[ Page 1123 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral questions

BCRIC purchase of MacMillan Bloedel shares. Mr. Barber –– 1123

Religious cults. Mr. Macdonald –– 1123

Functions of John Elliott. Mr. Stupich –– 1124

Swan Valley Foods Ltd. Mr. Stupich –– 1125

Presenting Reports

Comptroller-general two-month financial statement as at May 31 –– 1979.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 1125

Agricultural aid report.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 1125

Routine Proceedings

An Act to Amend the Cultus Lake Park Act (Bill PR 402). Mr. Ritchie.

Introduction and first reading –– 1125

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 30). Committee stage.

On section 34.

Mr. Barber –– 1125

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 1126

On section 50 amendment.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 1126

On section 58 amendment.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 1126

Report and third reading –– 1126

Resort Municipality of Whistler Amendment Act (Bill 34). Committee stage.

On section 1.

Mr. Lauk —  1126

Mr. Lorimer –– 1127

On section 1 amendment.

Mr. Barber –– 1127

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 1128

Mr. King –– 1129

Mr. Macdonald –– 1130

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 1130

Mr. Mussallem –– 1130

Division on the amendment –– 1130

On the title.

Mr. Lorimer –– 1130

Report and third reading –– 1131

Attorney-General Statutes Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 29). Committee stage.

On section 22.

Ms. Brown –– 1131

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 1131

Report and third reading –– 1133

Motions and Adjourned Debate on Motions

Motion 1. [See appendix.]

Mr. Hall –– 1133

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 1133

Motion 2. [See appendix.]

Mr. Hyndman –– 1134

Hon, Mr. Gardom –– 1134

Motion 3. [See appendix.]

Ms. Brown –– 1135

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 1135

Motion 4. [See appendix.]

Mr. Barber –– 1135

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 1136

Motion 6. [See appendix.]

Mr. Smith –– 1136

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 1137

Motion 8. [See appendix.]

Mr. Mussallem –– 1137

Mr. Hall –– 1137

Mrs. Dailly –– 1138

Mr. Hyndman –– 1139

Mr. Hanson –– 1140

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 1140

Mr. Barber –– 1141

Division –– 1142

Routine Proceedings

An Act to Amend the Trinity Western College Act (Bill PR 401). Second reading.

Mr. Ritchie –– 1142

Mr. Hall –– 1142

Mr. Nicolson –– 1142

Ms. Brown –– 1143

Hon, Mr. McGeer 1143

Mrs. Dailly –– 1143

Mr. Hanson –– 1144

Mr. Levi –– 1144

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 1145

Mr. Hyndman –– 1146

Mr. Ritchie –– 1146

An Act to Amend the Trinity Western College Act (Bill PR 401). Committee stage.

On section 1.

Mr. Levi –– 1147

On section 2.

Mr. Levi –– 1147

Report and third reading –– 1148

Motions and Adjourned Debate on Motions

Motion 9. [See appendix.]

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 1148

Mr. Nicolson –– 1149

Motion 10. [See appendix.]

Mr. Hall –– 1149

Routine Proceedings

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 30). Committee stage!e.

Amendment to section 6.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 1149

Report and third reading –– 1149

Constitution Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 35). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 1149

Constitution Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 35). Committee stage.

Report and third reading –– 1150

Royal assent to bills –– 1150

Appendix –– 1151

TUESDAY, JULY 31, 1979

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today we have Mr. and Mrs. Chris Straiton and their son Michael. Mrs. Straiton is my constituency secretary.

Also, we have Mr. and Mrs. Roy Craven of Abbotsford and their daughter Carolyn. Carolyn is a past Provincial Secretary of our Youth Parliament. With them are friends from England, Mr. and Mrs. Ken Jenkins.

Also from Abbotsford are some very good supporters of mine, Mr. and Mrs. Weibe. Would the House please welcome these friends today.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is Mrs. Jules La Vertu and three of her eight children: daughters Rosemarie of Victoria and Nicole of Richmond, England; and son Paul of Sao Paulo, Brazil. She is the mother of the representative of the CP News Services, Charles La Vertu. Would you bid her and her children welcome?

MR. HANSON: I would like the House to join with me in recognizing and welcoming a person in the gallery today who is a champion of the rights of senior citizens in this province, Mr. John Duffie.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I notice in the press gallery today the husband of a very well-known columnist and writer in British Columbia, Mr. Allan Fotheringham.

Oral Questions

BCRIC PURCHASE OF
MACMILLAN BLOEDEL SHARES

MR. BARBER: I have a question for the Premier, Mr. Speaker. Could the Premier indicate whether or not he has received advice from the board of directors of the British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation that they have determined to purchase controlling shares in MacMillan Bloedel?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. I would again caution some members of this House who fuelled speculation regarding that company before that the only people they can hurt, and did hurt when they fuelled that speculation before, are the unsuspecting investors in this province. I would say the answer is no, the rumour has not been transmitted to me, and I would hope that members of this House wouldn't unwittingly, once again, lead the unsophisticated investor into a very speculative venture based upon rumour.

MR. BARBER: I thank the Premier for whatever his advice was worth. Has the Premier specifically instructed the board of directors of the British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation that they are not to contemplate, or finally enact, a policy that would see them obtaining in the name of the corporation a controlling interest in MacMillan Bloedel? Have you specifically instructed them that they are not to do this?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, once again the first member for Victoria shows an alarming lack of understanding of the private sector, and the fact that BCRIC is not a Crown corporation or a government-controlled company, but is a public company operating within the private sector. I wish to state to him what everybody else knows — I trust that he knows, and I hope he's not just making mischief, because this could be very, very important — so that the average person in B.C. is not confused or misled in areas in which speculation may result: this government has given no direction to the directors of BCRIC at all.

MR. BARBER: I have a final supplementary. When you are called upon for advice, given that you have made all of the significant Resources Corporation announcements to date, I wonder if you would advise them to take a look at Canadian Pacific Investments, which, judging by the leverage available and the capital at hand in the Resources Corporation, might just be available for sale.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Any shareholder is able to offer advice. I would think that any of the shareholders over there, or at least those who, unlike their leader who had no confidence to buy a share in a company in British Columbia and who publicly stated so.... If there are any who believed enough in this province to participate, then I hope you have some good advice. But if you choose to give them the type of advice you've offered in this Legislature, I hope they have the good sense not to listen.

RELIGIOUS CULTS

MR. MACDONALD: I have a question for the Attorney-General. I want to ask the Attorney-General whether his ministry is engaging in a little mind-bending of its own in making a study of the so-called mind-expanding or mind-bending cults. My information is that a law student by the name of Dellis Rand is conducting such a study for the Attorney-General.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I guess if it was mind expansion the hon. member would be first on the list. [Laughter.] I have rather a lengthy response to the question. Would you like me to give a lengthy response in question period, or would you like me to defer a bit so you could perhaps ask a few other questions?

MR. MACDONALD: Just answer the question. Yes or no.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, I'd like to give you a proper response, because I'm afraid that some mischief is perhaps floating abroad, Mr. Member. As I've said before, I've been informed that there's no secret investigation and there is no study per se being conducted by this ministry into religious groups. If some groups wish to interpret the process that's being followed as an investigative one, for whatever purposes they may have, that's entirely up to them.

I'd like to share with the hon. members the background of the matter, which is this: on September 3, 1978, the ministry received a letter from a Vancouver man asking if the ministry was looking into deprogramming. The writer

[ Page 1124 ]

was told the ministry was not. A few days later a file entitled "Religious Beliefs and Practices" was opened in the ministry, and the letter and the reply were placed in it. The file was opened, hon. members, so that all matters touching the subject would go into one place, and this included newspaper clippings and articles gathered by the ministry's routine clipping services, as well as any that were sent to it by the general public.

The next item was September 15, when a letter was received from a Vancouver woman who asked the same question. The same reply was sent to her, and her letter and reply also went into the file.

The plot thickens: on September 25, 1978, a letter was received from a Member of Parliament, Mr. Robert Wenman, asking if the Attorney-General's ministry had any special information on deprogramming. A reply was sent that the ministry did not. This letter, and the reply, were also put into the file.

On January 25, 1979, a letter was received from a lady in Windsor, Ontario, saying that her 27-year-old daughter was a member of the Divine Light Mission and had been a member of the church since she was 19 years old. The woman said she believed at the time that her daughter was at the Divine Light Mission in Vancouver and she wanted the ministry to investigate the matter, as she believed her daughter was being exploited. The criminal division of the ministry investigated and informed the lady that her daughter was an adult and a member of the church by choice, and unless there was some indication, obviously, that the daughter was being held against her will or via some other violation of criminal law, it was not able to assist the mother. This letter, and the reply, went into the same file.

On March 15 we received a letter from a Dr. Daniel Hill, who is the head of a study authorized by the government of Ontario into mind development groups, cults and sects. Dr. Hill sought the ministry's cooperation in finding out whether or not the B.C. government had received complaints about issues such as deprogramming, abduction, consumer protection and solicitation practices involving groups acting in the name of religion.

In response to this request, a UBC law student working for the ministry was asked by officials to contact other ministries to see if they had received similar complaints. She was also asked to sort through the newspaper clippings and magazine articles in the file mentioned to weed out duplications and get them in some sort of order.

Well, the other ministries so far have reported that they haven't received any written complaints, except for Consumer and Corporate Affairs, which has received four consumer-related complaints involving possible false advertising and possible failure to refund money. A few telephone complaints have been received by the ministries, but exact details of these complaints have not been recorded. Dr. Hill, from Ontario, was told of this and he was asked to contact the legal student if he wanted further details.

