.

His total involvement on this project is estimated to be a maximum of three man-weeks. Mr. Elliott was never permanently assigned to work on a particular billing system question. Therefore his removal from the project could not have been a cause for any delay in the system regarding billings.

[ Page 1095 ]

RELEASE OF GOVERNMENT REPORTS

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I thought the Minister of Finance was getting up to respond to an earlier question. I didn't want to yield the floor. I wonder if I might enquire from the House Leader, who is the acting Attorney General.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I cannot entertain an answer until the member takes his seat.

MR. HALL: Well, in that case I wonder if the acting Attorney-General would take this question for the Attorney General. During debate on estimates earlier, we had been promised by the Attorney-General two pieces of information. The questions were not taken as notice, Mr. Speaker, but he promised to bring the information back. One is a report from the Associate Deputy Attorney-General, Mr. Dick Bird, on the investigation into the beating and death of an infant in Surrey. This report has been promised following receipt by the Attorney-General of one earlier report which was not released because it was not considered to be in the public interest. A second follow-up report was mentioned by the Attorney-General in debate; we're waiting for that. Second, could the acting Attorney-General now respond to the results of the inquiry into the conduct of peace officers regarding the picketers who were arrested and charged with contempt of court, following that conviction of contempt of court? That report has also been promised to us, Mr. Speaker.

I should add that this makes more than 12 reports we have had no response to.

REPORT ON PRINCESS MARGUERITE

MR. BARBER: There's a thirteenth report — lucky for the minister.

My question is to the Minister of Economic Development. Has he now received the report from the board of directors of the B.C. Steamship Company regarding the future of the vessel Princess Marguerite?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In response to the member's question, I haven't seen the report specifically; but in view of the fact that the House may rise someday, I have set up a meeting with the board of directors, at which time I will be discussing a whole number of things to do with the Princess Marguerite, which, I might add, Mr. Speaker, is carrying a growing number of tourists to British Columbia.

MR. BARRETT: You voted against it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: After we got it all straightened out, it's now doing a good job. We've got it running on a good basis. It's got a little bit of sound management; it's doing a good job and making a profit.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I'd hate to see the future of that ship had we not taken hold of the wheel of that great ship and put it on a good, sound basis.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, the scope of the answers should not go beyond the scope of the question.

MR. BARBER: Have you decided whether or not to release the report, which you have not read, about the vessel, against which you voted?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that my aim is not to play politics with the Princess Marguerite, but to look after her. As I said during the estimates, the ship is in good hands.

FOREIGN PURCHASE OF
PEACE RIVER FARMLAND

MS. SANFORD: In the absence of the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Gardom), who is responsible for the Land Registry Act, I would like to pose my question to the Minister of Agriculture. In January the B.C. Institute of Agrologists, Peace River branch, wrote to all cabinet ministers expressing concern about the amount of farmland in the Peace River region being bought by foreign investment firms. The agrologists state that a cursory survey covering the years '76, '77 and '78 indicates that 124,000 acres in the Peace River region have been acquired by foreign interests, and that represents 10 percent of the land under cultivation.

My question is: what action has the Minister of Agriculture taken to halt the foreign purchase of large tracts of farmland in the Peace River?

HON. MR. HEWITT: In regard to the member's concern, we in the Ministry of Agriculture have certainly attempted to encourage our own people to develop the land in the northern part of British Columbia, and I can assure you that we will continue to do that.

My concern and, I am sure, the concern of the members is that we would like to see that developed by British Columbians.

I am not aware of the amount of land that is being purchased. I have heard some comments made periodically about the concern expressed by individuals in the area. They are putting up their land for sale on the open market, and they are obtaining a price for it. Some was sold to British Columbians, and some was sold to foreign people.

MS. SANFORD: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. He did not answer my question, though. He said that he is encouraging B.C. residents, but I want to know what action is being taken to prevent the sale of farmland to foreign interests.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to comment about Crown land outside of that which is owned privately. No Crown land would be sold to foreign investors. It is available under agricultural lease and agricultural development and sale to British Columbians.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I am quite aware of that situation, but once the farmland has been acquired by British Columbians — Crown land acquired by British Columbians — it can then be sold to foreigners. That's what my concern is, and that is why I am asking the Minister of Agriculture what action the government is taking to prevent that sale.

[ Page 1096 ]

AID TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES REPORT

MRS. WALLACE: I was hoping the Minister of Agriculture would answer the last question: I was very interested in the answer.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Ask me another one, or get on with it.

MRS. WALLACE: Are you prepared to answer? Well, let me ask my question, because it is also to the Minister of Agriculture. My question relates to the report on the aid to developing countries. Has the minister yet received that report for this current year?

HON. MR. HEWITT: During my estimates I did file a report on the agricultural aid to developing countries. I believe it was for the year 1978. If the member doesn't have it, I can obtain a copy for her.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm wondering about the current year, Mr. Speaker. Is that the most current report that you have filed?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I will ensure that the member gets the most current report. I believe I have filed the most current report in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I had already previously recognized the second member for Victoria.

REPORT ON SALMON INDUSTRY

MR. HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Environment. The Select Standing Committee on Agriculture has made a report on the salmon industry in the province.

In view of all the empirical evidence that says it would be in the best interest of British Columbia for jobs, for marketing and for expansion of secondary industry if the province were to take sole responsibility for the fishing industry from the processing level through to the consumer, would you please advise the House whether you are in agreement with that recommendation?

HON. MR. MAIR: As I understand it, the report was filed on Friday. I have not had an opportunity to read it yet. I haven't had an opportunity to consider it. Furthermore, I certainly could not state future government policy at this time. I'll undertake to read the report and consider it. Perhaps we can debate the matter after that happens.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 32, Mr. Speaker.

REFUGEE SETTLEMENT PROGRAM
OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It is with great pleasure that I rise to move second reading of Bill 32. As I do so, may I say that this legislation is not to be seen as simply a response to the situation concerning refugees from southeast Asia, which is attracting so much attention in the press of this country and, indeed, of the world today. But we do not in any way wish to diminish the serious plight befalling those people from southeast Asia who, through no fault of their own, find themselves forced onto the seas to face unknown and terrifying conditions.

Refugee problems have been with us throughout this world for decades. Various countries throughout this world, including Canada, have responded in their humanitarian traditions with programs for the relief of those unfortunate persons. Canada has a proud record in this respect, one for which each member of this assembly and each citizen of this country can justly take pride. It is, however, a problem which is increasing in dimensions due to circumstances, political and otherwise, which obtain in some sectors of this world.

On each occasion when refugee problems have achieved crisis importance, we in British Columbia have responded to the initiatives taken by the national government and have offered cooperation with the federal program. To the greatest extent, however, the response has been from individuals and groups within British Columbia who have shouldered large burdens by receiving and settling refugees within our provincial borders. It is the recognition of that contribution by individuals and groups in our society that has encouraged the government of British Columbia to join with the national government in designing a better-coordinated and more effective means of overcoming the problems of refugees immediately following their arrival in this country and in the months and years to follow.

The difficulty became particularly obvious after probably the first of the boat-people incidents arose some months ago. I speak of the Hai Hong incident, at which time Canada responded by inviting passengers on that boat to come to Canada for settlement purposes. At the same time, the United Nations commissioner for refugees pointed out to the government of Canada that it could anticipate that the program would increase in dimension. Last year the federal Minister of Employment and Immigration addressed to each of the provincial governments a proposal whereby there would be a clear definition of the obligations to be assumed by various levels of government in assisting refugees. Discussions have gone on between the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia with other provinces in the development of respective responsibilities in this regard.

The national government, obviously, was best equipped to become involved in the initial selection process overseas, and to provide for the orderly intake of refugees into Canada, to receive them here in Canada, to carry out the preliminary processing required in advance of them deciding upon their ultimate destination, to assist sponsoring agencies, groups and individuals in fulfilling the commitments of sponsorship, and to arrange for those difficulties which can arise during the first year or so of their stay in Canada.

With the recently increased problem of refugees into China, the federal government and Hon. Ron Atkey perceived that there were shortcomings in the programs of the national government and in the matching of those programs with those at the provincial level. On June 26, I met with the Hon. Mr. Atkey to discuss with him how Canada and British Columbia and the rest of the provinces could better achieve the humanitarian goals associated with

[ Page 1097 ]

programs of this nature and thereby ease not only the physical but also the cultural shock which is associated with persons who are forcibly uprooted from their own countries and cast adrift, literally and figuratively.

Since the meeting on June 26, there have been continuing discussions between the federal government and all of the provinces, and the bill which is before you today is a statement of the direction which the government of British Columbia believes should be taken, and a commitment to participate fully in this program.

After the initial problems have been identified and, hopefully, resolved, the manner in which the government services available to all our citizens in the province of British Columbia can be extended to refugees is a part of this total program. But it must also be recognized by the members of this assembly that the fact that the refugee has arrived at his or her or their destination in British Columbia, the fact that they have received language training, the fact that their immediate physical needs have been attended to, does not mean that the problem has ended. Those refugees, like other immigrants who come to Canada, still face for a considerable number of years potential problems, which those of us who have the good fortune to be natural-born Canadians, cannot comprehend. The settlement agencies which exist in our communities probably discharge their most valuable role in the continuing assistance that they offer to these people in the resolution of problems as they arise.

Examinations which have been made by officials of the Ministry of Labour involved directly in problems of immigration disclose that in many cases the most serious problems emerge after five years of residence in Canada — when those people who have been enthusiastically involved in the original problems of settlement have concluded that their work is done. It is to those settlement agencies in particular that the thrust of this legislation is directed. With increasing numbers of immigrants and refugees coming to Canada, the burdens on these settlement agencies have grown. They need additional resources, both of people and finances, to enable them to discharge this continuing responsility.

I know that there are people in our communities who are concerned about the impact of immigrants and refugees upon our society. I wish to assure you, Mr. Speaker, and them, that neither the government of the province of British Columbia nor the government of Canada is embarking upon a program which will encourage people to choose Canada beyond the limit of our capacity to settle them. But until we have a comprehensive program whereby individuals throughout this province extend themselves in this. humanitarian enterprise, we will not truly know what our capacity is. Already, with the announcement of this program and that of the federal government, individuals and groups throughout the length and breadth of British Columbia are coming forward with wholehearted offers of assistance and support. Through this program we wish to develop, even more, these responses, so that the people of British Columbia can take in full measure their share of this responsibility.

The members, Mr. Speaker, might be interested to know that so far as immigration into Canada is concerned, British Columbia receives on an annual basis between 14 and 16 percent of all immigration movement to this country. It is therefore somewhat surprising that when you look at refugees, the percentage of the Canadian total which come to British Columbia is very much below that of immigration, of which I have just spoken. If one goes back to the year 1972, when 5,000 refugees came to Canada, British Columbia received 29 percent. By 1975, when 6,000 refugees came to Canada, only 5 percent chose British Columbia as their destination, In the following year when there were 11,500 refugees to Canada, British Columbia's share was only 2 percent — 238. In the last two years, when the refugee level to Canada was at the rate of 7,000 and 4,000 respectively, the numbers who came to British Columbia were very small indeed — 185 in 1977 and 177 in 1978.

Those, therefore, among our communities who may be concerned about what can happen to British Columbia should, I think, recognize that British Columbians so far have not made the contribution in this respect that has been shown by some of our sister provinces.

Regarding the program to be initiated under this legislation, I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that significant organizational work has been underway for many weeks. The program upon which we are embarking is being predicated upon 10 percent of the refugees who come to Canada choosing British Columbia as their destination. Whether this will be achieved or not depends upon the way British Columbians respond.

Through the federal program by which refugees will be admitted, it is a basic principle that for every refugee sponsored by an individual or group in our society, the government of Canada will sponsor one on its own. Therefore, while Canada has indicated its goals in this respect, those goals will depend upon the wholehearted way in which the people of Canada participate.

Mr. Speaker, in closing these remarks, it can be clearly stated that the opportunities in Canada are great. Other nations of the world have responded in measure far greater than that of Canada. Yet other nations have, in comparison with Canada, made virtually no response at all. I don't think we can be guided in our affairs by measuring our performance against those who do nothing. Far better that we measure our performance against those other nations which are doing so much.

Canada is a vast land. There is room, and I think the first room we must establish is that small place in our hearts for these people who need so much from us, who can give so much.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of this bill.

MR, MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the official opposition supports this measure. I think we are acting in the best traditions requested of us by the United Nations. I think we're doing our part along with our sister nations of the democratic world and perhaps, as the minister said, not as much as some of the other nations are doing.

We're not in this bill to decide immigration policy. We're deciding upon the help of those who, by the federal government, will be lawfully admitted to Canada as refugees.

But I would like to say I do not think the Canadian people, with the generous instincts they have, would ever allow themselves, as the priest and the Levite, to pass by on the other side. Where human beings are outcasts from their own country through no fault of their own and are on the high seas, it is not in our nature that we should do nothing to

[ Page 1098 ]

help, or to see a drowning man sink in the sea when we have the ability to help.

There are those, as the minister has referred to, who talk about the destruction of English Canada because of the newcomers, the new Canadians who have come to this country of Canada since 1939. I remember Canada in 1939; it was just a little provincial and stuffy.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is in a bad mood today, you can see. He's got all these bills. He doesn't quite understand what's in them, and he keeps thrusting them out and waiting for this one to get through, and he's not listening to the debate.

But I want to add something about the nature of Canada. Immigration must be limited, clearly, but is not Canada a richer country in material ways, and certainly richer in its cultural diversity, as a result of the new Canadians who have joined us since 1939? I want to see the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) pound his desk when I say that. We're richer for the new Canadians who have made Canada a more exciting place in which to live.

The new Canadians have accepted our democratic traditions. They've accepted the traditions of parliamentary government and the human rights that we hold valuable. They're making an excellent contribution to this country, and we're richer for it. So I say, particularly in the case of refugees who through no fault of their own are in trouble, that it's our duty to do our share. We should support this bill.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: In closing this debate may I just say to the members, and to the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), that except for a relatively few individuals in this province, we are indeed all immigrants or the descendants of immigrants. Therefore, to the extent that there has been any enrichment of this province, it is certainly due to contributions of those who come from many nations.

Let me say one thing about the experience we have had with refugees who have recently come to this country. The federal government has what may seem like a strange part of its program. Every refugee who comes to Canada is sent a bill for his fare — $800 from southeast Asia by air. I was advised by the federal minister the other day that virtually every one of the refugees from the Hai Hong who came to Canada just a few months ago has paid back that initial obligation. That's their response, and I think that we must certainly match that level of commitment.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister moves second reading of Bill 32.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I ask leave to refer Bill 32 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 32, Refugee Settlement Program of British Columbia Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

REFUGEE SETTLEMENT PROGRAM
OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

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

On section 1.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

On section 2.

MR. BARBER: This authorizes the minister to provide assistance for what in the definition section is termed the "settlement agency." In Victoria we have a group called the Inter-Cultural Association, which has taken upon itself the duty of coordinating in as able a fashion as it can all of the arrangements that may be made or could be made for persons who wish to sponsor persons individually, or corporately, with friends or through their church or whomever, refugee families coming to town. Is it the minister's expectation that a group like the Inter-Cultural Association ofGreater Victoria might be eligible for support under section 2 of this bill for the provision of those services?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm glad the first member for Victoria asked that question. I want to make clear that coordination is a major problem that can exist, particularly in our large urban centres. We find that there are groups, other than the ones mentioned by the member, who have also come forward offering their support for coordination. We are concerned that we might end up with all coordinators and no workers. We don't wish this to occur.

The program director will have the essential responsibility for coordination of all of the activities of groups throughout this province. We anticipate that in the greater Victoria and greater Vancouver areas it would be desirable if the agencies needing assistance were themselves coordinated, and therefore the program director could refer problems from those two areas to that coordinating centre.

Having giving that explanation of the direction in which we intend to go, may I say that we will be looking forward to discussing with the Inter-Cultural Association their ability to discharge that coordinating function. We'll be happy to have them, or some other group they might join with, carry out this responsibility in the greater Victoria area.

MR. BARBER: I thank the minister for his comments. I think that's very good advice. I would like to advise as well that Victoria, by consent at Saanich and city council and — if not already, certainly by the end of this week — the Capital Regional District, has acknowledged that at least in our own happy case we have a group, respected and able, theInter-Cultural Association of Greater Victoria , with enormously good connections among 36 ethnic groups in Victoria. They've made it their particular case and cause to get involved in this very worthwhile program. I'm sure they

[ Page 1099 ]

will be given consideration when their proposal comes forward to the government.

Sections 2 to 5 inclusive approved,

Title approved.

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

Moion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 32, Refugee Settlement Program of British Columbia Act, reported complete with amendment.

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

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

Leave granted.

Bill 32, Refugee Settlement Program of British Columbia Act, read a third time and passed.

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

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
NON-DISCRIMINATION ACT

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to move second reading of the Automobile Insurance Non-Discrimination Act. I'm very pleased to tell you that this Act will formally end discrimination in the setting of automobile insurance rates in the province of British Columbia. It eliminates age, sex, marital status and geographic location as factors used in the setting of those rates.

This Act provides for the phasing in of new criteria for the rate-setting process for automobile insurance companies, and it will give flexibility of time to all automobile insurance companies in this province. This Act changes for the first time in British Columbia a system which has seen discrimination allowed, particularly against the young people of our province, in determining the rates for automobile insurance. Our government feels very strongly that the people of this province should not be penalized when buying automobile insurance because of factors over which they have no control whatsoever. Bill 33 enshrines in law that there should be only two basic classifications of people: safe drivers, which the vast majority of British Columbians are, and unsafe drivers.

The bill challenges the entire automobile insurance industry in this province to respond in a manner that will eliminate discrimination and judge people as innocent until they are proven guilty. Some months ago the government challenged the largest insurance corporation in our province, ICBC, to produce a plan which would take discrimination out of the rating for automobile insurance. At that time, it was not known if it was even a possibility to do so, because traditionally this has not happened. It hasn't happened in the world. It hasn't happened in North America. The corporation did some studies. some research, some planning, and they have assured us that the challenge which the government gave to them is not only workable but is indeed fair.

Although this bill does not in effect set rates, it does change the method by which rates will be set. I want to give you just a couple of examples of an average car and driver in the city of Vancouver. These examples show how the young people have been discriminated against through the conventional methods of rating. I'm told that this is an average car, a 1976 Ford Granada, and they use the city of Vancouver rating system. For the following coverage — liability $500,000, collision $300 deductible, comprehensive $100 deductible — a 23-year-old female who is accident-free would pay a premium of $308. Her 23-year-old twin brother, accident-free, would pay a premium of $717. All things being equal, the same automobile, the same coverage, the same accident-free record, the same age, but different sexes, means that male would pay a premium which is over $400 more.

Take another example using the to-and-from-work category. A 30-year-old male with an accident record pays a premium of $379; whereas the 23-year-old male, again with the same to-and-from-work category but with an accident-free record, pays $717. In other words, the 23-year-old safe driver pays almost $400 more — a $380-odd difference — than his 30-year-old counterpart who has an accident record.

If it had not been for the good management of ICBC under this administration in these past three years, that same driver, without the safe-driver discount, would have had to pay — even with an accident-free record — over $1,000 under the conventional program.

These few examples, Mr. Speaker, show that no matter how good the driver is, no matter how hard that driver strives to be safe on the road and free of accidents, he is not rewarded for that adherence to safety. He is indeed penalized because he happened to have been born at a certain time, or happened to be born male instead of female. This creates cynicism within the young people of our province who are responsible. They look at their own peers and those who are older and disdainfully see that their insurance is not affected by virtue of their driving habits but by the age group in which they find themselves. This legislation also eliminates, besides age and sex qualifications of rating, marital status and regional location qualifications.

This government believes in the young people of our province. We do not believe young people should be judged guilty by association in a time when human rights are given more than lip service in North America and in British Columbia. We wish to give more than lip service to human rights in this House and in this province.

This non-discriminatory legislation will give leadership to many who have not been able to understand the rating system historically produced by insurance companies. The Premier has said, and rightly so, that we ask the young people of our province to set goals for themselves. We ask them to try to live up to them. In the educational system we say we wish them to go further in education, strive for a higher education, and strive for higher technical skills. We ask them to strive for citizenship goals which will help to

[ Page 1100 ]

make our communities better places, and we ask them to volunteer for community work. As parents, we call on them to strive to create good homes and to be good examples. Yet in this one area in society, in automobile insurance, we say: "No matter how well you drive, now matter what safety measures you take on the highway, no matter what your driving record is, you will pay because you happen to have been born male in an era which puts you under the 25-year age bracket, and because you didn't happen to get married early in life."

We also say to a vast majority of people that because they live in a certain place they do not have a postage stamp rate such as we have in the paying of electrical energy. But in automobile insurance they must be discriminated against in favour of a few areas in the province.

There has been much discussion, Mr. Speaker, on whether or not this will change the premiums for most drivers. I say to you that present ICBC findings tell us 81 percent of our drivers are safe drivers. It should be noted that in these past years, given that they are driving the same automobile or in the same category of automobile, drivers in that 81 percent safe-driving bracket have not had an increase in their automobile insurance in these past 36 months, assuming they drive the same make and category of automobile.

This, Mr. Speaker, is pathfinding legislation which will blaze the trail for upholding human rights and fairness for all in the rating of automobile insurance in this province. It is the most remarkable and most enlightened concept for automobile insurance to be presented in this nation and, in fact, in the world. It eliminates the presumption of guilt.

The most important aspect of this legislation, however, is not that it is first, but that it is fair. I am pleased to move second reading of Bill 33.

MR. HALL: In rising to support this bill, Mr. Speaker, I want to welcome the return of the government, and of the corporation essentially, although I know the minister is keen and correct and anxious to tell how she is going to be successful in the fact that this bill will apply to all sectors of the insurance business.... I want to welcome the return to the policies that really were in place between '73 and '75.

I find it interesting that the minister would almost get into hyperbole in describing the bill, when she's really describing what was going on between '73 and '75, giving us both a little debating latitude. She must know now, as she's been a director of ICBC, that the discrimination because of age and sex was a very minor portion of the rates and that the continuation — and the fulfilment — of our plan to remove territorial differences is now, thank goodness, a reality.

During the time I was on the board, we reduced the number of territories, I think, to four or five from a very high number in 1973. I do want to welcome that in supporting the bill. But I do want to say to her that we should also, in passing, remember who it was who put those rates up, and who it was who introduced almost a vicious discrimination against young people. Let's not kid ourselves. Mr. Attorney-General, you would not have had the kind of protests there were in my riding and other ridings in '76 unless that word was current — unless that word was negotiable. Let's not kid ourselves.

The fact of the matter is that there was a differentiation among young people when the member for Point Grey, who was the fellow in charge of the board, introduced his rates. We all remember. In fact, if you go around, you can still see some of the burnper stickers that were the order of the day about those rates.

So I do want to mention to you, Mr. Speaker, that while we welcome the introduction of the bill, we should remember where this government has been in its rate structure and where it's been in terms of its discrimination that it was prepared to live with for the last three, four or five years.

What it really means, and this perhaps is the most important point, is that while money is important and while that differentiation is important, the government is now saying it agrees with the New Democratic Party and its speeches, lo these last 20 years, about the fact that the provision of automobile insurance is no longer just a private business of the marketplace. It is indeed part of a social policy for this province. If you are going to make something compulsory, then first of all you have to make sure that it is provided at the best possible cost, and, secondly, you've got to get into place the right kind of rates and the right kind of rules.