On April 19 a letter from a Terrace man was forwarded to the ministry by the Ministry of Agriculture. The man complained that his daughter, a married woman with two children, was a member of a hippie commune, and no particular religious sect was mentioned. The father was told that as his daughter was an adult, and because she was living in the commune by choice, the ministry could not assist him.

That is about where the matter stands. There are six letters and the replies, about a dozen newspaper clippings and magazine articles in a cardboard file, and a few interdepartmental memos that accompanied the material. I would say that this is hardly an investigation or a study, though some seem to appear to want to make it such.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, just before I take this supplementary, Beauchesne suggests that there are questions which are perhaps beyond the scope of question period to deal with. The Chair is hard pressed to determine the scope of these questions at the outset. However, when questions requiring such a lengthy answer are made in question period, the Chair will need some assistance as to how to screen this kind of question. The supplementary question?

MR. MACDONALD: I don't think my question required a lengthy answer, but I'll just ask another one now.

Is it the policy of the Attorney-General's ministry to conduct a study or to refuse to conduct a study of so-called mind-bending cults?

MR. SPEAKER: That is a question which inquires about the future action of the minister.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. On what basis does the Attorney-General seek the floor?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I would not like the hon. member to escape the question....

MR. SPEAKER: It is difficult, Mr. Attorney-General, to accept an answer to a question that has been ruled out of order.

FUNCTIONS OF JOHN ELLIOTT

MR. STUPICH: Yesterday, in commenting about the B.C. Systems Corporation analyst who was taken off work in the Ministry of Forests and transferred to the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) indicated that he was actually doing very little in the Ministry of Forests. This information is completely at odds with the information given to us by the comptroller of the Ministry of Forests. He told us that we were $50 million behind in billing revenue a year ago and $80 million behind this year, simply because that person had been transferred.

I assume, Mr. Speaker, that the minister must have done some investigation of this. He must have something more complete than the answer he gave us yesterday in order to explain the difference between the information he supplied and the information from the comptroller in the Ministry of Forests.

HON. MR. WOLFE: The question I took on notice had to do with a given employee in the Systems Corporation, how he was related to the ongoing job of stumpage reporting, and the suggestion of a gap between the time that logging is done and the time when billing is conducted. I reported that this gentleman's name was John Elliott, and he

[ Page 1125 ]

had been with the Systems Corporation since September 1977. He had been assigned to the mineral land tax system of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. This is where he was normally employed.

In answer to the member's question, I indicated clearly that he was then loaned to the Ministry of Forests on this particular project that was referred to in public accounts. He was employed there for some two or three weeks as a project analyst. But I think the suggestion was made that this employee was normally employed in Forests, was removed at a crucial time, and it had a great impact on the problems associated with stumpage recording.

So in summary, once again, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Elliott was assigned by the corporation from his primary duties in Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources to help in the transfer of personnel in 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 Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. His total involvement on this project is estimated to have been a maximum of three man-weeks, and Mr. Elliott was never permanently assigned to work on the particular billing system in question. Therefore his removal from the project could not have been a cause for any delay in the system regarding billings.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the answer that was repeated from yesterday is completely at odds with the information given to us by the comptroller at the Ministry of Forests. But I guess that's something we will have to take up with that person.

SWAN VALLEY FOODS LTD.

I have another question to the Minister of Agriculture. I hope the Premier's listening because he always answers for the Minister of Agriculture. When the Swan Valley Foods Ltd. plant at Richmond was sold....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Well, you usually turn around to give it to him; either way, I don't care, Mr. Premier.

Mr. Speaker, when the Swan Valley Foods Ltd. plant at Richmond was sold out to Standard Brands a couple of years ago, did the purchaser, that American corporation, give any understanding at all that it would reopen the plant?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, that plant was to go into production.

MR. STUPICH: When?

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, the plant at Richmond is dealing with the — oh, I wish I could remember the name they use — entrees. They were redesigning the size of the package, and it was to be back into production very shortly after they purchased it as a going concern. I can check that out and let you know, Mr. Member.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe presented a report from the comptroller-general, as required under the Financial Control Act, which is a copy of the interim financial statements covering a two-month period ending May 31, 1979, and the fiscal year ending March 31, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt tabled the report on agricultural aid to developing countries and world disaster areas during 1978-79.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE CULTUS LAKE PARK ACT

On a motion by Mr. Ritchie, Bill PR 402, An Act to Amend the Cultus Lake Park Act, introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 30.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

(continued)

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

Sections 19 to 33 inclusive approved.

On section 34.

MR. BARBER: The import of this section is to deny opportunities for municipal governments in British Columbia to tax as a business the operations of the Crown provincial in this province. The reason the amendment is here is because the city of Victoria had the good wit and good sense to introduce such a policy two years ago. It was challenged by the province. That challenge went to court, and the court ruled the city of Victoria had every right to engage in such a tax, and to treat the province in its business enterprises like any other business enterprise would be treated in this city. The city of Victoria had the good sense to take Social Credit at its word, which is that they were prepared to pay their full share, their full taxes, and bear their full load. This Act undermines that. This Act repudiates a promise of Social Credit as regards its corporate responsibility on behalf of the province to pay its taxes. This particular section 34 is here only because the city of Victoria had the good sense to proceed in a very businesslike way, and in a perfectly legal way, under the previous Act, to do what they thought Social Credit permitted them to do.

As Municipal Affairs critic for our party, I've had representations from representatives of local government in the greater Victoria area, from the mayor of one community on the coast, from aldermanic representatives from other communities. I presume the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) has had the same representations as well. They make clear to me what I hope they make clear to the minister. This is, to say the least, a section not welcomed by local government. I hope the government has some good defence for it. Otherwise, they will continue to impair their relations — impaired enough already — with local government across the province of British Columbia.

[ Page 1126 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I want to point out, and I'm sure the member is aware, that this government has met its commitment and actually has been extremely fair with municipalities in providing them with tax revenue from government enterprises, which wasn't previously available.

With respect to the section now in question, it's a clarification as to business enterprise as it relates to business taxes and licences. Government enterprise has not previously paid those levies. I realize there is a particular situation in Victoria, and I would certainly be prepared to recommend to the Ministry of Finance that a grant in lieu of business tax or licence be given to an enterprise such as the Glenshiel Hotel, which is in direct competition with other hotels in Victoria.

MR. BARBER: Forgive me for having to ask a question of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). Can we take it that what the Minister of Municipal Affairs just said is government policy, that he has announced something that will be held? Or do we have to go and ask you about it?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Absolutely out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARBER: It's not out of order. Any minister can be asked questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. It involves personal allusions, hon. member. I don't necessarily want to go through a repetition of yesterday. Perhaps members would confine themselves to being in order this afternoon.

MR. BARBER: Given the disarray of that cabinet, and the extent to which its members contradict one another in public, as well as in private, I was just asking a reasonable question as to whether or not on this occasion — unlike on others....

HON. MR. GARDOM: You've got no business asking a reasonable question here. [Laughter.]

MR. BARBER: I may have no business expecting a reasonable answer, but it is a reasonable question. The Minister of Municipal Affairs has just announced — at least on his own behalf — a significant departure in policy. He has announced he is prepared to recommend a grant in lieu of taxes which would solve a very particular problem in the riding shared by myself and my colleague for Victoria (Mr. Hanson). This is an important policy that he has announced. What I want to know is whether or not he announces it with the authority of the Deputy Premier. If he doesn't, I expect to see it repudiated in the Times tomorrow night.

Section 34 approved.

Sections 35 to 49 inclusive approved.

On section 50.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 50 as amended approved.

Sections 51 to 57 inclusive approved.

On section 58.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 58 as amended 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 30, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1979, reported complete with amendments.

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

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

Leave granted.

Bill 30, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1979, read a third time and passed.

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

RESORT MUNICIPALITY OF WHISTLER
AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

The House in committee on Bill 34; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, with respect to second reading debate, and with specific reference to the interpretation of the word "association" in Bill 34, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) intimated by his brilliant defence of the bill that the Municipal Act would still apply to Whistler as a whole, and that this little sovereign state created by this Act was really separate and corporate, and should be left to the decisions, desires and motivations of those few individuals and corporations having sovereign control over this little plot of land in sovereign British Columbia.

[ Page 1127 ]

In fact, that is not the case. When one examines the interpretation of section 1, one can readily see that, in fact, this little 300-acre sovereign state in the province of British Columbia can in many ways, by virtue of this present bill, circumvent the provisions of the Municipal Act — as will be seen in subsequent sections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I might remind members that we are in committee stage on this bill, and not second reading.

MR. LORIMER: Section 1, Mr. Chairman, covers pretty well the whole bill. I dealt at some length with the bill on second reading, but I do want to deal with article 19 of section 1 — the bylaws.

It is my opinion that it could well be that the action will be in the preparation and endorsement of the bylaws. Those bylaws will not be seen by this House; they will be decided behind cabinet doors. We have to debate this particular bill without having previous knowledge of what is intended to be put in the bylaws. The bylaws do say that there are going to be different classes of membership, whatever that might mean. Possibly the minister will explain to us the different classes that they intend to have in this particular company, and what voting rights and benefits the different classes will have.

The admission of membership is another matter. We know that some of the members in this particular corporation are going to be compulsory members, but that others are going to be allowed in; and we would certainly like to know the criteria for allowing those in, and how it is to be decided who is to be left out — whether it goes by who they are or what they own. What are the criteria by which the bylaws will dictate as to whether or not a person may become a member of this association?

Then we have the voting rights of members. We want to know whether or not this weighted voting that the minister has already described to us will be set out in the bylaws. I am sure that he will give us a full explanation of this.

In the Vancouver Sun a few days ago the Minister of Labour stated that he would not go along with weighted voting in this particular case, and that he would break rank with the cabinet in the event that this occurred. I know that Minister of Labour has strength in the cabinet, because he's been able to push this bill through when, reportedly, there's been a lot of opposition to this bill in the cabinet and in the caucus of the Social Credit Party. I know that we can feel fairly safe that there will not be weighted voting when the bylaws come in. But in order to allow the minister to show us he is against this, I have proposed an amendment, Mr. Chairman. It amends section 19(1)(c), and reads: "To delete the word 'and' and substitute the following: 'Based on the democratic principles of one member-one vote'."

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment seems to be in order.

On the amendment.

MR. LORIMER: It seems to me that all of us in this House are opposed to weighted voting in a democratic country like ours. People have been fighting for the principle of one person-one vote for many centuries. We are now in that position, and it would seem a very severe retrograde step to go back on that.

MR. BARBER: In supporting the amendment, I'd like to point out a couple of things about why we feel compelled to introduce it at this time. The government has in its lamentable defence of this bill tried to argue that it's really no more than a particular kind of strata corporation. In defence of the bill they have tried to point out that what's really being granted here is what the Minister of Municipal Affairs said in an interview with the Vancouver Sun: that what would come in the form of weighted voting was no more than an older amendment to the Strata Titles Act, which, on half-acres here or in apartments there, somehow made the same provisions applicable that they hope to apply here to the Whistler Resort Association.

The problem with the government's argument is that it's completely bogus. It misses on two counts: the content is wrong and the scale is wrong. The content is wrong because had they chosen to introduce some other strata corporation they would have done so. They could have done so by an amendment to the Strata Titles Act — not this bill. They could have done so by simply using and advising the developers of Whistler to use the Strata Titles Act, but that's not what we have; we have this bill instead.

Unless they've changed their mind, I expect that the government's argument in repudiation of our amendment will be that it's just another strata corporation like all the rest. The first problem with that argument is that it's wrong. That's not true. In content, at heart, understanding the nature of a strata corporation, it's simply wrong.

It's also wrong in the question of scale. It is simply absurd and laughable to compare the scale of a 40-unit strata corporation on Denman Street in downtown Vancouver or on Heywood Street in my riding with the multimillion dollar operation envisioned at Whistler and Blackcomb Mountains, and that will be provided for, the government tells us, by the outcome of this bill. It's wrong as a matter of scale as well. For them to attempt to defend the system of weighted voting in a $500 million investment operation, which will be guided and enhanced, the government tells us, by the Whistler Resort Association is, I think, to mislead the people of British Columbia about the real scale of operations here.

It is not a competent argument on their part, and I hope they don't try and raise it. I hope, instead, that what we see raised is what the Minister of Labour, at least as far as the press was concerned, makes a case in favour of, which is this: in this particular situation there is no clear or competent definition of need for a weighted vote. No such case has been made by any of the developers who talked to us; I ask you to take my word for it, Mr. Chairman. They've been on the phone many times. To the very best of my knowledge, no case has been made for a weighted vote by other than the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the mayor of Whistler, Mr. Carleton. I don't know Mr. Carleton; I presume he's a fine man. I don't question his judgment, but we certainly question the judgment of this government.

Speaking again to the amendment as we propose it, to clear up a situation that could lead dangerously and devastatingly to gross conflict of interest within the association and to gross misapplication of law by it, we think that this amendment provides something in law, very clear and very simple. We point out that the bill makes membership in the association mandatory. May I read, Mr. Chairman, the second line of the explanatory note provided

[ Page 1128 ]

by legislative counsel for the government? It reads as follows: "The bill requires participation in the association in order to further the association's goals."

There is no question of choice here. Those persons who are affected in schedules A and B — B of this bill, A of the old bill — do not have any choice in the matter. A person entering a strata corporation knows in advance what the rules are. A person entering a strata corporation with a half-acre somewhere in Kimberley has more value per vote than does the quarter-acre somewhere else in Kimberley — if it's a strata operation — and that's the best defence the government has. At least everybody knows in advance what he or she is getting into.

In this case these people have no such foreknowledge. If they did, something has gone grossly wrong with the provisions that tell us how a bill comes into this Legislature. To the best of our knowledge, these people did not know in advance that this requirement would be in there. The only persons who have defended it are the minister and the mayor. We've heard many complaints that it is, to say the least, a highly improper way to proceed, especially in such a scale of operations as this is, a half-billion dollar investment.

The government is in trouble on this bill, and everyone knows it. They're split internally. They've been attacked publicly. Both the Victoria Times and the Vancouver Sun have editorialized against the bill. It has been heavily criticized, and judging by the noises at the moment, they are defensive about it. One of the most particular reasons why it has been attacked, and why they should be defensive, is because of this weighted voting provision.

If the government had been wise — with all respect — when they introduced the bill, they would have tabled the proposed bylaws. Had they been willing to take this House into their confidence as much as they appear to have taken certain developers into their confidence, we, as well as they, would have had an opportunity to look at the draft bylaws of the Whistler Resort Association.

We have reason to believe the draft bylaws contain provision for seven directors. There is, indeed, a weighted vote that would see two votes going to Fortress Mountain, 50 percent of which is owned by American interests. It would see one vote going to the hotel and accommodation industry. It would see one vote going to the culinary or the restaurant industry, and three votes going at large. That's our information. If it's not correct, I'd be very happy for the minister to correct it and to do today what he should have done two weeks ago: table the bylaws.

The reason this amendment is most important and should be approved is because weighted voting offends the democratic principle. The reason this debate is necessary is because the government has been unwilling to treat this Legislature with as much respect and interest as they've treated the interests of developers who put them up to this thing in the first place.

If they had the good sense and the common courtesy to table the draft bylaws, much of this debate may have proved unnecessary as far as subsection (19) of Bill 34 goes. But because they haven't done that, because politically they are in some difficulty, we find it necessary to stand for an important principle by way of the amendment proposed by my colleague. In this situation, for the purposes we have outlined, one member-one vote.... It's a good principle. It will guarantee, better than the current provisions do, a somewhat better operation for the Whistler Resort Association.

We still certainly oppose the bill in principle. We still find it is a foolish and mistaken way to proceed. We still believe it a betrayal of the public interest. However, it apparently will become law. The next best step we can take, the next best case we can make, is to offer an amendment which may help to limit what we perceive to be a very real danger, with opportunities for very real abuses because of weighted voting, in the organization to be called Whistler Resort Association.

We think it is a reasonable amendment. We have some reason to believe your colleague, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams), would support it. We ask the whole House to support it. If you believe, as you say, that the Whistler Resort Association is going to be organized and operated in a totally open and democratic fashion, let us take you at your word and let us see you support this amendment. It's a good and sound policy, and we ask for your endorsement of it.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, the bylaws are not here, because until the legislation has passed, it's not proper to have the bylaws drafted. I think there would be quite a scream from the opposition if, in fact, the bylaws were already in place, or even being circulated, prior to the legislation having passed.

MR. BARBER: You have a draft.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The bylaws will be dealt with by council in open meeting and certainly after their approval of the bylaws, they will still need to be considered by the cabinet.

The member mentioned that reference would undoubtedly be made to the Strata Titles Act, and all the other things that happened during the NDP years — and, I think, rightly so.

When you speak of weighted voting, what, in fact, is it? I don't know what will be proposed in the bylaw. Certainly I can assure all hon. members it will be carefully looked at, not only by ourselves but by the council as well. The council, and the whole community of Whistler, is very supportive of this particular legislation. I am receiving letters and telegrams. There is one here from Mr. Drew Meredith, president, Whistler Chamber of Commerce. He says:

THE WHISTLER CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SUPPORTS THE CONCEPT AND INTENT OF THE WHISTLER RESORT ASSOCIATION. THIS ASSOCIATION IS ESSENTIAL TO THE FUTURE SUCCESS OF OUR AREA AS A YEAR-ROUND DESTINATION RESORT. WE HAVE BEEN WORKING IN CONCERT WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF THE VILLAGE LAND COMPANY AND FEEL THAT THE CONCEPT OF THE ASSOCIATION IS VERY SOUND.

AN HON. MEMBER: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: There is a similar telegram from the Rotary president, Doug Reid.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. A point of order has been raised that we are straying from the amendment. Once again I will read the one-line amendment: "...to delete the

[ Page 1129 ]

word 'and' and substitute the following: 'based on the democratic principle of one member, one vote'." That is to section 19(1)(c), line 5. Until such time as we have disposed with this amendment, we cannot allow further broadening of the debate. I caution the minister to keep his remarks on the amendment rather than the bill. I remind all members that second reading has already taken place on this bill.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'll make reference to the Strata Titles Act and several other things referred to by the member, particularly since he mentioned he has a fear that the people coming into the association will not be aware of what they are entering into or what will be expected of them. They certainly will be aware, because the association and its bylaws will be registered with the land registry office. It will be public information; it will be there for all people to see. They will be properly advised prior to them deciding to enter.

The Strata Titles Act — as was mentioned in second reading — certainly does provide for weighted voting, if, in fact, that could be termed as weighted voting. That was provided for in 1974 by the former NDP government. People, particularly in a strata title commercial enterprise, pay on a per square footage basis.

I think the member should consider the example of the Sterling properties — or sometimes called the Sterling commune proposal — in Matsqui which was again entered into by the previous NDP government. There was a common farm area, common farm buildings and a one-half acre subdivision, The people vote on the use of the buildings in the common area dependent on how many lots they own along the perimeter of it. Undoubtedly that will be mentioned, and it should be mentioned. I think these are fair comparisons.

There is also the Companies Act, in which people vote according to the number of shares they hold. I'm not sure that any one of those or a combination of those might be proposed for the Whistler Resort area. I don't think we should anticipate the council; I think we should give the municipality the freedom to consider those bylaws prior to presenting them to us.