For the minister now to stand up in her place supported by her cabinet colleagues, all of whom have had the odd time on the board — and say that this is pioneer legislation, that it's the best, that it's the first, and so on, only goes to show that there is now a political determination of what is happening in the automobile industry as far as the provision of coverage is concerned. There is something they were not prepared to admit, something they were not prepared to say, something that they wanted to be a thousand miles away from. But we all know they were in it every day up to their necks. The rates and everything else are set by the political, the elected official process, and not simply by osmosis through a bunch of people sitting around a table deciding what would be the best rates. We are facing up to the fact that automobile coverage is an important part of social policy in this province. I welcome the minister for late conversion to that fact.

That is by way of welcoming the introduction of the bill and supporting its principle. The bill, however, has got off to rather a bad start. It has been accompanied by a barrage of media comment which has little to do, perhaps, with the principles that the minister wants to espouse. There was the interview with the Minister of Human Resources, who is responsible for the bill but wouldn't answer the questions. Then there was the interview with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), who is not responsible for the bill but wouldn't stop answering questions — even those that were not put to him. I think that is interesting. It is something that has happened before, and it will happen again, I'm sure. I think it is unfortunate, because that must mean that the directors of ICBC and Mr. Sherrell must really wonder who is in charge on this side of the water. I don't think they have any doubts as to who is in charge on the other side of the water; but they must wonder what happens to the conduit cable across the gulf.

There was the interesting picture — if one can make these pictures in one's mind, on reading the accounts of the introduction and first reading in the notes accompanying the bill — of the Premier who dashed upstairs to rewrite the press conference. Following that we had the Minister of Municipal Affairs — my partner, Mr. Speaker, who unfortunately sits on the other side of the House — who

[ Page 1101 ]

wanted to rewrite the press conference altogether. He wanted to dump the six-point program which he announced. "Minister of Municipal Affairs Softens His Stand" was one headline. He announced the six-point program on a weekend, and denounced it the next day. Then he had the discourtesy, certainly not the gallantry, to make some qualitative analysis of the intelligence of the Minister of Human Resources. That was unfortunate, and it doesn't speak well. Finally, we had the Premier again joining the debate in the media, and in public, of this most important bill — one that has been put to us today as significant, important, challenging, first, pioneer, and all the other superlatives that the minister used. We had the Premier agreeing to an exclusive interview, provided that the interviewer would promise not to have an interview with the Minister of Municipal Affairs for a year. I think that makes for a lot of fun in politics, and I think we have all had our fun with it.

In supporting the bill I want to wish the bill and the corporation well. I want to wish, indeed, this legislation well, as it tackles the private sector. As one who has spent a great deal of time — and a great deal of my period as minister — over ICBC, I want to congratulate the minister for bringing it in, even though it is a late conversion to this principle, and to wish the bill well and to promise the minister all the support we can give her in ending the kind of discrimination she has denounced. In supporting second reading of the bill I want to say what a splendid day it was in 1973 when we started a corporation which is essentially for the people of British Columbia and owned by the people of British Columbia — and let's hope it stays that way forever.

MR. BRUMMET: I would just like to comment briefly on this bill. First of all, I would say that it goes without saying that the people in the north will be delighted to know that their one other penalty for living in the north is being removed — that hits close to home.

The other portion of the bill which eliminates discrimination against young people also hits close to home. For many years my experience with young people had been fairly close. I'd always found that the majority of them are responsible people, and that too often the group is judged by the irresponsible actions of a small minority. As a driving instructor as well I have found in the past that young people do have the potential to be very skilful drivers, very good drivers. They have probably the best reaction time of any age group, and the physical abilities; they simply lack a bit of the experience.

I'm glad that has happened, and I would like to suggest to the minister that whatever promotion is done to promote the advantages of this elimination of discrimination be done in as positive a manner as possible. For instance, in the drinking-driver promotions the scare tactics were, I think, very effective. I would like to see the opposite — a very positive approach taken towards the young people, perhaps not of the type that says the rates will get you if you drive foolishly. I would not like to take that approach, but to take the approach that it will really pay you to drive as well as you are potentially capable of doing. I would like to see as positive an approach as possible.

I've found in my experience with young people that is the most effective approach; I think that will get the best response. I'm fully convinced that will cut claim costs. When these young people can take pride in driving well, in getting the same low rates as other people, it will cut claim costs and it may even, with proper policies this time around, make the philosophy that we seem to agree on with the opposition.... Maybe the proper policies will make it work financially as well as socially.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: In reference to the hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), who has tried in his remarks in this House in regard to this bill to get on the side of a Social Credit policy, I'm just a little surprised, because this is the first time we've ever heard on the floor of this House that they had ever planned to eliminate discrimination. In fact, he tells us that all of the adjectives and the superlatives used by myself in my opening address on this bill are incorrect. In effect, Mr. Speaker, I have not elaborated sufficiently on the fact that this is a first and that it is pathfinder legislation that was not only not suggested by that party on the other side of the House, but was never a concern of theirs when they introduced the plan. In fact, had they planned to bring in such a policy, it would have been so much easier to bring it in, in the introduction of Autoplan or the introduction of ICBC, in the very beginning. To bring it in now, four years after the fact, is more difficult for this administration. Had it really been the idea of the socialists on the other side of the House to bring it in, they would certainly have done it at that time, when it would have been so much easier to do.

I don't mind remembering, as the member for Surrey has encouraged us to do. I don't mind at all remembering another burnper sticker, and I don't mind referring to it, because he talks about the burnper stickers that prevailed after our administration took over the defunct ICBC administration, which was then $212 million in debt. You will recall that whenever they introduced automobile insurance in their platform as a political party, there was a burnper sticker that asked all of us in British Columbia whether we wanted automobile insurance for $25. Promises like that, memories which we all can look back on in terms of the socialist treatment of automobile insurance in this province, are embarrassing in the extreme to that side of the House.

The $212 million which was lost was money that.... They tinkered with the ICBC program in a political manner which will go down in the annals of history in this province as a shame to that political party, because what it resulted in was a burden of $212 million that the people of this province had to carry. If that wasn't political tinkering, I don't know what was.

This bill does not tinker politically with the dollars. It gives direction to all insurance companies that they shall end discrimination in this province. It clearly sets out that all insurance corporations in this province will start with the same ground rules as of the time of the passage of this bill.

The member says that it's a splendid day. It is a splendid day. It's a splendid day for the young people in this province, for the automobile drivers in this province. It's a great day for the passage of Bill 33, an Act to end discrimination in automobile insurance in this province. I am pleased to move second reading of Bill 33.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

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

[ Page 1102 ]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 33 to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 33, Automobile Insurance Non-discrimination Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
NON-DISCRIMINATION ACT

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

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: 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, Automobile Insurance Non-Discrimination Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

OBSOLETE STATUTES REPEAL ACT

HON. MR. WOLFE: It is with mixed feelings that I introduce for second reading Bill 20, which is exactly what it says: Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act. It's an honour to stand here and move for the removal of some laws rather than adding on some new ones.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

This bill represents an accumulation of considerable work by Dr. Gilbert Kennedy, who investigated some 62 outdated, redundant and spent statutes. Some of these date back to the days of Queen Victoria. These are to be repealed by an omnibus statute.

I'd like to make it clear that, by identifying these statutes which are no longer necessary, we hope this will be an ongoing process. Through the deregulatory process we would like to bring on further lists for removal of statutes, perhaps at the next session.

Only a few of these statutes contained in the present repeal Act are really causing any trouble. There is nothing worse than uncertainty or confusion in the state of the law. However, it is the feeling of the government that if a law is not used or ought not to be used, it should be repealed. This is the first step in that process.

The 62 statutes fall into three categories: those that were passed as one-shot Acts — for instance, authorization of spending for a specific purpose or to deal with a particular problem; those statutes which are now redundant and are no longer in use; and those that are obsolete. Examples of this last group are the Goat-breeders Protection Act, the Threshers' Lien Act, and the Sales on Consignment Act.

The list of bills to be removed are in the Act before us. It includes such items as the Canada-British Columbia Potato-warehouse Construction Assistance Act; I thought I should point that out.

I have pleasure in moving second reading.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 20 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 20, Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

OBSOLETE STATUTES REPEAL ACT

The House in committee on Bill 20; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. HALL: I thought it would be better if we dealt with this bill in committee rather than in second reading. I have two comments to make. First of all, I want to say that we've heard something earlier in debate today about postage stamp rates for insurance. The passage of this bill, specifically the Cyril Morley Shelford Reimbursement Act, will leave the statutes of this province without any reference at all to any commitment this government may have had to postage stamp rates on gasoline.

Members from the north might be interested to know that this is really the "deep six" you might have in terms of plans to get anything decent in terms of gasoline prices for your constituents. This particular member, Mr. Shelford, worked long and hard and toured this province. It was in recognition of his work on postage stamp prices for gasoline, which appears to be abandoned by this government, which occasioned the passage of this statute. It gave him some money to reimburse him for the expenses that were paid by himself in fighting the fight for the members of the north, fighting the fight for those people in the north who have to pay exorbitant prices for gasoline over and above those paid by the members down on the coast.

I think it's sad to see this statute go without some mention that the north appears to have been abandoned.

My second point, Mr. Chairman, is that there is one statute perhaps above all that might be looked at. I would like to move an amendment to section 1. I would like to see an amendment that would include another statute entitled the Ministry of Deregulation Act.

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, in speaking to that amendment, that it's really beyond reason to think that this bill has anything at all to do with the Ministry of Deregulation. This bill has been prepared by an employee of another ministry who is not even in the Ministry of Deregulation. It was someone from the Attorney-General's staff.

[ Page 1103 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think prior to moving the amendment we should determine whether the amendment is in order. It does go beyond the scope of the bill, which is the first reason that it's difficult to find this amendment in order. On that basis, I suggest that the amendment is out of order.

MR. HALL: Do you mean that we can't add to a list of statutes that we consider to be obsolete, Mr. Chairman? I thought nothing was more crystal clear than that this ministry was actually obsolete. However, I will defer to your ruling, obviously. I regret it because I think that this bill would take on a whole new meaning if we could include those three or four short words.

In speaking to the section, we see no reason to clutter up the statute books with these obsolete statutes, and we'll be supporting them. However, I did want to make sure that the members for the north knew of the history of one of these bills, and hopeed that I could persuade both you, Mr. Chairman, sir, and the others that there was really one very obsolete Act missing from that list.

MR. HANSON: The extensive list of Acts includes the name of the Margaret Frances Hobbs Act, and her name is about to be struck from the statutes of British Columbia. I just want to advise the House that Mrs. Hobbs is alive and well and working for social and economic justice for British Columbians, and we wish her well. She's looking forward to us forming the next government.

Sections 1 to 3 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 20, Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill M 209.

UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA
FOUNDATION ACT, 1979

MR. SMITH: It's an honour to move second reading of this bill, which is really a bill that is trying to facilitate a foundation that began in 1954 when this institution was known as Victoria College, and which gave it some rather limited garments to carry out the business of raising modest sums of money for scholarships and bursaries.

Now the University of Victoria is a major institution, and the University of Victoria Foundation has had a rather large increase in its funds in the last few years, with the addition of $4.5 million accruing from the sale of the Lansdowne campus. It has become imperative that the University of Victoria Foundation now have available to it the modern facilities of investment counsel, and that its powers be spelled out a little more broadly. This bill does provide for modern management tools for the University of Victoria Foundation and it also gives the new foundation a general-purposes mandate which will encourage it to go out and seek financial support to put the University of Victoria scholarship and bursary program on a very active and progressive basis.