I think we have an excellent proposal, and I am opposed to the amendment. I think we should give the council that opportunity.

MR. KING: I have some difficulty understanding why the government would oppose this particular amendment. We've had a variety of positions taken by the government with respect to whether the bill contains a provision for weighted voting. Now the minister has indicated that it does.

Mr. Chairman, on Wednesday, July 25, 1979, in Hansard on page 712-2, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams), in defending this particular bill, had this to say:

It appears in one newspaper that there was a suggestion about weighted voting, which does not appear in this legislation in any place. There won't be any weighted voting with respect to the association under consideration here.

That's what the Minister of Labour said.

During the weekend the Vancouver Sun reported the same minister, and I quote:

"My view is that it should not be a weighted vote. Quite frankly, I don't think it's desirable here. Therefore when the bylaws of the association are fully developed, they'll have to convince me that there is a real need."

Mr. Chairman, aside from the minister's change of position, or however you explain that minister taking one position in the Legislature and another on the weekend when he was speaking to a newspaper reporter.... I guess it's for him to justify.

I want to say to him today, Mr. Chairman, that he should not wait for the bylaws to be presented to him, containing the principle of weighted voting on the basis of investment or holdings in land. That does not conform to any contemporary principle of democratic procedure. If the minister is sincere about objecting to that kind of direction, then obviously his opportunity presents itself with the introduction of the amendment that is now before the House.

So the Minister of Labour is in a rather unique position today. On the one hand, in debate last week he said there's no provision for weighted voting. Then he went out on the weekend and said: "When weighted voting comes in with the bylaws, I'm going to oppose those bylaws. They're going to have to convince me." Well, Mr. Chairman, it's important, I believe, if the minister feels that this is a matter of conscience on which he should take a position which might depart from that of his cabinet colleagues, that he should do so in this Legislature. Don't wait to get behind the closed doors of cabinet, Mr. Minister. Don't wait until the cabinet doors close and bring the shroud of secrecy to say: "I fought for democracy, I really oppose those bylaws, and I'm the only clean one of this gang." You have your opportunity with the light of day shining on you in this public forum of debate, Mr. Minister. If anyone in this province is to ever give any credibility to any future utterance of that minister, he had better protect his credibility today and support this amendment. It's as simple as that.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs has risen in his place and said: "We'll closely monitor and look at those bylaws when they come before us. They'll be vented and they'll come to cabinet...." Well, obviously we now have two cabinet ministers who do not agree either on the contents of the bill and its authority, or on the principle of weighted voting. So, Mr. Minister, I suggest to you as Minister of Municipal Affairs — through you, Mr. Chairman — that you should have the candour to say in this House that either those people who have a higher investment are going to pack more clout in the democratic process than the ordinary residential landowner in that community, or they are not. The minister shouldn't try to play both sides. You cannot be a little bit pregnant. Either the bill provides for weighted voting or it does not. If it's not the intent to provide that kind of distorted benefit to the rich in this province, then, Mr. Minister, accept this simple amendment.

It's a very clear-cut issue today. If anyone wants to play Mr. Liberal Nice Guy in that coalition, they have their opportunity today, because it's too late, after this amendment is dealt with, to go into the secrecy of cabinet and try to clear your name by protestations that you voted against the cabinet to protect the principle of democratic procedure in this province.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

[ Page 1130 ]

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a word or two on this bill. The analogy to a strata corporation is ridiculous. This little thing is only 325 acres, but it's called a municipality.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. MACDONALD: Well, it says "resort municipality." Is the government seriously going to turn its back on the principle of one man, one vote in a municipality? If you are, how many other municipalities down the road are you going to look at and import that undemocratic principle into?

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: Which municipality? This one? Is this a municipality, or is it not? Is the bill correctly named, or is it not? Does this government believe in one man, one vote within a municipality?

Now here's the acid test and the Minister of Labour is joking and laughing; but he's being forced to accept the acid test. We're going to watch how you vote, to see whether you live up to your protestations, Mr. Minister.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: I keep getting interrupted by the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Curtis). That means I'll be thrown out in the hall.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Same time next year, Mr. Provincial Secretary, yes.

We are dealing now with a municipality, and we are engaged in a grave departure from principles of municipal self-government and democracy. The simple principle of one man, one vote, if it is repudiated now by this government, is something that every municipality in British Columbia should be afraid of.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Certainly one man-one vote is applicable in the municipality, and as they vote for their municipal councils then there is no question about that at all. We are talking about an association which is there for a specific purpose — to promote Whistler as a resort destination. It may be, Mr. Chairman, that in fact the bylaws could provide that only those who benefit from the reservation system — that is the hotels particularly — would contribute toward whatever money is required to promote the reservation system. In that particular instance it could be argued that democratically those people should vote on the expenditures of moneys that are taken from the fund to which they have contributed. So, talking about democracy, I think they should consider their amendment very carefully and they'll find that it is not in order here, that it is not applicable, and that it could, in fact, be some injustice.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I do not with to prolong the debate in any way, except to say that this bill is here on the behest of the municipality, and in their judgment it was necessary. But, above all, such things as we have here, such as the weighted vote, are necessary. I refer the hon. members of the opposition to the Strata Titles Act of 1974....

AN HON. MEMBER: It is not a municipality.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

MR. MUSSALLEM: It doesn't matter; it makes no difference.

The Strata Titles Act of 1974, in which that opposition, when it was government, gave the weighted right to the strata title holders.... The weighted right was given because, as is clearly stated here, in that area there were business as well as residential lots. It says here, very clearly, under section 1(h): "In respect that the strata title plan is not entirely for residential use...have endorsed upon it a schedule that is acceptable to the superintendent of insurance at the time of filing the prospectus under the Real Estate Act, specifying the number of votes allocated to each non-residential strata lot, and that...."

Now here is an almost a parallel thing. I'm not saying they were wrong then; I'm saying they were right. But why speak both ways at different times? It is necessary in this case because of the tremendous size of the development in conjunction with the municipality. That is necessary and it must be done. I see no point in the amendment, and I am prepared to vote against it.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 18

NAYS 28

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

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On the title.

MR. LORIMER: Briefly, Mr. Chairman, the title is a misnomer. There is no connection whatever between the original Resort Municipality of Whistler Act and the documents that we are debating here today. There is absolutely no connection whatever, and they should be separate bills. This was a good bill. This one is a different bill and should stand on its own feet.

Title approved.

[ Page 1131 ]

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 34, Resort Municipality of Whistler Amendment Act, 1979, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

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

ATTORNEY-GENERAL STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

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

Sections 1 to 20 inclusive approved.

On section 22.

MS. BROWN: On section 22, Mr. Chairperson....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. It's "Mr. Chairman," please.

MS. BROWN: I'm not prepared to get into a debate with you over that, so I will just refrain from referring to you, Mr. Chairperson.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Because of a previous ruling of the Chair, I must ask that if a member wishes to refer to the person sitting in the chair, they refer to "Mr. Chairman."

MS. BROWN: I will not refer to the person sitting in the chair.

Section 6(1)(d) of the Act presently reads: "...possession of the family residence and its contents." The amendment has been changed to make it read: "...occupancy of the family residence and the use of its contents." I'm very opposed to this amendment and, in fact, quite disappointed by it. It's one of the things that the original Act had which was of some kind of value to the spouse who decided to remain at home with the children, whether that spouse is male or female. By amending that to go back to the old "occupancy of the family residence, and the use of its contents," we've taken one step forward and two steps backward. Nothing has really changed. Although I realize we've had a couple of bizarre examples recently of very expensive family residences up for grabs in settlement and maintenance cases, I don't think those two exceptions justify amending this particular section.

It goes on to talk about the fact that as a result of this amendment the property can't be changed in any meaningful way. This means the spouse cannot sell it, do any major renovations, or put a suite in the basement in order to gain some kind of livelihood out of it, or anything. In fact, all it ensures is that the person living in the family home is stuck right there. As is the habit in many instances now, given the opportunity, that family home is sold, the equity is taken out of it and that spouse has something with which to start a new life for herself or himself. As a result of this occupancy ruling, rather than possession, as it was in the previous legislation — especially with the contents as well — what we have is a further enslavement of the spouse remaining at home.

I would like to ask the Attorney-General to give some justification for this section being amended back to what it was before the bill was introduced. In particular, why did it have to include the contents of the family home?

HON. MR. GARDOM: In response to the hon. member, section 6 refers to the jurisdiction of the provincial court, and only of the provincial court. It was felt that possession started to transgress into the powers of the superior courts under section 96 of the BNA Act. As I've mentioned in the House before in debate and personally to the hon. member, the constitution of Canada, as it now stands, is providing a far larger number of obstacles and hurdles for local decision-making than it ever has in the past, perhaps by virtue of the fact that Canadian society is more complex and more interdependent, as are all societies in the western world. That is the number one problem. The amendment is here in order to effectively reflect the constitutional difficulty that we are facing, and that we considered we were facing.

So this makes it absolutely clear that the provincial court does not have jurisdiction under part 3, which the supreme court does have. The supreme court has ample jurisdiction in dealing with possession under part 3 of the Act. I would refer you to section 52(2)(a), wherein the supreme court can declare the ownership of or the right to possession of property. So the remedy is there; but the remedy is not constitutionally available, insofar as possession is concerned, in the provincial court of this province, nor in the provincial court of any province in the country. That's why the words "occupancy and use" have been substituted — possession goes to proprietary rights, and "occupancy and use" does not.