In the bringing of this Act here today I acknowledge the assistance, cooperation and support of the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), and the members of his party as well. The bill has been presented by me as a private member because the University of Victoria is in my constituency. The bill has been carefully drafted by the university's solicitors, and redrafted by legislative counsel. I am delighted to move second reading, if there is no debate.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

MR. BARBER: I'll be very brief, Mr. Speaker. I wish to second the remarks of my colleague for Oak Bay–Gordon Head and to tell him that on behalf of myself and my colleague, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson), we have been very pleased at the courtesy extended, the information provided, and the advance notice made available in order that we, too, could study the bill and come to a determination on behalf of the official opposition as to whether or not it should be supported. I thank him for the courtesy, the information and the advance notice, and I am happy, on behalf of the opposition, to support this private member's bill.

Motion approved.

MR. SMITH: I ask leave to refer Bill M209 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill M209, University of Victoria Foundation Act, 1979, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA
FOUNDATION ACT, 1979

The House in committee on Bill M209; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 8 inclusive approved.

On section 9.

MR. BARBER: I have a brief question, which I hope the member for Oak Bay may....

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: I think that is how it should work, Mr. Chairman. I am equally unfamiliar with the procedure, but....

Can the member inform the House whether or not the property know as Maltwood is governed or would be governed by the provisions of section 9 as we read them here? The member will be aware, as other members might who follow affairs at the university, that the problem of the

[ Page 1104 ]

disposition of the Maltwood property has been a considerable one. I wonder whether the member anticipates or has information he could bring to us that indicates whether or not that problem would be resolved by the application of the provisions of section 9.

MR. SMITH: I thank the first member for Victoria. Unfortunately the mandate of the University of Victoria Foundation does not extend to the Maltwood museum and the Maltwood property. That question of Maltwood is for the consideration of the board of governors at the university and not for the foundation, so it will not be covered by section 9.

Sections 9 to 17 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Bill M209, University of Victoria Foundation Act, 1979, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 27, Mr. Speaker.

LEGAL SERVICES SOCIETY ACT

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, this Act will amalgamate the resources of the Legal Services Commission and the Legal Aid Society into the new Legal Services Society and unify and coordinate legal-service delivery throughout the province.

The Legal Aid Society has existed for about 30 years in B.C., providing legal service and advice to people, who, through lack of resources, could not retain legal counsel. This was accomplished by a combination of paid and volunteer work by lawyers in private practice, with their services focusing primarily on criminal and family law matters.

The Legal Services Commission was created, in 1975 with the coming into force of the Legal Services Commission Act, and this statute gave the commission responsibility for planning the delivery of legal services to people who required them, but had to go without because of their financial circumstances. It also gave the commission responsibility for the distribution to organizations of money provided by the Legislature for legal services and legal education programs.

To rationalize the overlap of responsibilities, the proposal to amalgamate the Legal Aid Society and the Legal Services Commission resulted from very fulsome and extensive consultation among each of the chairmen and the ministry which I represent. This new Legal Services Society Act, Mr. Speaker, is the result of that proposal. With the staffs of the two organizations being brought together and with one board of directors to make funding and policy decisions for the whole of the province, it is expected that better and more efficient services will be provided, with policy decisions being made on a more coordinated basis.

At present, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of community law offices throughout B.C. funded by the Legal Services Commission, as well as legal aid offices — they're also funded by the commission, but they're run by the Legal Aid Society. Under the proposed legislation it is expected that, in communities where there are both community law offices and legal aid offices, they will eventually be brought together under the one roof. The amalgamation has been the product of a tremendous amount of organization and goodwill on the part of all of the people who were concerned and involved with the delivery of legal services to those in our society who would not otherwise be able to afford them. I think these people are indeed to be congratulated for their efforts. This includes the directors of the Legal Aid Society, the commissioners of the Legal Services Commission, the staffs of both organizations, the directors and staff of the community law offices, the benchers of the Law Society of British Columbia, the executive of the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association and a lot of other groups and individuals. They've all worked together to bring about one solid, central organization to provide the most efficient manner in which legal services may be delivered throughout the province. It's a good step forward, it's a positive step forward, and it is supported and backed by all of the sectors involved. I'm most pleased to receive encouragement from this side of the House, and I hope to move second reading now.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to having legal aid services and the services of the community law clinics under the Legal Services Commission. We don't object to a change in structure, but there are some caveats that should be mentioned in this House before second reading is given to this bill.

We don't want a change of direction away from paralegal help out in the communities. We don't want a change of direction which would curtail the very good work that is now being done by the community legal aid offices, staffed by lay people, but people experienced in helping other people with their problems. We don't want the process of lay representation, which is present in the statute under the Legal Services Commission, to be diminished. I'm glad that the Attorney-General, in that section, has said that at least 4 of the 14 directors on the new body will be lay people — at least four. I think it should be more than four, because I think there are other qualified people, in addition to the lawyers, who know something about the law and the settlement of community disputes.

You know, sometimes lawyers do have a vested interest in seeing a simple case made into a federal case. I hate to say that — I'm a lawyer myself — but I think I could get some support from various sections in the House in saying that. I really think that in the field of criminal procedure, for example, we have lengthy, complex, technical trials that may serve the interests of the lawyers involved more than they serve the interests of the community or the accused. So the process of demystifying the law and making it simpler, and the process of greater participation by the community in the settlement of disputes between individuals, should carry on.

[ Page 1105 ]

Under the old setup you could abolish the community law offices simply by starving them of funds, and under the new society they could be abolished. The one in Skidegate is doing good work and is run largely by the native Indian representatives in that society. There are other ones doing good work in other parts of the province; I think there are 16 in all at the present time.

We will be watching the bill carefully to see that the work of these bodies is not curtailed. We will be carefully watching the budgets that are presented to this Legislature, because the fact of the matter is that there are not sufficient resources being placed behind the provision of legal services to the community at the present time. I don't know what the budget is; it's about $10 million. It's not enough. Whatever was in the books, it is not enough, and the fact that it is not enough shows up in this legislation, where in one section the kind of people who can apply for legal help because they can't afford to present their case in a court, or before a tribunal, is restricted to those cases which are either criminal in nature, involving possible loss of liberty, or to those cases which affect the person's actual livelihood. As the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) pointed out, there's no provision in that charter for granting aid to groups — only to individuals. But sometimes you might have a group or a partnership that also need legal aid assistance, or a group seeking to form a society or something of that kind to do useful community work.

There are defects in the bill, and I'm disturbed about section 9, but I won't go into it in any detail. I wish the Attorney-General would take another look at that. It seems to be saying that somebody without the approval of a judge or the head of a tribunal can't even go before the unemployment insurance commissioners. I will look at the amendment carefully, and perhaps speak to that in committee.

Mr. Speaker, in closing I would like to say this to the House: law is far too important a matter to be left up to the lawyers.

MR. HALL: I just want to buttress the remarks about section 9. Perhaps we should do it in committee, Mr. Speaker, but....

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's amended, Ernie.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You should look at the amendment before you talk about it.

MR. HALL: If you'll allow me, I was going to say the Attorney-General has a habit of whispering to those people who talk to him, through you, Mr. Speaker, and the rest of us don't get to know. Is the Attorney-General saying that he's producing an amendment?

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's been on the order paper for two days.

MR. HALL: Fine. Thank you very much. That's all I wanted to know, and I want to tell him this: if it is on the order paper, that's the first thing you've produced that we've asked for on this side, considering you were absent from question period and you've still got two reports you promised me personally.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Oh, Ernie!

MR. HALL: The big smile doesn't affect me one little bit, Mr. Attorney-General. Information does, not the smile.

I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I've had more calls on section 9 than almost anything else during this session. We only try to reflect this to this minister who, I presume, has some desire to see good legislation, well-drafted legislation, legislation that will work and won't have to come back again time and time again. You've got the message. Therefore, in rising to complain about section 9.... I hope we'll see that the amendment is going to work, and I'd like the minister to stand up and tell us about it, as well as just put it on the order paper.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm happy to close the debate, Mr. Speaker, and to respond to the two speakers, and certainly to inform them that the position of the paralegal is adequately protected within the statute. I'm delighted to reiterate the fact that this measure that we're proposing today is totally supported by all of the people who are involved in this process on all sides; I'm very happy about that. I gather also that it's being supported by the official opposition, as I've anticipated it would be.

Dealing with the amendments, they are on the order paper, and I'll be happy to speak to them when we get the bill into committee, which I hope will be very soon. Accordingly, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 27 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 27, Legal Services Society Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

LEGAL SERVICES SOCIETY ACT

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

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to reiterate some of the comments that were made in the Attorney-General's estimates by me and the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald). In section 3 it states: "The objects of the society are to ensure that (a) services ordinarily provided by a lawyer are afforded to individuals who would not otherwise receive them because of financial or other reasons, and (b) education, advice and information about law are provided for the people of British Columbia." My point is, again, that $10 million out of $186 million in the Attorney-General's estimates was allocated for legal services to the ordinary people of the province. That is insufficient, that is grossly imbalanced, and I would think that, in the establishment of your estimates for the coming

[ Page 1106 ]

year, you should look to greatly expanding the money for the 14 community legal aid offices in the province.

Having represented the employees of the Legal Aid Society, I am well aware of what they do, the kind of tasks they perform, and the amount of involvement and dedication that is involved. If you have ever visited Alexander Street in Vancouver you would have seen a room packed full of people seeking help. They have too few lawyers, too few paralegals, too few clerical people....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are not debating estimates at this point.

MR. HANSON: That is just the preamble to my comment.

Section 3 refers to the particular service to be provided, and it is to be provided to individuals. What about groups of people who would like to form a housing cooperative, a food cooperative, a recycling depot, or would like to take a class action on an environmental issue? There are all sorts of areas where the Legal Services Commission should be making legal help available to groups, and this is not provided for. Where do they go, Mr. Chairman? If it is omitted in the people's legal assistance Act, where is it? Where is the assistance for this kind of thing? Surely the Legal Services Commission, or whatever the new society is called.... The fact that it is established in 14 areas of the province, and that is the appropriate structure for it.... Surely you could just change that to persons, or to individuals, or groups — you are nodding; but nothing is going to happen.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: No, the second is native people.

Because the native people of the province get most of the legal assistance from this Act, and there is so little money for it — it is disproportionately low to what is required — I am asking you to beef it up in your next estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please, hon. member, we are not discussing estimates. Speak to section 3.

HON. MR. GARDOM: In response to the hon. member, Mr. Chairman, I draw to his attention that under the Interpretation Act the singular includes the plural, so "individual" refers to individuals, which could conceivably deal with groups of people, or class actions, and so forth.

MR. HANSON: That's all very well and good, Mr. Chairman. However, they don't have the staffing to do it, and I think you should advise the people at the Legal Aid Society that they can, in fact, act on behalf of groups, because they are not aware of it.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

On section 5.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move the amendment to section 5 standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

For the hon. members who have not yet checked the order paper, the substance of the amendment is to ensure that at least four of the directors chosen from the two groups shall not be lawyers.

Amendment approved.

Section 5 as amended approved.

Sections 6 to 8 inclusive approved.

On section 9.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move the amendment to section 9 standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

This is really dealing with the point that was raised by the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald). The word "tribunal" is deleted, so leave is not required for paralegals to appear in front of tribunals.

On the amendment.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, that improves the situation in regard to tribunals. I would have thought, though, that heretofore a law student or a paralegal could appear in the small claims court. Now you have it subject here to the restriction that the judge must approve. All I'd like to say about that is....

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: I suppose that's probably the practice now, but I think it's a practice to be watched, because in a proper case — say, to go in for an adjournment or something of that kind — there is no reason why a paralegal can't do that. There may be cases in the small claims court, or in the provincial court, where a paralegal can and should act and represent a client.

I think we should watch this with care, and make sure that these people are not being unduly hindered in developing a necessary auxiliary service to the lawyers.

Amendment approved.

Section 9 as amended approved.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

HON. MR. GARDOM: There is also an amendment to section 11 on the order paper, and I move the amendment, Mr. Chairman. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 11 as amended approved.

Sections 12 and 13 approved.

On section 14.

HON. MR. GARDOM: On section 14, Mr. Chairman, I have handed to the desk, and also a copy to the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett), an amendment to section 14,

[ Page 1107 ]

substituting the word "auditor general" for the word "comptroller-general."

Amendment approved.

Section 14 as amended approved.

On section 15.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move the amendment to section 15 standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 15 as amended approved.

Sections 16 to 21 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 27, Legal Services Society Act, reported complete with amendments.

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

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

Leave granted.

Bill 27, Legal Services Society Act, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 23, Mr. Speaker.

ENERGY AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

HON. MR. HEWITT: Bill 23 has two major areas: one deals with surplus energy producers and the other with pipelines, basically common carrier pipelines.

First of all, to the surplus energy producers, the purpose of the amendment is to encourage industrial incorporations to generate electricity surplus to their requirements, thereby simultaneously improving their economics and at the same time benefiting the people of the province by encouraging the utilization of waste products by developing them into increasingly valuable energy, diversifying the production of energy, and encouraging the development of the lowest-cost source of supply for the benefit of the consumer.

The current legislation, the Energy Act, defeats the above purpose inasmuch that as soon as a corporation sells in excess of 15 percent of its electricity to someone other than B.C. Hydro, the entire corporation can become an energy utility, and hence be subject to regulation by the Energy Commission.

The new legislation, although it removes the surplus energy producers from the jurisdiction of the commission, does not remove the surplus energy producer from regulation. It merely transfers that regulation from the commission to the competitive marketplace.

However, it can be seen from the legislation that protection is afforded the public inasmuch as approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is required before a surplus energy producer can exist; and conditions are, of course, established for that surplus energy producer via the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

The intention of the legislation, Mr. Speaker, is to encourage a number of producers to compete for the opportunity to sell the surplus to utilities or other customers; public protection will be achieved through appropriate condtions of sale. The public interest on government policy on energy will have been met for a designation to be given, and reflected in conditions which are acceptable.

Mr. Speaker, this falls well within our guidelines for an energy policy for the province of British Columbia. I also look to the future, because once the technology improves, we will be dealing with surplus energy producers using municipal waste to produce energy, thereby taking, you might say, a waste product and making it into a by-product. There is a major step forward.

The other thrust of the amendments of this bill is in regard to the definition of "common carrier." In this province, with the activity in the natural gas, oil exploration and, possibly, other sources of energy — but basically natural gas — we can have a number of producers who have drilled wells, who have found gas reserves, but due to the fact that they haven't got a pipeline to the main transmission line, they find that some of their reserves can be drawn down, because an adjacent well is drawing gas from the same common pool.

Before this amendment, there used to be some negotiations between various producers and pipeline companies to get a common pipeline so all producers could share in getting their gas to the main transmission line. Because of the activity, we feel that it would be better to have it in legislation and on application to the Energy Commission. After hearings a decision will be made to designate a pipeline to be a common carrier in order that all producers would be treated equally if they are drawing from the same common pool. Following on that has to be the designation of the common purchaser, in regard to the gas in that pipeline, and a common processor. With those comments, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to move second reading, and would be quite prepared to answer any questions that may be raised.

MR. D'ARCY: I would like to indicate to the House that the opposition will be supporting this bill. I do have some concerns, though, that I think we will discuss now, rather than leave them for the committee stage.

My major concern is that the interests of the consumers in B.C. be protected. As I said before, the principle of the bill is a good one. It allows for co-generation of power and for individual companies which are in the business of producing power for their own purposes to market it whenever and wherever they see fit to retail power distributors. My concern, Mr. Speaker, is that no corporation in its right mind is going to sell power on the open market for less than the going rate to them.

[ Page 1108 ]

It is possible that in the future a private producer of power could find that he could get a better price for that power on the international market — regulated, of course, by the National Energy Board — or on the interprovincial market. We have had the experience in British Columbia of private power producers wheeling power internationally and interprovincially through their own lines and through B.C. Hydro lines. My concern is that it could be in the financial interests of a private company — and I certainly don't knock them for this; this is the way the game is played — to sell surplus power, which they can produce at a considerably lower price than B.C. Hydro, nationally or interprovincially. This would force consumers in B.C., who are serviced either by Hydro or by private power companies, to buy more expensive power generated by B.C. Hydro. As the minister knows, for a number of reasons, power generated privately in B.C., where it is available and whenever it is available, is often cheaper than that power generated by B.C. Hydro.

I would like to have the minister assure the House, when he closes the debate, that the interests of B.C. consumers will be protected, and that surplus power produced in British Columbia will be made available to British Columbia consumers first. That is, British Columbia commercial, residential and industrial consumers will always have first refusal on co-generated industrial power through whatever retail distribution system it is marketed.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I appreciate the comments that were made by the member for Rossland-Trail. The protection that we'll see is in the conditions that would be set in designating that industry as a surplus energy producer. I would not be too receptive to designating an industry as a surplus energy producer for the export market. I think their prime function is to supply power — under conditions that would be set, and on a basis of competitive price in the marketplace — and we would be looking at the surplus energy producers mainly serving domestic consumers. We are looking at something about which we want to have assurance that we don't jeopardize our domestic consumer, and the designation with conditions would ensure that would not happen. With those comments, Mr. Speaker, I would move second reading of Bill 23.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 23 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 23, Energy Amendment Act, 1979, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

ENERGY AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

The House in committee on Bill 23; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. D'ARCY: I have another question for the minister regarding the designation. As I read the bill, it does not indicate that a surplus energy producer can be designated retroactively. In other words, if cabinet, in its wisdom, decides not to designate an energy producer as someone who must go before the Energy Commission for purposes of considering the export of surplus energy provincially or internationally, and that producer should decide at some future date to enter into an agreement — perhaps even the next day — can the minister assure the House that government is likely to change the rules regarding that particular producer? That concerns me, and quite frankly, I think it would concern most producers.

Most people in business like to know whether the conditions under which they are going to operate are going to have some degree of consistency, and that the government is not going to turn around a few weeks or a few months later and say: "Hey, what you did a while ago was okay; what you're doing right now isn't, and we're changing the rules." I don't think that any producer is going to want to get locked into a situation where its powers to fulfil contracts it may have negotiated either with utilities in British Columbia or internationally or interprovincially may be restricted by government after they have made those arrangements and during the terms of those arrangements.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In the conditions, there has to be permanency so that surplus energy producer can enter into those long-term contracts they may wish to have. That would be part of the conditions. I entirely agree that you can't set him up as a surplus-energy producer, only to change it a few weeks, months or years down the road. Those all have to be taken into consideration when he applies for designation as a surplus energy producer. He would have to show, to the satisfaction of government, that he can meet those future requirements for contract.

MR. D'ARCY: I agree that the conditions regarding the production, export and marketing.... Once again, though, I must ask if the minister can assure us that under those situations where he says, "No, we're not going to change it once the conditions are set, " the interests of the consumers in British Columbia, and the utilities supplying consumers, are always going to be protected. It seems to me that it's rather difficult to have it both ways.

HON. MR. HEWITT: We're talking about a surplus energy producer. Identified in that being a surplus energy producer, we're not disrupting the main energy production, say, by B.C. Hydro or West Kootenay Power in this province. If there's a surplus energy producer, first of all, his main thrust will be the domestic market and probably to either another industry adjacent to him, as a separate buy-sell contract, or to a domestic utility. The Act itself gives that protection. Again, it's surplus over and above our domestic needs. But, in most cases, what it will do, because most of these sales will be to a local utility, is offset some of the demands for new capital expenditure, say, by B.C. Hydro or West Kootenay Power.

I'm not sure of the concern the member has. I'm just saying that we're dealing with surplus energy producers, and we're dealing with conditions that there be no exposure or risk for domestic consumers. These have to be set down on application and have to be justified by the applicant to the government.

[ Page 1109 ]

MR. DARCY: Maybe I could ask a specific hypothetical question of the minister. We have a very good case of a good corporate citizen in my riding. Cominco is a very large producer of power. They use some of that power themselves, industrially, in Trail and Kimberley. A great deal of that power, though, they market to a wholly owned subsidiary, West Kootenay Power and Light, for a nominal sum. On an interruptible basis, on occasion they have also exported power to Calgary Power and to Bonneville. With this amendment — and I certainly have no knowledge that either of these companies would act in this way — what is to prevent that firm, or any firm not in the retail market for power, such as Cominco, from selling that power interprovincially or internationally and forcing its wholly owned subsidiary, or some other company in the retail sector, from buying much more expensive power from British Columbia Hydro? Is there anything to prevent that after you have set your conditions and regulations?

HON. MR. HEWITT: You set the conditions at the time of application. The Cominco-West Kootenay relationship is a prime example of the type of condition that has to be set in the beginning. I would suggest to you that one of those conditions has to be an ample supply of power to West Kootenay from Cominco. Any sales for export would be interruptible, because the domestic consumer has to come first.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 3 standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 3 as amended approved.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

On section 6.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, you don't have it in front of you, but there is an amendment standing in my name on the order paper adding section 6. [See appendix.] I would so move.

Section 6 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 23, Energy Amendment Act, 1979, reported complete with amendments.

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

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

Leave granted,

Bill 23, Energy Amendment Act, 1979, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 28, Mr. Speaker.

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
SUBSIDIARY AGREEMENT LOAN
REPAYMENT REVOLVING FUND ACT

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm happy to move second reading. Basically, what we're doing is we're taking all that money, and we're going to put it into a fund, and we're going to recycle it. I move second reading.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 28 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

The House in committee on Bill 28; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 28, Industrial Development Subsidiary Agreement Loan Repayment Revolving Fund Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 16. Mr. Speaker.

LAND AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

Bill 16, Land Amendment Act, 1979, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 26, Mr. Speaker.

METRO TRANSIT OPERATING COMPANY ACT

The House in committee on Bill 26; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

[ Page 1110 ]

Sections 1 to 11 inclusive approved.

On section 12.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, we passed by it so quickly.... There's a small amendment to section 2(1). [See appendix.] Could we go back to that?

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, the Chair, perhaps quite correctly, has followed rules. When a member from this side has missed a section by even one, quite a point is made of it. So I would ask you to ask leave that we return to section 2.

Leave granted.

On section 2.

Amendment approved.

Section 2 as amended approved.

Section 12 as amended approved.

Sections 13 to 17 inclusive approved.

Schedules 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Did you go by schedule 2, Mr. Chairman? There's an amendment on the order paper. [See appendix.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Can the committee have leave to go back to schedule 2?

Leave granted.

On schedule 2.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I move the amendment as on the order paper, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have no amendment on the order paper.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It's on the order paper at page 4, at the bottom of the page, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No. 26, an amendment to schedule 2.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: section 1, line 2.

Amendment approved.

Schedule 2 as amended approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 22

Mr. Nicolson requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 26, Metro Transit Operating Company Act, reported complete with amendments.

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

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

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

Leave granted.

Bill 26, Metro Transit Operating Company Act, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 31, Mr. Speaker.

FINANCE STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

The House in committee on Bill 31; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

[ Page 1111 ]

On section 6.

MR. STUPICH: I wonder if the Minister of Finance could explain section 6 to us. Is it just another way of getting more money into consolidated revenue?

HON. MR. WOLFE: No, Mr. Chairman. This is a companion amendment to section 226 of the Public Schools Act, which was introduced just the other day and passed in the Education Statutes Amendment Act, 1970. It is a necessary companion amendment to that other amendment, and has to do with sinking funds.

Sections 6 to 9 inclusive approved.