MS. BROWN: I tried to discuss this explanation when I mentioned this to the Attorney-General before and he gave me that explanation. I've tried to discuss it with various and sundry people dealing in this area, and they have told me that, in fact, what the bill now does is to make it possible to go to court and get a divorce, but still end up having to go to family court to deal with the bread and butter issues. You still have that split jurisdiction, and you still have the contentious parts of the whole business of divorce being dealt with at the family court level. You really haven't solved anything by doing it this way. Under the present system — even before this bill was amended — the family court can deal with the fact that the spouse who is at home can have possession of the house and its contents, and deal with them in whatever way she or he deems fit to do so. This has now been taken away from the family court and put back into the superior court.

[ Page 1132 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: There is a provision under the Family Relations Act for the joinder of proceedings into the supreme court, where all matters can be heard at the some time. The difficulty lies in the ramifications of the BNA Act. It is really just that simple. You know, there was a tremendous desire indicated in this province, and in no end of other provinces, to have all family law under one roof. This is a measure that British Columbia has been advocating for a number of years. And it is true that this province piloted the unified family court concept, in order to provide better delivery of family services, and reduce the adversariality and expand the concept and make it more accessible to the people who need it throughout the whole of the province, and indeed throughout the whole of the country.

This was a matter on which a great deal of consensus was reached at the last federal-provincial conference on the constitution. Perhaps there was a greater degree of consensus reached here than on any other point, and that was that the provinces be given the power to appoint provincial judges to have jurisdiction in all family matters, including the granting of divorce decrees. Well, that was an indication of the desires of the then Premiers and the then Prime Minister of Canada. Now we have a substantial number of new governments in the provinces in our country, and we also have, of course, a new federal government.

This matter was met with a great deal of approval at the federal level, and the argument behind it was that the service would be more accessible because there are more provincial courts. They are in more locales throughout all of the provinces than we find the superior courts.

There has been some recent opposition to it by the bars in certain of the provinces. There was also the recommendation at the federal-provincial conference that the provinces should eventually be able to make their own divorce laws. But this is not suggesting that any province would become a divorce mecca. Dramatic changes would not be anticipated because the federal side, under the concept, would retain authority to insist that a divorce granted in one province be recognized in all others.

I'm just sort of bringing you up to date concerning the conceptual direction that was taken a matter of a few months ago. I'm only going to be redundant in saying to you now that the purpose of the amendment is to make it abundantly clear that we do not have a transgression of jurisdiction and run into conflict with the British North America Act and section 96, judge power.

MS. BROWN: I certainly appreciate the history about the direction. I'm quite aware of it, as I am sure the Attorney-General knows, but this section hasn't been challenged. Has anyone challenged that section since it has been on the books?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Oh, yes.

MS. BROWN: I was under the impression that you amended the section even though no one had ever challenged it.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Do you want me to stand up?

MS. BROWN: Sure.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's a question of some nicety as to whether or not it was an effective challenge, because the challenge was not initiated by the litigants in question, nor was process under the Constitutional Questions Determination Act followed — serving the notice of challenge upon either the federal Minister of Justice or the provincial Attorney-General.

MS. BROWN: It seems to me that would have been the more logical way to do it, Mr. Attorney-General, because as the Act was written originally, that is in the best interests of the spouse. The possession of the contents and the house is in the best interests of the spouse. Now to back away from that without going through all of the constitutional challenges that are available to us, I think, is not the best way to do it.

The amendment weakens this piece of legislation, and renders it.... There is no protection whatsoever for the spouse.

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

MS. BROWN: The fact of the matter is that in many instances the spouse who is not employed outside of the home cannot afford to continue to occupy that home. The spouse cannot afford to meet the mortgage payments or any of the expenses involved in occupying that house, and if the other fails to meet his or her maintenance payments, then everything is lost to that spouse. So it would have made much more sense for the government to have challenged that and gone through all of the legal avenues open to us to protect that section of the Act, rather than to water it down this way.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Hon. member, we have developed what we consider to be the best method of protecting the statute. I know that you are not wishing to misconstrue anything, but I think, with every respect, you have emphasized something that is not correct, and that is that the rights for possession have not disappeared one iota by virtue of this amendment. I have to repeat that. You're nodding in acquiescence.

MS. BROWN: Sure, you hire yourself an expensive lawyer and you go and apply for it.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Your last remark, hon. member, somewhat convinced me, and indeed I hope erroneously, that you were under the impression that the rights of possession have disappeared. The rights of possession have not disappeared. They're still there under the powers of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, but it is not possible constitutionally, in our view, to grant that possessory power to the provincial court, so in substitution thereof, the provincial court has been granted the power to deal with occupancy of the family residence and use of its contents.

MS. BROWN: I know that the right is there for anyone who can afford to go out and hire themselves an expensive lawyer and carry it through a superior court. There is a difference involved in the cost of dealing with superior court and dealing with family court. Anyone who can afford an expensive lawyer can end up, if they have a good enough

[ Page 1133 ]

one, with 100 percent of the estate. I know that. I'm talking about those people who haven't got access to expensive legal counsel, Mr. Attorney-General.

Section 22 approved.

Section 21 approved.

Sections 23 to 64 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, we were dealing with sections 21, 22 and 23. You did cover section 22 there, did you? We've got all the sections?

MR. CHAIRMAN: They were all passed.

Interjection.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes, and the Chairman did call it, but I just wished to be certain....

MR. CHAIRMAN: We called section 22, then went back to section 21 and then went 23, 24, 25 through to 30, then 31 through 40.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Under the "I", Bingo, congratulations.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 29, Attorney-General Statutes Amendment Act, 1979, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move we proceed to motions and adjourned debate on motions, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

On Motion 1.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1, under the name of the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes).

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the second member for Vancouver Centre....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. You will need leave to move in the absence of another member.

Leave granted.

MR. HALL: I have the motion signed by the second member for Vancouver Centre, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, all members are aware that the topic covered in the motion regarding the British Columbia Summer Games and the televising of those games has been the subject of many questions in the House. It has seen members on this side of the House rise on numerous occasions to challenge the government's decision, and indeed challenge the right to permit one commercial television company the exclusive privilege to report live telecasts of the British Columbia Summer Games.

In the absence of the second member for Vancouver Centre, I want to convey to the House and particularly to the Provincial Secretary the arguments from our point of view. The resolution is that the British Columbia Summer Games should exemplify the spirit of grassroots participation, that local community organizations, individuals and athletes who cooperate in staging the games should be recognized and the local TV community channels and local commercial TV stations be afforded equal opportunity to record and report the games, as indeed the larger commercial TV networks.

The object of the resolution, Mr. Speaker, is to ensure that the Canadian Radio and Television Commission licensing policy concerning cable television companies is not undermined by this government, is not undermined by the private deals made by representatives of the government and retained personnel.

The Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission requires the cable company, for instance, to return a 5 to 10 percent revenue to the community in the form of non-commercial, non-profit community channels. Such channels are to televise events of local grassroots interest such as the British Columbia Summer and Winter Games. The B.C. Games are perhaps one of the most exacting examples of events community TV should be expected, or expect, to carry and to telecast.

Because of government hype and promotion and ballyhoo, the games, under the professionalism of the managing director, have turned into a commercial commodity from an advertising point of view. By the director's mistaken notion, now supported by the government, granting the exclusive right to telecast the games to one commercial television company was the best assurance of broad and thorough coverage. That has done a disservice not only to other competitive stations in community TV, but to the community as a whole. That's the statement, Mr. Speaker. I thank you very much, and I move Motion 1.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I thank the second member for Surrey for his comments with respect to this topic which has occupied considerable attention on the part of the hon. second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) since this session commenced some weeks ago.

I find some of the statements which the hon. second member for Surrey has presented on behalf of his colleagues to be rather strong in tone. Fair enough. We have the 1979 British Columbia Summer Games commencing this week, and we look forward — I think on both sides of the House — to the most successful series of games yet, involving hundreds of British Columbians. With respect to the point which has been made on a number of occasions by the member opposite — who is not in his seat at this time — perhaps as a result of his early questions, a meeting was held between the community cable companies in British Columbia and the television network which has a contractual arrangement with respect to the games. My information, as we discussed just a few days ago in my estimates, without reflecting on those votes, Mr. Speaker, suggests that perhaps the resolution which has been reached is more amicable than the absent member opposite would believe.

[ Page 1134 ]

Nonetheless, the government will watch the way the television network which has this contractual arrangement, and the cable companies, work out any arrangement during these games. Should it be apparent there is some difficulty I shall certainly address myself to it.

Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate to the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Motion 2, Mr. Speaker.

On Motion 2.

MR. HYNDMAN: I have here a signed coy of Motion 2, which I will table with the Clerk at the conclusion of my remarks.

By way of prefacing those, Mr. Speaker, may I say that this motion is in no way critical of the practising bar, of lawyers in British Columbia, the judiciary, the Ministry of the Attorney-General, or the Attorney-General. Because it deals with the private sector, it is supportive of the efforts all those persons are making to improve the quality of the delivery of legal services in his province.

Briefly, I would like to outline the essence of the motion. It is to call for a special committee of this House to inquire into several topics relative to the principle of the private sector, not the government, making legal services more available and more affordable to the public. The phrase "private sector" is important because, philosophically, the source from which greater availability and lower cost of legal services must come is the private sector. Hopefully, through the work of this committee, new ways can be found to improve the delivery of those services.

Briefly, the committee would enquire into three topics. First, there is the question of legal advertising, a question that in recent months has vexed the members of the practising bar and the Law Society of British Columbia. Two aspects to that question could be usefully considered. The first is the extent to which, through advertising, the informational function of advertising could permit our public to better understand what lawyers do, how it is done, and how the legal process works. Secondly, on the question of legal services costs, this committee could give guidance and a public declaration as to the proper position the Law Society should take on the question of whether or not lawyers can advertise their fees or their costs.

Speaking personally, I'm of the view that lawyers, to remove the mystery, should be allowed to advertise in an informational way if they wish to spend their dollars to tell the public what they do and how they do it. Secondly, because the question of legal costs and legal fees is one of the most misunderstood in the area of solicitor-client relationships, any light which can be shed on costs, through advertising, is to be encouraged.

My second topic is the question of home-acquisition costs, particularly for the first-time home buyer, be it a home, a house, a condominium. The conveyance fees, particularly if a mortgage is involved and where land registry disbursements are very high, are front-end costs. This means that the money has to be put up at the front, at the time of closing, when it's often tough to get the down payment together. Many lawyers of the practising bar have been grappling with this problem. The practising bar shares the concern of the public that these costs are high. The two areas which I think the private sector should be encouraged in are: to carry on its work with the use of computers in the land registry system, and the possible organization of a title-insurance system. These are topics for which solutions to the problems must come from the private sector, not from government; hence, the committee should investigate those.

Finally there's the question of a prepaid legal care system for British Columbia, under which our citizens voluntarily can subscribe, much like medicare, to a system of legal services and, when needed, on an insurance pool basis. Thus, the services of a lawyer can be afforded in consideration of regular and, hopefully, modest monthly premiums. This kind of a premium system has been in existence in Europe for years and in the United States in many sectors but, surprisingly, not in Canada, although the British Columbia branch of the Canadian Bar Association, to its credit, has pioneered the Canadian work and research in this area, and, I think, should be encouraged.

Through this motion, a committee of this House could encourage the private sector and encourage the private practitioners in the bar. It could let them know this House is concerned that they continue their efforts to find ways to make legal services better understood, and to make them more affordable.

The tremendous importance of the private sector being encouraged to do this — not big government — is that the legal rights of our citizens often involve claims against government, or the question of the citizen's rights vis-a-vis government. For that reason, the delivery of legal services must remain in the private sector. Through this committee we can encourage that to happen.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The hon. member has made some very interesting and valuable points. He raised three matters: advertising by lawyers, the ways and means of reducing legal costs of home acquisition, and the benefits of a prepaid legal care or insurance program.

Dealing with the first, this matter is under active consideration right now by the bar in this province and by the bars in other provinces in the country. It has already developed extensively in other common law jurisdictions.

Dealing with the question of reduction of costs of home acquisition, this is a matter we indeed hope will be fulfilled to a greater extent by virtue of the new land titles system. We hope it will eventually provide a far better and more reasonable method of conveyancing, certainly in the simple conveyancing situations.

Prepaid legal care: of course if insurers in the province decide to come into that field, it is open for them to do so. They have done so in other jurisdictions, and they have had some measured degree of success with it.

So I would conclude by saying the matters are under consideration by the bar and by the government, and I thank the member for his attention to the points in question. I move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Motion 3, Mr. Speaker.

On Motion 3.

[ Page 1135 ]

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure that this motion is going to have the unanimous support of the House, and that the government will not move adjournment to it because it's the kind of motion that everyone — not just in British Columbia, but everywhere in the world — is supposed to be supporting at this time,

The motion says that in keeping with the spirit of the International Year of the Child, this House endorses the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child. On behalf of this particular year UNICEF issued a pamphlet in which it said: "The International Year of the Child provides Canadians with an opportunity to do something now for the future of our children." Endorsing the declaration would certainly be one way in which we could begin to do that thing.

It is not going to place an impost on the Crown. It is not asking for the spending of any money. It is not asking for the striking of any medals, or the printing of any scrolls or songbooks. It merely says that we, as British Columbians, endorse the things declared by the United Nations to be the rights of children.

The declaration says that the child has the right to affection, love and understanding. That first declaration, of course, is probably the most difficult one that we are placing before the government at this time. It also says that the child has the right to adequate nutrition and medical care; to free education; to the full opportunity for play and recreation; to a name and nationality. In the event that the child is handicapped he or she has the right to special care. The child should be among the first to receive relief in times of disaster, and the child should learn to be a useful member of society and to develop individual abilities. The child has the right to be brought up in the spirit of peace and universal brotherhood. All children should enjoy these rights regardless of race, colour, sex, religion, national or social origin.

In effect, this resolution is a companion to the private member's bill introduced by the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), Bill M 205, the Children's Rights Act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MS. BROWN: I'm not going to be dealing with the legislation; I just mentioned it in passing.

I am going to be saying though, that this would be one way in which the government could declare its genuine commitment to improving the status of the children of British Columbia at this time. And so, Mr. Speaker, I am hoping that, when the minister responsible rises to speak, she will be speaking in support of this resolution rather than adjourning it. The year comes to an end on December 31, so this is not an issue which can be adjourned. It's an issue which, with happiness and joy and love, all members of this House should support at this time.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to support, on behalf of the government side of the House, the resolution which has been put forward by the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown). In doing so, I would like to say to the hon. member, because I think it may have escaped her notice, that on February 9, 1979, the Lieutenant-Governor signed order-in-council No. 399, in which the government of British Columbia, on the recommendation of the Lieutenant-Governor, by and with the advice and consent of the executive council, paid tribute to the International Year of the Child and the declaration of the United Nations Assembly by ordering that:

"Whereas the United Nations Assembly has declared 1979 to be the Year of the Child; and whereas the government of the province wishes to emphasize the role of the total provincial community in caring for children and contributing to family life; and whereas the government of the province wishes to encourage citizens in their efforts to enhance the lives of children and families; and whereas the government of the province wishes to give recognition to individuals and organizations at every level who are found to be setting an example of service to children and families; and whereas in recognition the government of the province deems it expedient to issue a proclamation appointing the year of 1979 as Year of the Child and Family in the province of British Columbia, a proclamation be issued appointing the year of 1979 as the Year of the Child and Family in the province of British Columbia."

Mr. Speaker, may I say in support of the resolution that is before us that there is no question that the government in our province — and I say that in comparison to other provinces across this nation — has certainly been in the forefront in this nation in recognition of the child in this year. May I say too that historically the citizens of our province have always strived every year, year upon year, to give their commitment and their tax dollars. In the spirit of the Year of the Child and the United Nations declaration.... They have in past years and will in years to come, I know, support that.

So it is with the greatest of pleasure that I rise on behalf of the government and ask the House to concur with this resolution. I hope that in the months to come all sides of the House will make every effort and will call on all members of our province to live within the spirit of the declaration and within the total commitment that we all make in this House to the children whom we serve and represent in this province.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Motion 4, Mr. Speaker.

On Motion 4.

MR. BARBER: This motion will, I hope, meet a similarly happy fate, as did the previous one, because it's similarly non-partisan.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Well, have you read it?

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Apparently not. Let me read the motion, if I may:

"This House urges the government of Canada and the government of the United Kingdom to protect the pensions of British citizens resident in British Columbia by indexing and increasing those pensions to the same extent as in the United

[ Page 1136 ]

Kingdom, and urges the governments of Canada and the United Kingdom to sign a reciprocal social security agreement to ensure that those pensions are protected."

I'd like to point out, if I may, Mr. Speaker, that the motion does not call for the expenditure of a single cent of tax money in British Columbia. It's in no fashion an impost on the Crown. Rather, it's a declaration of opinion by this House that an unfair situation should not be allowed to continue. The unfair situation, very simply, is this: in Canada there are some 22,000 persons, formerly citizens of the United Kingdom, now resident in and citizens of Canada, for the most part, who find themselves in the unhappy position that because they have left the United Kingdom, their pensions are frozen at the value they had on the day they left. What that means is that when they come to the riding shared by my colleague for Victoria and myself.... Say, for instance, they had a pension of 12 pounds a week in 1974; that pension is 12 pounds a week today. It's frozen. The reason it's frozen is because so far Canada and the United Kingdom have been unable or unwilling to come to an agreement called a reciprocal social security agreement in international law that would be mutually binding on both partners to the agreement, that would require Canada to pay an indexed pension, as we do to our own residents in the United Kingdom, and that would require the United Kingdom similarly to pay such an indexed increase to its pensioners resident in Canada.

In my own riding, there are literally hundreds of people who have in a totally unfair way been the victims of an apparent unwillingness on the part of both national governments, Canadian and British, to reach an agreement.

I should point out that Canada currently has agreements with other nations. Britain itself has agreements with 21 other countries, including Yugoslavia, Italy and Turkey. Britain has no agreement with Canada. I'd like to point out as well that two years ago in January the government of Canada moved a bill which would empower Canada to sign such an agreement with the United Kingdom. It is already now a matter of federal policy in our country.

I hope that if this House accepts the motion, which is not an impost on the Crown — it only calls for fair play in pensions — it will add some moral weight to the case that has been made many times before: that we must have such a reciprocal social security agreement. This agreement would protect the incomes of 22,000, it is estimated, UK pensioners now living in Canada. These people have a right not to live on a frozen income. You and I would expect that right. So do they. So should they have that right protected.

The effect of this motion would be to communicate to Ottawa and to London our opinion that the current situation is unfair, and our wish, as one of the members of Confederation, that Canada and the United Kingdom will both come to a sensible and early agreement to protect the pensions of these people. It is not a partisan resolution. It doesn't cost the people of British Columbia a dime, except perhaps for postage to mail a copy of the resolution to London and to Ottawa. I think it's fair; it's welcome. I hope the government supports it. That too would be most welcome.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, speaking to Motion 4, the hon. first member for Victoria has, I think, in a few words outlined a problem which is a concern not only on that side of the House but on this side as well. The degree to which this problem can be measured in British Columbia is something which I think we should explore.