On section 10.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments to section 10 standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

First of all, I move the amendment in line 7 of proposed section 23(1).

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Secondly, I move the amendment in line 3 of proposed section 23(3).

Amendment approved.

Section 10 as amended approved.

Sections 11 to 27 inclusive approved.

On section 28.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr, Chairman, I move the amendment to section 28 standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 28 as amended approved.

On section 29.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 29 standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 29 as amended approved.

Sections 30 to 35 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 31, Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1979 reported complete with amendments.

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

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

Leave granted.

Bill 31, Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1979, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 30, Mr.Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

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

Sections 1 to 15 inclusive approved.

On section 16.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 16 as amended approved.

Sections 17 and 18 approved.

On section 19.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I think it should be noted that the government is seeking to create an open-ended number of directors that can be on the board of ICBC, and I think that this is absolutely reprehensible. The Legislature in its wisdom, when it passed and brought in this amendment, I think with some urging from some of the members who are in that cabinet, called for some upper limit to be placed on the number of people that could be on the fCBC board of directors. If there is some reason that it has to be increased from 8 to 10 or to 12 or to 20, I think that this should be done. But I just cannot see this thing being opened up to a point where every member of the Social Credit League of British Columbia could be appointed to the board of directors, as is well underway with the Human Rights Commission and well underway with the B.C. Development Corporation.

So, Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 30 be amended in section 19 by deleting "or more than 8" and replacing it with "8" and replacing it with "12." The effect would be to place some reasonable limit, and I move the amendment.

On the amendment.

MR. NICOLSON: It is a complicated wording, of course, because of the way the original amendment was

[ Page 1112 ]

proposed. But I have checked the statute, and what it really does is to change the maximum from 8 to 12. If the minister feels that is too restrictive, I would certainly entertain a subamendment. I think that some kind of upper limit should be placed on these things.

This has to govern the government of the day and future governments, and it is a very serious precedent which is being found here. If the board feels that they want to enrich the resources of the board by bringing in people from a few more disciplines, and if they feel restricted, an increase from 8 to 12 would allow 4 vacancies and a 50 percent increase in the number of people on the board — and that should be a very reasonable figure. However, if a case were made that it should be doubled to 16.... I would think that a board could get unwieldy if it were to go much beyond that.

So I think that this is a reasonable amendment, and I would hope that we would have some indication of the government accepting this.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, Mr. Chairman, in his explanation of his own amendment, the member has cited several figures. He doesn't seem to be clear whether it should be 16, 12, 10 or 8. As a matter of fact, in the practical sense, in the actual operation of the board, it has been found in the past that when someone is needed for a particular expertise.... I would mention a particular member who has served on that board because he had a particular expertise required when there were a very great many problems, when this government first took office, in terms of computerization, and that member served for a short time on the board in order to address himself to that particular area of concern on behalf of the board.

The member who has placed the amendment before you has written into this amendment some sinister motives on the part of the government. Please let me assure the House that the wording of it is simply to expand the board when necessary to take care of the situation, as I have just explained.... At least two new members are needed now to expand the board for the particularly onerous tasks which are before many of the board members. In the financial investment portfolio alone, where the dollars invested make a very great return to the motoring public of this province, we need to strengthen the board and put more people on the board. But I can assure this House that there is no desire to broaden it to an unmanagable or an impractical number, but simply to give us the flexibility to add more than the small number now enshrined in the legislation.

I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we will take the member's comments with all the goodwill with which they were given, and assure him that it will not be a cumbersome board, but that certainly within the next short while I would hope that we would be able to add a couple of new members. I would suggest that the wording is fine as it is in the statute and we would like to stay with the original wording. So we will not accept the amendment.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, I think that the minister has certainly indicated that I have probably struck upon the correct number. She says that they do require about two more people, and that would still leave two vacancies. You know, we do have to be prudent in these things, and the Legislature is constantly being asked to create a.... This is an absolute and open blank cheque, just left to government discretion. You know, I think this just opens the door to.... You might as well change the name of the corporation to Patronage Unlimited, if this amendment is not allowed to stand. If this is not the right figure, the minister has an obligation to prepare correct legislation and bring in responsible legislation and set her figure. There should be an upper limit on this, and let there be no mistake about that, Mr. Chairman.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, in agreeing with the hon. member who moved the amendment, I want to add a simple question to the minister: is there any intention on the part of the government to appoint an MLA to the board of directors of ICBC?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The answer to the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) is no. Also, in response to the member who has put forward the amendment, let me say that any suggestion that the motivation behind the change in the numbers is for a patronage list is just nonsense. The member is trying to raise a red herring in a very simple situation where, as I have explained to you, from time to time when there has been need to bring expertise on to the board, we would like to have that flexibility to do so. This will give us that flexibility. It's as simple as that. Don't try to read some socialist motive into every single thing that comes before the House, because that's what you're doing.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, if ever there were a legislative device to create a Socred Senate, this is it. The refusal of this government to name a prudent, cautious upper limit demonstrates the utterly reckless manner in which they treat the public purse.

I have a question for the minister. Can she inform us, this being the same minister who discovered the secret police, you may remember, as to the per diem that she intends to pay to those newly appointed members of the board of directors of ICBC? What's the per diem going to be?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not in order.

MR. BARBER: Why not?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're discussing an amendment. We had better dispose of the amendment first.

MR. BARBER: Ours is an excellent amendment, and in order to further illustrate the value of the amendment I propose to find out how much it would cost to go the government route as opposed to our own. We propose an amendment which would restrict the ceiling in a cautious and prudent way to 12 persons. The government's original intention is to create a Socred Senate where there is no upper limit and where the sky is the limit as far as money goes. In order, therefore, to further debate the appropriate amendment from my colleague from Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), I ask the minister what the per diem is for members of the board of ICBC.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your question is not relevant to the amendment, hon. member.

[ Page 1113 ]

MR. BARBER: Oh, it is, with respect, Mr. Chairman. We want to know how much it's going to cost the public. I'm sure the minister would be glad to tell us.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

NAYS — 28

Mr. Nicolson requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

On section 19.

MR. BARBER: The problem we have with this section is that, open-endedly and dangerously, it allows the cabinet to waste money on the salaries of ICBC directors, who presently are in receipt of payments of $200 per board meeting and $250 per day for services rendered other than attendance at board meetings.

Let me draw to the attention of the committee the cost of this wasteful, extravagant, money-spending, money-losing amendment. In the period 1976-1977 one N.H. Manning received $6,189 in expenses and $24,610 in fees; a Mr. Tennant received $43,578 in fees; Mr. D.N. Watson received $10,875 in fees; Byron Straight, $8,430 in fees; Ralph Gillen, $17,923 in fees.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: No, that was when there was a limit; that's when there was a ceiling; that's when they couldn't spend everything they wanted to spend, as much as they'd like to spend it. Now they propose to remove the ceiling altogether.

In the period 1978-1979 fees received by Mr. Manning totalled $16,775; the per diem of Mr. Tennant was $27,045; Mr. Watson, $9,175; Mr. Gillen, $34,351. In 1978-1979 how much did this wasteful government spend? Well, on Mr. Manning they spent $10,505 in per diems: on Mr. Tennant, $9,485; on Mr. Watson, $2,075; on Mr. Sutherland, $3,225; on Mr. Gillen, $29,100 was spent on ICBC director's fees.

This is an incredible fortune that they have been spending on the directors' salaries for the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. All of this they found able to spend, all of this money they were committed to spend when there was a ceiling. Now that there's no ceiling at all, how many more hundreds of thousands are going to be spent on the per diems of the directors of ICBC? Far too much.

The amendment proposed by my colleague should have passed. The reasons for it are now plainly evident. This is how much it cost the taxpayers, the insurers of British Columbia, the people of this province: hundreds of thousands of dollars in per diem rates. No wonder the Minister of Human Resources didn't want to answer the question earlier.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, there was, as I understand it, no opportunity for me to answer the question, because you ruled his question out of order. However, I'd like to say to you that those answers which were placed on the order paper and which the member has just read out were placed there by me as minister responsible for ICBC.

I suggest to you that those amounts that were read out by the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) are infinitesimal in comparison with (a) the job that has been done with an incredibly good board of directors, and (b) their responsibility for handling almost $500 million worth of business in the province of British Columbia. In those answers on the order paper, you will note in the expenses of the members of the cabinet who served that they are not given the per diem as are the other directors. Again, some of the expenses and per diems of those who were mentioned as having received expenses and per diems are in line with per diems on other boards. May I say to you that the responsibility which those members carry, in terms of the many millions of dollars which are invested in both short- and long-term investments, to the benefit of the premium-holders of ICBC, is a very great responsibility. In terms of that board of directors, I can tell you that the dollars expended have been very well spent.

Again, may I assure this House that it isn't going to be a very much enlarged board at all; but it will give an ability for the corporation to add membership to the board as a particular need arises for a particular expertise. I'm pleased to support section 19 as it is. I would suggest that all members of the House will vote for it.

HON. MR. McGEER: I'd like to speak briefly to this amendment. I think that the debate on the other side of the House....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The division was on the amendment, and the amendment was defeated. We are now on the section.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, we had in a way a review of that by the member for Victoria, who took pains to....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

[ Page 1114 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I will ask that the members of the opposition please try to cease assisting the Chair in calling for order.

There was an amendment, and the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) spoke on the amendment. I ruled his debate at that time on that particular section of the amendment out of order. However, once the amendment had been defeated we proceeded back to section 19. We are now back on section 19, without amendment, and that is what's open for debate.

HON. MR. McGEER: I quite appreciate that, and I'm responding to the arguments that were raised by the member for Victoria, because I think they illustrate extremely clearly.... Mr. Chairman, I'm talking about the comments that were made by the member for Victoria subsequent to the debate. I appreciate that the Leader of the Opposition is very unwilling to listen to some of the remarks that would be made with respect to Crown corporations that were under his direction at the time the NDP were government.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the member for Victoria read with some considerable heat and bitterness, and the Leader of the Opposition is now heckling with some heat and bitterness, the fact that competent people were recruited to try and bail British Columbia out of the worst corporate mess that ever has existed in this province. It's all very well for the member for Victoria to quote figures with some bitterness regarding whether or not the people of British Columbia obtained value for the money that was spent on those outstanding individuals who came in at a time of severe financial and corporate distress to put that corporation on the rails again. Remember, Mr. Chairman, that corporation lost $187 million of the taxpayers' money in less than two years. For corporate management, it set records every day for losing taxpayers' money. Money that was needed by the people of British Columbia for human resources, for hospitals, for education, and for the development of all kinds of projects, was being sent down the sewer subsidizing automobiles — automobiles, the thing that should be least subsidized of anything. Would the members of the opposition like to declare what deserves to be subsidized less in British Columbia than the automobile? Yet under their direction, between mismanagement and bad policies of the directors they appointed, $187 million of the taxpayers' money went down the drain in less than two years. The plan that was presented to me when we became government...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. McGEER: ...was to lose another further $123 million....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair has tolerated debate from the first member for Victoria which was beyond the scope of the section. Now the minister wishes to get into debate beyond the scope of the section. I would ask that the members read section 19 of Bill 30 and find out how it's possible that the debate can be getting so broad on a mere amendment increasing the number of directors on the board of ICBC. If the minister wishes to continue the debate, that's fine. Members of both sides of the House may wish to broaden the scope of the debate, but the Chair has no interest in doing that, and it's not going to tolerate it. Please continue.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to describe to you, and through you to the members of the opposition, the tremendous value that the taxpayers of British Columbia get from directors of a board such as ICBC. What tremendous value we get, and how underpaid these people are for the services that they have provided to the province of British Columbia! When you hear the kinds of remarks that were made by the member for Victoria, you realize the jeopardy that British Columbia would be in were we to provide power to that group, when they have so little understanding of the contribution that comes from proper management of the assets of British Columbia, whether they are Crown corporations or government ministries. It is this kind of irresponsible talk which reveals the true capability of that opposition and the individual members who represent it. Mr. Chairman, I can tell you that this kind of amendment is at the very heart of performance in British Columbia, whether it is Crown corporations or ministries, and I support the amendment.