I've listened to the observations of the member on the precise magnitude of the problem, and I am advised that as much as we would like to accept this, we have to be concerned about treaty matters, inasmuch as he has moved that this be referred both to London and to Ottawa. That presents the government with some difficulties. I do undertake, on behalf of the government, with the member.... Inasmuch as it appears that an adjournment is going to occur, this matter can remain before this House. I will undertake to meet with the member for Victoria, should he wish, and with those pension specialists who are available to government — within the government employ. Albeit they have responsibility for public sector pensions and superannuations in British Columbia, they can nonetheless assist both of us in measuring this problem and we can then consider the matter further.

I give the member that undertaking in what is a matter which crosses partisan lines, as he observed, but also, with regret, which crosses beyond at least a couple of boundaries where this House has no jurisdiction. I therefore move adjournment of this debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Motion 6, Mr. Speaker.

On Motion 6.

MR. SMITH: The purpose of this resolution, Mr. Speaker, is to urge the government of Canada to introduce some legislation which will modify their national policy of metric conversion to ensure that the consumer is protected and not confused. Since I first spoke in this House on the subject of metric conversion, and first introduced a private member's bill, the Truth In Metric Act, I've had a fair amount of correspondence from around the province, and I've also had brought to my attention a number of rather unfortunate elements of metric conversion that are taking place.

I was sent a copy of a letter today that went to CKWX Radio in Vancouver from a gentleman who describes himself as a media relations officer for the Metric Commission of Canada. This gentleman wrote to the news editor of CKWX admonishing that station for giving understandable temperature — that is temperature readings in Fahrenheit, not metric — which is, apparently, a most unpatriotic thing to do, according to the metric media bully who wrote this letter. He suggested the station was not really playing on the national ball team, and they were undermining Canadian unity and not contributing to the economic growth of the country.

If we are going to be subject to this kind of national implementation of metric, and we're going to have $20,000-a-year-plus media relations officers writing these letters, I am sure that within a matter of a few months when the final horrendous convulsions of metric take place, we will have bounties placed in the hands of children to inform and snitch on their parents if they, by change, take a temperature reading in the home in the old imperial Fahrenheit measurement or, perchance, their mother decides to use a teaspoon to measure some condiments in the kitchen.

[ Page 1137 ]

What this motion is trying to do is to get some sense into the whole metric conversion operation, and pause and take stock of where we're going in relation to the United States. At the fifth annual conference of the American Metric Council in Washington in April, it was made very clear that Americans are not going to be into metric until 1990, not 1980. In spite of all these tremendous timetables that Metric Canada has been pushing us toward so that we won't be out of pace with our neighbours to the south, it appears that we are 11 years ahead of them. I think we should slow down and let them catch up. In the process of doing so we should protect the consumer a little more.

This resolution doesn't commit the payment of any money by the province of British Columbia and is not critical of the policies of the government of British Columbia. It simply urges this House to urge the government of Canada to make some modifications in its program.

As far as the consumer is concerned, and the confusion that he faces, one of the problems is that increases in price are slipping in under the guise of metrification. It was pointed out to me the other day that the doctors' cards to the medical plan, which go in bulk each month for billing — a little item like that.... For some time the cost of mailing these has been 17 cents for one ounce. A new price list has just recently been sent out and it now is 17 cents for one gram. Since a gram is barely half of an ounce that is almost a doubling in price under the guise of metrification. This sort of nonsense occurs almost daily. Most of it seems to be the result of a policy embarked upon by weights-and-measures bureaucrats in Ottawa who aren't interested one whit in the sensibilities or the understanding of consumers across the country.

They talk about information policies and how their program is voluntary. But if you step out of line and try and give an old designation to help a confused pensioner, you're going to get a letter from a metric bully in Ottawa, and he is going to admonish you.

I look to the Minister of Education, Science and Technology as the guardian of metric truth in British Columbia. I know he is earnestly and sincerely concerned about this problem, as is the B.C. director of metric. I urge the House to support the resolution and to bring some sanity and understanding into the metric conversion program.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the member has some excellent points to make for the House, not the least of which is that the proposed metric conversion for Canada is giving the younger generation another tremendous advantage over the older generation. They will be able to run even more circles around us when it comes to calculating how much gasoline goes in the tank of the car and so on.

We do have a national commitment with respect to conversion to metric. As all members know, we're midway between the United States, which is dragging its feet, and the rest of the world, which is metric. We do business with both, and therefore we've got to stride that middle ground between the great power to the south of us and the rest of the world.

There is excellent food for thought in the member's motion. As the person responsible for metric in British Columbia, it is certainly something that I would like to consider very carefully. In order to do that, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Motion 8, Mr. Speaker.

On Motion 8.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, if you only knew the long and arduous path this motion has taken. It reminds me of a man who slipped down a cliff and caught a branch by his hand as he was falling. He was alone on the cliff, and all he did was call out: "Is there anybody to help me?" Not a voice was heard.

Suddenly out of a cloud came a voice saying: "I am here. What do you want?"

He said: "I want help. Who are you?"

"I'm your God. I can help you. Have faith. Let go."

"Have faith? Let go? Is there anybody else up there?" [Laughter. ]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, debate on motions must be relevant.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I thought I could probably exemplify in one minute more than I could say in a few minutes.

Here I have the honour to stand in my place, after all this, and move that the third report of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills be adopted.

MR. HALL: I rise to oppose the adoption of this report. As a member of that committee that dealt with the application — a committee that by a majority vote found the preamble approved and asked that the bill be proceeded with — I want to acquaint you, Mr. Speaker, with what I consider to be an unsatisfactory report. This report is being made to the House without the members of the committee having had the basic information and knowledge from the public policy-deciding bodies of this province.

There were many witnesses, the first of whom came on behalf of the petitioner. All were good people, all stated their point of view and, I'm sure, in the main, one can agree with most of what they said. But we wanted to find out more, and we asked for witnesses to come from the Ministry of Education and from the Universities Council of British Columbia.

I want to tell you, I have never seen a more discomforted person in my life than the witness from the Ministry of Education. That witness was not forthcoming; his embarrassment was obvious. The ministry did not have a position. How can we adopt this report knowing that those people who are in charge of post-secondary education in this province do not have a position on this bill? It is beyond me, Mr. Speaker.

That's not to say that there is anything wrong with the petition. That's not to say there is anything wrong with the petitioner. That's not to say there is anything wrong with the information that the petitioner brought to the committee. But as legislators and as members of that committee, we were entitled to know what the position of the ministry was and what the position of the Universities Council was. The position of the ministry was vague; it was not forthcoming. We had a discomforted witness, and one who was obviously embarrassed by the questions that were asked of him.

[ Page 1138 ]

The Universities Council came with a negative report, and has since committed itself in reporting to the print media of the province, and we find that they too are not satisfied with the progress of this bill.

In speaking against the adoption of the report, I can think of no more unsatisfactory way to deal with major issues of post-secondary education than by this method. By saying that, Mr. Speaker, I want to assure you that I find no objection whatsoever in the fact that the petitioners came by way of private bill. According to the testimony in front of us, that was the only way in which the petitioner could find his way into the Legislature. He was having no success with the ministry and no success with the Universities Council. I say that, in itself, must tell us something. That, in itself, must make us ask why we are asked to adopt a report which seeks to give permission, which seeks to confer a power, without the necessary information provided to the Legislature, the legislators and the committee members in this most important topic.

I cannot support the adoption of this report.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely appalled that the Minister of Education would see fit to ever allow a bill to come to the floor of this House from a private bills committee which, by his silence and acceptance, is going to change the whole direction of post-secondary education in this province. He is completely abrogating his responsibility as the educational leader of this province.

As the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) just stated, the issue here is not to complain about the inability of Trinity College to be a degree-granting institution. The issue is that this private bills committee was asked to vote, in one day, on granting them degree status. There was no public inquiry or input from the Universities Council or the ministry.

I've heard government members say: "Oh, but this came up before." Mr. Speaker, the Social Credit government is bound and determined, for political reasons, obviously, to push through this bill in front of us without proper input by the proper authorities in this province. It is forcing this Legislature, which is literally what we've become used to, to take part in this. I find it very reprehensible.

The problem we face is that the Universities Council was set up primarily to enable the Ministry of Education and the government to analyse any new degree-granting institutions that would be established in this province. They have had that right taken away from them by forcing us to debate this bill in the private bills committee, and then on the floor of the House.

In this morning's paper one of the government appointed members stated, in reference to the Minister of Education: "McGeer uses the council when it is to his advantage and ignores it when it isn't." He's particularly referring to this case of granting a degree to a college, when no one knows whether that college is capable of producing degree-granting facilities.

All the members of the opposition have asked from this government and from the government committee is to let them have a fair hearing. That means let's have input, not only from Trinity College, but let's have a proper analysis by those who know.

Mr. Speaker, most of the committee members are lay people. They're not educators, and yet they're being asked to sit there and judge in one day whether a facility should be given the right to grant degrees. To grant degrees is a very important thing in this province, and by dealing in this haphazard, political manner, they are denigrating the whole higher educational system.

The argument has been made: "What is it to do with us? Because, after all, Trinity College does not receive public money." I want to put that argument to rest. In a moment I'll deal with that, but before I do may I say that the point is not whether they receive public money. We have a right to be sure that no college is raised to university degree status without proper analysis by those who can do it.

As to the matter of not having public money, when the Social Credit government took office in this province, one of their first moves was to ensure that Trinity College received money from the federal government, which is transferred to them under the Post-Secondary Fiscal Arrangements Act. That was one of their first moves. That means that Trinity College is receiving public funds. Some people say: "Yes, but that's federal tax money."

AN HON. MEMBER: Half a million.