MR. BARBER: There is no amendment!

HON. MR. McGEER: The amendment to the bill, which is section 19, Mr. Chairman....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I thought I made it quite clear at the beginning that the amendment had been disposed of a little earlier. Perhaps the members of the committee could find time to come to order so that the Chair could assist the House in its deliberations.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition will please come to order.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Perhaps the minister and the Leader of the Opposition could find another forum to settle their debate.

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. KING: I want to express my condolences to the minister having charge of this bill. It would appear that neither the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) nor the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer)

[ Page 1115 ]

have confidence in her ability to tend to the matters of ICBC. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that the hysterical performance which we saw by the non-minister of ICBC on the non-amendment is really one of the most amateur things I've seen in this Legislature for a long time.

This particular section extends the capacity of the government to appoint additional directors to the board. My colleague, the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), has quite properly pointed out and revealed the very lucrative fees that members of that corporation board have received under the benevolent dictates of this patronage-ridden government. Money for the hacks; money for the boys; money for the defeated Socreds; money for their friends. But, Mr. Chairman, there is not enough money to hire nurses in the hospitals, not enough money to deliver quality health care in this province. They give hundreds of thousands of dollars to the friends and the hacks of that government, and now they are going to tell us, Mr. Chairman, that there is not enough money....

Interjections.

MR. KING: The days are getting dim for that government over there. The light is fading, and the light will fade for the taxpayers of British Columbia too, Mr. Chairman, when they see this kind of shoddy provision. It's an opportunity to give more handouts to their political friends, to the hacks and the supporters of that government, while starving hospitals.

Then Mr. Gillen, the former campaign manager for that minister, receives that kind of payoff, that kind of director's fees. It is absolutely shameful! I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, when that man was a Liberal in this House....

Interjections.

MR. KING: Send it down upon this unwieldy, unethical government. I think you are being judged today; I think something is happening. Shame on you! You haven't paid your Hydro bill. You are paying off the hacks and friends of the Social Credit Party but you cannot even pay to keep the lights on. What a bankrupt government! What an unethical government this is! That minister stands up in all his pomposity, that minister who was once a Liberal and characterized this kind of thing as unethical.... He wrote a book about it — Politics in Paradise — categorizing Social Credit patronage as something that should be outlawed for all time in this province, and now he lends his voice to supporting it. Shame on him! Is that the price of going into the cabinet, Mr. Minister — to surrender and sacrifice principles, to support political hackery? Shame on you!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I was not here earlier this afternoon. I wondered, has there been an election writ? [Laughter.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: For the sake of the Chair, when members rise on a point of order, please state what standing order the member wishes the Chair to challenge.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I think you have to appreciate that section 19 itself is an amendment to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Section 19 is a section of Bill 30.

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, but it amends the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia Act, Mr. Chairman.

Rather than on a point of order, I just rose to ask the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke to make an apology to the House for suggesting that Ralph Gillen was my campaign manager. He had no relationship at all to me, but I will say this....

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: What did he do in the campaign? Well, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, you speculate in the corridor what he may have done rather than in the House. I think quite seriously you should be fair and reasonable, whether people are serving corporations or in the public service or in the private sector. They are not able to appear and defend themselves in this House against what in this case is calumny.

Mr. Chairman, those people will not repeat remarks of that kind in the corridor. If they did, they would face a libel suit. While they're in the House, they can make those charges.

Mr. Chairman, anybody who suggests that appointments were made in consideration for assistance in an election campaign.... The Leader of the Opposition and his colleague got up in fine style and made a number of assertions that will remain unanswered in the official records of this assembly. It's all right to join in a little bit of fun, and it's all right to have heated debates in the House, but people should not be unfairly accused of political associations when they are not here to defend themselves. I would like the member to withdraw that, if he would.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just for clarification of the committee, the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) rose on a point of order. The minister was recognized in the normal course of the debate, and members have been calling that it was out of order.

MR. KING: I want to assure the minister that I withdraw the assertion that Mr. Ralph Gillen was the minister's campaign manager. That was the information I had. If that is erroneous information, I happily withdraw. If the minister considers it libellous or slanderous to accuse anyone of being his campaign manager, I can understand that. But I happily withdraw.

I want to assure the minister that neither in this Legislature nor in the hall, or anywhere else, will I ever again accuse anyone of having an association with that minister, lest it be conceived to be slanderous and libellous.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Perhaps this debate can take place in another forum. It's hardly appropriate under section 19.

[ Page 1116 ]

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I quite agree with your assertions, and I accept the qualified withdrawal made by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke. But I think the point still needs to be underlined that no matter which party is in government, we are very fortunate to have willing people to serve us on boards of corporations and on all kinds of appointed commissions. It's unfortunate, whether it's associated with this particular section or whether it is associated with other parts of the debate in this House, to have individuals who have no connection with the political process....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The minister is clearly broadening the scope of the debate at this point. This may be appropriate at some other time, but it is not appropriate at this time.

MR. BARBER: To conclude this debate for our side of the House I should read into the record the expenses of one other director, whom I did not name earlier, in order that the committee understand what the provisions are in section 19 of this bill.

Last year this director received $894 in expenses; the year before that, $3,686 in expenses; the year before that, $4,039 in expenses. All of these were to the advantage, we presume, of ICBC, all to a cost to us of $8,529 for his wisdom. It was the Hon. P.L. McGeer.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, in response to the member for Victoria, who has just taken his place, and who has talked of expenses, expenses on that board by the cabinet ministers would be air travel or expenses, and not per diems. It would be for the hon. member of this House who has made a much more favourable deal for ICBC by his trips to Britain to talk on reinsurance for ICBC, who has represented us in areas where he has.... The imputation which the member has just given to the floor of this House and to the members of this House against our hon. member for Point Grey is that he is taking expenses which he should not have.

MR. BARBER: Didn't say a word about it.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: But that's what you implied. Mr. Chairman, that is completely an irresponsible statement on the floor of this House. As I said, cabinet ministers do not take per diems. They simply take any of the expenses to do with ICBC business only, and to expect a cabinet minister to take an air trip to Britain to negotiate on....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask that the minister consider the facts. I'm going to direct the minister not to broaden the scope of the debate. We are on section 19. If the minister wishes to respond to remarks made by the first member for Victoria, that is appropriate. But the minister is broadening the scope of the debate, and the Chair does not wish to tolerate that any longer.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your advice, and I'm saying the commentary just given to the House is unfair to the member, an hon. member of this House, who probably put in more time straightening up the mess left by that side of the House than anyone on this side of the House has had to do or will have to do in the future. And thank gosh, it's cleaned up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, the Chairman is the servant of the committee, but if we wish to broaden this debate to a repetition of the throne debate, we're going to be here a long time.

MR. BARRETT: I just have a few questions. If it's all cleaned up, what do we need unlimited boards of directors for? Are you capable of doing it now or aren't you?

It is obviously an irresponsible amendment in terms of having a blank cheque to have as many people as you want at whim on the board of directors. That's the whole point we're debating now.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: That's absolute nonsense.

MR. BARRETT: If it's nonsense, tell us how many people you intend to put on the board. If you had put a limit on it, this whole debate wouldn't have taken place.

But can you imagine what that member would have said if the NDP had brought in amendments saying we're going to add as many as we want on a board? You would have had a cat fit, and it would have been another chapter in his book. Talk about irresponsibility. We're dealing with a section that has absolutely no control. When we change ministers, do we change people on the board?

We've seen one minister kicked off the board because of his political statements. We've seen another minister lectured by that minister because of his statements. What does that mean in terms of who goes on the board? If there has ever been a political control of that agency, it's been that minister who lectures other ministers and opposition members. Her personal control is now extended over ICBC, because there's no limits, none whatsoever.

There's nothing wrong with the member mentioning that the member for Point Grey got expense money. There's nothing wrong with that at all. As a matter of fact, you're the one that mentioned it. You put it on the order paper. I want to know how come one member for Point Grey got $3,686 for expenses and the other one only got $10.50? Is that relative merit of worth — $10.50?

How much did it cost to process $10.50 worth of overwhelming expenses? What was it for? What do you do that is as expensive as $10.50? I want to know. One cigar? A smile? What was it? One cheap cigar. You ought to know. Ever since you hit the cabinet, things have never been better for you. A cheap, $10.50 cigar at the expense of the people.

Aside from the facetious remarks of the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey, who is still smarting from his disastrous term as a director, and who gave the image of ICBC that forced him by surveys through the Premier to get kicked off the board of directors....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Once again, I'm cautioning this member, as I've cautioned others, that the Chair is not going to tolerate any further expansion of this debate.

MR. BARRETT: Okay, Mr. Chairman. I just make the point, and make it again clearly. We see here an opportunity for the continuation of the pork-barreling that's been going

[ Page 1117 ]

on by this government. With no limit on a board of directors, it means you can bet your bottom dollar that Socreds will show up on the board of directors of ICBC. When that minister makes her move to become leader of the Socreds this fall, she'll use her appointment ability to back up her supporters in Crown agencies. You think they've got an "Iron Lady" in Great Britain. We've got one here, and the one who's felt the steel trap is the minister from Surrey. He knows. The member for Surrey said in his office she was stupid, and he had to withdraw that.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: You're interrupting me, Mr. Chairman.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Leader of the Opposition's last remarks before sitting down were that the Chairman was interrupting him. I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw that remark, because the Chairman is trying to run this committee in a somewhat orderly fashion, and it would appear to me this afternoon that we're having some difficulty on what appears to be less than 15 words.

Perhaps I could caution the member once again to stay within the scope of the debate.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw any imputation that the Chairman was attempting to interrupt my speech. I'm sure the Chair was only attempting to draw me to order.

I just want to say very clearly, Mr. Chairman, despite the rhetoric and the bonhomie that has been displayed here in terms of the basic friendship that exists between the members, even among the two members for Point Grey — they're friends on occasion — that we do not accept the argument that any cabinet minister should have the power that minister will have, allowing her to personally appoint any number of people she wants to the public purse and make it a trough in terms of Social Credit patronage.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You know she can't do it personally. It has to be an order-in-council.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, if anybody has ever got control of order-in-council, it is that minister over there, because even the former campaign manager of the member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair) was signed in on an order-in-council by that minister. She is the patron of patronage in the province of British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Minister of Human Resources.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask you to ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the remark that he has just made on patronage as it is applied to myself. I absolutely wish a withdrawal from him which is unequivocal.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: "The patron of patronage" is absolutely....

MR. BARRETT: That's not on the list.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: It certainly is.

MR. BARRETT: Did you appoint his campaign manager? Is it your name on the order-in-council? It is your name on the order-in-council.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Come on!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Minister of Environment will come to order, please,

Hon. members, it has been the tradition of this House that when a member finds remarks offensive, and has asked to have them withdrawn without qualification.... I might just add before asking for the withdrawal, that I have always asked the members to reflect on the mirror image, and to see if they in fact. would find the word "patronage" or anything else offensive in this House as used against them, and whether they would not also seek a withdrawal. I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw his remarks.

MR. BARRETT: I will not withdraw the word "patronage." The minister signed the order-in-council that hired that minister's campaign manager. That is not out of order; that is a matter of fact.

HON. MR. MAIR: Don't point; you scare me.

MR. BARRETT: Your conscience should scare you more than my finger.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Leader of the Opposition, for the second time, to withdraw.

MR. KING: On a point of order....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are dealing with a point of order.

MR. KING: No, we are dealing with....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are dealing with a point of order, and I am asking that the Leader of the Opposition withdraw those remarks.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to that point of order. I want to suggest to you that while it is in order to ask members to withdraw anything that has been imputed as improper, I want to suggest to you that "patronage" is a term that is used within the parliamentary sphere. It is used frequently, openly, and there is nothing illegal inferred by that charge. It is a matter of suggesting political impropriety in terms of one's administrative policy and, as such, it does not offend parliamentary rules.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I appreciate the remarks made by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke.

[ Page 1118 ]

However, it has been the tradition of this House, in view of the context in which the remarks were made.... All members have in the past, when asked by the Chairman of the committee to withdraw remarks that another member has found offensive, withdrawn those remarks. I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw his remarks.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, are you asking me to withdraw a statement of fact? That I cannot do. That minister's name is on an order-in-council that appointed the Minister of Environment's (hon. Mr. Mair's) campaign manager to a position on the British Columbia Development Corporation. No, I will not withdraw a statement of fact. It is her signature. It was his campaign manager. And all your attempts to wipe that out does not escape the fact that indeed took place. I will not withdraw it. She signed the order-in-council appointing your campaign manager. That is a matter of fact. I won't withdraw that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That's not what you were asked to withdraw, hon. member. You were asked to withdraw the words "patron and patronage."

MR. BARRETT: Well, I want to tell you that's what I think it is: patronage. I won't withdraw that either.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: You called her "the patron of patronage."

MR. BARRETT: Yes, the "patron of patronage." I won't recall that either, because that is a statement of fact. You signed the order-in-council....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I am left with no option but to order the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the remark "patron of patronage."

MR. BARRETT: I will not withdraw the word "patronage" in this case. It is real patronage. Patronage, patronage; that's all it is.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. May we have order? I ask all members, please, to come to order. Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, during the committee stage of this bill we had some difficulty with the committee. I asked the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw a remark found unparliamentary by an hon. member. The member has had some difficulty and has refused to withdraw.

MR. KING: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I will have to deal with the report of the Chairman. Following having dealt with that, I can perhaps listen to the point of order.

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Speaker, my point of order relates to this matter.

MR. SPEAKER: I have the report of the Chair.

MR. KING: Yes, I appreciate that.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't know of any way I can accept a point of order while I'm dealing with a point of order.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, this House is going to degenerate into completely ridiculous.... It's just an impossible situation. If we're going to proceed on this basis, it's ridiculous. There will be no debate if this takes place. You're stifling debate. You people believe in closure. You have no respect for parliament whatsoever.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, regardless of the issue or the topic that is at stake, we still have to carry on debate in an orderly fashion in this House, and I would commend it to all hon. members. I must deal with a point of order that has been drawn to my attention by report from the Chairman. As soon as I have dispensed with that point of order, I will be happy to give the floor to any others who have points of order. Please allow me.

Mr. Chairman has reported to me that there has been reticence on behalf of a member to fall in line with an order which the Chair has given. It was a remark that is unparliamentary, although it has not been reported to me what the remark was. Nonetheless, I have to ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition whether he would now, after having given it some thought, wish to comply with the order of the Chairman.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, you are making your decision on a report from the Chairman without hearing my point, without hearing what the word was. I am bringing it to your attention. I used the words "patronage" and "patron of patronage." Mr. Speaker, before you make a ruling that indeed may inhibit debate in this House, I ask that some consideration be given to the exact statement and the facts backing it up.

If we get an order of withdrawal on the basis of every statement, I do not believe that we will have the ability to proceed with debate in this chamber as we have traditionally been able to do.

MR. SPEAKER: I'll dispense with this point of order first.

The matter for the Speaker to decide at this point in time is not whether a statement was unparliamentary or not; it was deemed unparliamentary by the Chair, and therefore it is only to determine whether or not the Leader of the Opposition wishes to comply with what was reported to me as "an order of the Chair." I ask the hon. Leader of the Oppposition whether he now wishes to comply.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I cannot accept a point of order until I have dispensed with the one I am dealing with.

[ Page 1119 ]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for your interpretation of what took place. I regret that the Chairman of the committee, in my opinion, has made an error in his ruling. Therefore I cannot withdraw my statement, because I think it is perfectly accurate; and it is necessary in the parliamentary context to bring this to the attention of the public.

MR. SPEAKER: Unfortunately, I will have to draw the Leader of the Opposition's attention to the fact that it is not up for debate as to whether the Chair was in error or not. The Chair has given an order. That order has not been complied with. My responsibility is simply to ask whether or not the Leader of the Opposition now wishes to comply. Having refused to comply, he compels me to go to the standing orders.

The standing orders have several provisions. One is that either Mr. Speaker or the Chairman may ask that member to leave the assembly for the remainder of the sitting — of which, of course, there is none. Or if it is deemed that the rule is not sufficient in this matter, then the member can be named. I read for you standing order 19:

"Whenever any member shall have been named by Mr. Speaker, or by the Chairman of a Committee of the Whole House, immediately after the commission of the offence of disregarding the authority of the Chair or of abusing the rules of the House by persistently and wilfully obstructing the business of the House, or otherwise, then, if the offence has been committed by such member in the House, Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the question on a motion being made, no amendment, adjournment or debate being allowed, that such member be suspended from the service of the House; and if the offence has been committed in a Committee of the Whole House, the Chairman shall forthwith suspend the proceedings of the committee and report the circumstances to the House; and Mr. Speaker shall, on a motion being made thereupon, put the same question, without amendment, adjournment or debate, as if the offence had been committed in the House itself."

Hon. members, these are the standing orders to which I am bound.

I notice that standing order 19 does not allow for any discretion, it doesn't allow for any debate, and it doesn't allow for any amendment. Therefore, under standing order 19 — I know that the Leader of the Opposition has had a chance to reflect, and I give him this one more opportunity — will the Leader of the Opposition now withdraw?

MR. BARRETT: I cannot, in good conscience and in face of the facts, withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I therefore, under the standing order, have to name the hon. Leader of the Opposition, David Barrett.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I move that Mr. David Barrett, the first member for Vancouver East, be suspended from the service of the House for one sitting day.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 20

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I move 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. Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Presenting Reports

Hon. Mr. Williams filed the annual report of the Ministry of Labour for the year ending December 31, 1978.

Hon. Mr. Williams filed an answer to a question in his name.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, I would ask the Speaker to take under advisement a certain difficulty I have interpreting the standing orders, that perhaps the House would not share with me. My understanding is that when the attention of the House is drawn to the clock, even during a point of order as occurred during the contretemps involving the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett), it seems to me that all business must stop, except that business which would allow the House to adjourn itself to some other day. That was a decision by Speaker Dowding, as I recall it.

MR. SPEAKER: I'll take the matter under advisement. Would the member like me to report to the House?

MR. LAUK: I'd appreciate it if you will.

MR. SPEAKER: I'll undertake to do that.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:15 p.m.

[ Page 1120 ]

APPENDIX

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

23       The Hon. J. J. Hewitt to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 23) intituled Energy Amendment Act, 1979, to amend as follows:

Section 3 is amended in the proposed section 86.1 (1) in the last two lines of the subsection by deleting "or natural gas liquids" and substituting ", natural gas liquids or other type of energy resource".

By adding the following section:

"6. This Act comes into force on a day to be fixed by Proclamation."

26       The Hon. W. N. Vander Zalm to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 26) intituled Metro Transit Operating Company Act to amend as follows:

Schedule 2, section 1, line 2: By deleting "Industrial Acceptance Corporation," and substituting "I A C Ltd.,".

Section 12: By renumbering subsection (8) as subsection (9) and by adding the following as subsection (8):

" (8) Subsection (7) (d) does not apply to property charged by way of security for first mortgage bonds issued by British Columbia Electric Company Limited unless the trustee for the first mortgage bondholders consents, and if required by the trustee or a condition of consent, Hydro shall substitute other property or security for the first mortgage bonds."

27       The Hon. G. B. Gardom to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 27) intituled Legal Services Society Act to amend as follows:

Section 5, lines 2 and 5: By inserting "at least" after "Seven directors," in both places.

Section 9, lines 5 and 6: By striking out "or tribunal" wherever it appears.

Section 11, line 8: By adding "to information respecting his eligibility" at the end of the section.

Section 15, line 3: By striking out "90 days" and substituting "180 days".

30       The Hon. J. R. Chabot to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 30) intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1979 to amend as follows:

By deleting section 16 and substituting the following sections:

"16. section 12 is repealed.

"16.1. The following section is added:

"First home grant and family first home grant.

"12.1. (1) Subject to the regulations a first home grant in the prescribed amount may be made to a person who, on or after July 18, 1979, purchases a residence that is

(a) of a prescribed kind,

(b) within the limits of cost and size prescribed by the minister for residences of its class and region, and

(c) the first residence he has ever owned or purchased.

"(2) Subject to the regulations a family first home grant in the prescribed amount may be made to a person who, on or after July 18, 1979, purchases a residence that meets the requirements of subsection (1), and is at the time of the application the parent or guardian of at least one child under the age of 19 years residing with him at the residence."

31       The Hon. E. M. Wolfe to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 31) intituled Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1979 to amend as follows:

Section 10:

[ Page 1121 ]

In line 7 of the proposed section 23 (1) by deleting "interest so paid" and substituting "interest so collected".

In line 3 of the proposed section 23 (3) by adding "as taxes, penalties or interest" after "collected".

By deleting section 28 and substituting the following:

"28. The following is added after section 47:

"Application of amendments.

"48. (1) Notwithstanding the amendments to this Act made by section 174 of the Forest Act, the tax payable by a taxpayer whose taxation year commenced in 1977 and ended in 1978 before December 31, 1978, shall be calculated for that taxation year as follows:

(a) by apportioning the income derived from logging operations of that taxation year equally throughout it;

(b) by treating the taxation year as two notional taxation years, the first ending on December 31, 1977, and the second commencing on January 1, 1978;

(c) by calculating

     (i) the tax on the first notional taxation year in accordance with this Act as it was on July 26, 1978, and

     (ii) the tax on the second notional taxation year in accordance with this Act as it was on July 27, 1978; and

(d) by adding the amounts determined under paragraph (c) (i) and (ii) and the total is the tax payable in respect of that taxation year.

"(2) Subsection (1) shall be deemed to have come into force on January 1, 1978, and is retroactive to the extent necessary to give it effect on and after that date."

By adding the following section:

"29.1. section 3 (5) is amended by striking out 'In case the mining, processing, treating, refining, or sale of the products of a mine is' and substituting 'Where mining operations are'."

32       The Hon. L. A. Williams to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 32) intituled Refugee Settlement Program of British Columbia Act to amend as follows:

Section 1, line 19: By adding at the end of the definition of "refugee" the following: "and includes, on designation by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, any other person or class of persons admitted to Canada under section 6 (2) of the Immigration Act, 1976 (Canada) ".

15       Ms. Sanford asked the Hon. the Minister of Labour the following questions:

With reference to Workers' Compensation Boards of Review —

1. How many cases were dealt with by the boards in (a) 1975, (b) 1976, (c) 1977, and (d) 1978?

2. How many decisions of the review boards were in favour of the claimants in (a) 1975, (b) 1976, (c) 1977, and (d) 1978?

The Hon. L. A. Williams replied as follows:

"1. The number of decisions of an officer of the Workers' Compensation Board appealed to a Board of Review for each reference years is as follows: (a) 1975, 1,421 decisions; (b) 1976, 1,196 decisions, (c) 1977, 1,516 decisions; and (d) 1978, 2,411 decisions.

"2. The number of such appeals in which the Board of Review did not confirm the original decision for each of the reference years are as follows:

[ Page 1122 ]

(a) 1975, 515 decisions; (b) 1976, 390 decisions; (c) 1977, 689 decisions; and (d) 1978, 893 decisions."