MRS. DAILLY: Half a million, but we're all taxpayers.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, something that I think has been ignored by some of the Social Credit members is that when that money is received from the federal government, the ministry has to decide how to apportion it. If you put in a private institution and give them money, then naturally it follows that there's going to be less money for the public institutions. The argument that Trinity College does not receive public funds is completely erroneous.

Mr. Speaker, it has been stated by members of that committee, and if I recall, particularly by the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland), who seemed to want to push this through in rather unseemly haste....

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: It's a fact. One day, and you expect us to decide whether a college should have degree-granting status. In fact, maybe we'll say one hour, Mr. Speaker.

It has been suggested, particularly by that member: "Well, the Universities Council is not complaining; the ministry isn't complaining." I want to put that to rest, because it was pointed out by the second member for Surrey that it was quite obvious that the representatives from the council and from the ministry at that meeting had been muzzled, and I mean "muzzled," Mr. Chairman. We have never seen people attend a hearing who were so obviously disconcerted and uncomfortable. Someone got to them, I regret to say — not to all members.... And I'm not holding those people responsible. They are doing their job, particularly the deputy minister, who is working for the minister. But he was exceptionally uncomfortable.

Dr. Perry, who was representing the Universities Council, stated: "The Universities Council is having some difficulty in understanding why a significant change in higher education policy is being contemplated through a private member's bill." This came from Dr. Perry, an esteemed and respected educator in this province.

He made the point that all university education can become a very costly service. One can expect, in time, that if Trinity College were granted degree status, eventually it

[ Page 1139 ]

would be coming for more public money. It is a fact that will have to come. If you look at the history of the private colleges in the United States — there was a recent article on them — they're folding up right and left. If we decide to give degree-granting status, then we have to accept the fact that there's going to be more of a drain on the public purse. Dr. Perry went on to say:

"There is a public interest involvement in the maintenance of an acceptable academic quality behind all university degrees granted in British Columbia. The holder of a degree from any of our recognized universities has some assurance therefore that his or her credentials are going to be accepted because they have been properly analysed, studied and given credentials by those who are aware of what is needed in a university to give it the full status."

He went on to say:

"In this procedure, Trinity Western would be legally raised to full university standing. Other private institutions may also reasonably be expected to seek the same privilege."

We are opening a Pandora's box, Mr. Speaker. Any group in B.C. who wants to have degree-granting status, can simply come before the private bills committee, talk to enough Social Credit members and get degree-granting status without any input whatsoever. I know the member for Fraser Valley, who is behind this petition....

AN HON. MEMBER: The member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland),

MRS. DAILLY: The member for Langley — is he going to stand up and tell us that he alone has the capability of knowing that a college in this province can give degree-granting status? I'd like to know his background that gives him that ability and the credibility with the educational world to be able to stand up in this House and tell us: "I know they're capable." I can't accept it from one member. I can't accept it from a private bills committee and, may I say, I cannot understand how the Minister of Education of this province could actually allow such a thing to happen to post-secondary education in the province of British Columbia.

I could go on at great length, but in the interests of time and I understand that the Lieutenant-Governor will be coming in shortly — and because I also know the facts of life in this Legislature, that they have the numbers.... Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, they have the numbers in the select standing committee, where the members of the opposition all voted against this travesty, this procedure that has been forced upon us. They have the numbers here, unfortunately.

So I will not carry on any longer, except to say that I would hope that the Minister of Education would stand up in this House and say there is no way that we can proceed. But unfortunately we know that the reasons for this proceeding have nothing to do with the development of good education in this province, or due process, Mr. Speaker. It is straight politics.

MR. HYNDMAN: In the hope that we may get to the merits of this bill, I shall be very brief. In opening I must say that is refreshing to now hear the opposition benches saying some positive things about the Universities Council of British Columbia.

Some members of this House will recall that several years ago there was a debate concerning Notre Dame University. At that time the members of the party to your left had some pretty critical things to say about the Universities Council, a council which, in my judgment, is performing a very valuable service for the public of British Columbia. The member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), for example, accused the Universities Council of stating falsehoods in its report on Notre Dame University, and went on to say that the Universities Council made an effort to undermine NDU. I think it is helpful to note that a couple of years later there has been a revealing change in the view of those members about the worth and the presence and the value of the Universities Council.

We heard some suggestion as to the testimony before the committee, Chairman, and I have a couple of extracts here from Hansard as to the evidence given. I'm somewhat at a loss to understand the interpretation suggested by the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), when according to Hansard, Dr. Neil Perry of the Universities Council had this to say about Trinity Western College:

"So our judgment is that as one of our junior colleges Trinity Western certainly has been performing superbly, as far as we know. We don't challenge that point in any way. We've always had a favourable report on both the performance of the students after they leave Trinity Western, and on the substantive content of the courses offered by Trinity Western."

Then the Deputy Minister of Education, in response to some questioning by members, said this:

"In fact, Mr. Couch of the Academic Council is here...."

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, may I draw your attention to the fact that it is highly irregular to relive the debate of committee here in the House one more time. The reason why this whole matter was committed and heard before a committee was so that the committee could, in due process, come to its conclusion and report to this House. So it is highly irregular to go through that debate another time.

MR. HYNDMAN: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, and I will refrain from any quotations. Suffice it to say that the evidence heard by the committee from Dr. Perry of the Universities Council, and Dr. Hardwick, the Deputy Minister of Education, adduced favourable comment on the academic performance and standards of the institution and went on to point out that this institution had voluntarily submitted itself to the guidelines and the review of the Universities Council. I therefore think it is very misleading to suggest that there was not evidence before the committee of a favourable nature. Indeed, had members to your left wanted to continue their questioning, it was certainly open to them.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I just thought it was very interesting that the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) should be speaking on this debate, because previously she was Minister of Education in this assembly, and she had some things to say about Trinity Western. The then member for Langley, the now Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland), on one occasion in 1975 had asked in this

[ Page 1140 ]

assembly if the then Minister of Education would consider designating Trinity Western a university on the schedule to the federal universities foundation Act and program for the purpose of permitting it to obtain some federal financial assistance. The then Minister of Education, the member for Burnaby North, basically said that were it not for the fact that it would, in her judgment, impose a cost burden on the province, she would happily designate the university, and it was only that problem which prevented her from doing that.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the positions have changed. The member is on your left and therefore not responsible for exchequer matters. She said in Hansard on May 2, 1975: "We agree with the students of Trinity Western. Trinity Western should be designated." She now has the opportunity to join in that designation without being concerned about matters of the exchequer. I urge her to do so.

In closing, may I simply say that if time permitted much could be said on the record about the earned merit of this institution. If time permits a little later this afternoon I'd be happy to elaborate.

MR. HANSON: The member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman) gave us a highly selective, editorial version of the transcript of that particular meeting. It is correct that Dr. Perry indicated that the students of Trinity Western College do relatively well in relation to their peers from other institutions for the levels of first and second year. However, the point my colleague for Vancouver South omitted to mention is that Dr. Perry indicated to us, as did the deputy minister, that absolutely no review of the third- and fourth-year levels at Trinity Western had ever taken place. There had been no discussion whatsoever. The bill before us today is about precisely that. It is about the third- and fourth-year levels to award a baccalaureate degree. It's got nothing to do with the first- and second-year standing that is presently there.

In the Universities Act, sections 70(12)(d) and (e) refer to the role of the Universities Council as it relates to the establishment of new universities and new university programs. The role is to advise the government and approve new universities and new programs. Now we are witness to the Universities Council being completely bypassed in this. Dr. Perry has testified to that effect that the Universities Council was complete bypassed. This is a complete departure from the old procedure, the procedure in place for the granting of degrees and for access to public funds. Does the Minister of Education intend to disband the Universities Council? They are certainly in opposition to it. The alumni association is in opposition to it. What is the function of the Universities Council now? If you're going to establish on an ad hoc basis, without any review, degree-granting universities all over this province, if they can get hold of a Social Credit backbencher and establish a university, what is the role of the Universities Council? I'd like to hear from the minister on that. I would think his colleagues at the University of British Columbia would be very, very interested in his reasons for no review of a new university, no review of the standards. I don't know what they are. The minister doesn't know what they are. I know there are courses such as jungle aviation, and so on, but that may be an elective course.

The Speaker has advised the House that we are not to quote from the transcript or refer to the transcript again. As a member of that committee, I want to stand in opposition to the departure and process. I'm not talking about Trinity Western, or what they offer to people, and what the quality, the academic standards are. I'm not qualified to give that review. My opposition is to the process. You've laid down a process. We know they have had up to $500,000 of public funds through the transfer of federal tax points; we know that. But here we have a Minister of Education sitting idly by while a private member brings in a bill to establish a BA-granting capability at a university of which we have no review. Would the minister please clarify it?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I wasn't present at the hearing given this private member's bill before the select standing committee. I therefore don't feel qualified to review what took place during that particular hearing. They did have an opportunity to hear representatives of the Universities Council and the Ministry of Education. I can assure you absolutely no muzzling took place from my office. I'm quite convinced that the members, if they were not satisfied with the information they were given, were welcome to seek more. But I should make it very clear that the Universities Council, and the Universities Act were set up for the purposes of dealing with public post-secondary institutions, as was the Colleges and Provincial Institutes Act.

What we have here is a private institution not receiving any provincial government support, but having to face, I would submit, a far more rigorous scrutiny than we have through the Universities Council and, indeed, than we have through any of our public institutions in Canada — that is the scrutiny of the marketplace. Our public institutions are supported through provincial funds of up to 90 percent of their costs. It's not part of public education policy in British Columbia for us to intercede in matters concerning private institutions which receive no provincial funds. It is true that Trinity Western College has received a pass-through of federal moneys, and on that basis they compete with their sister institutions in other provinces across Canada. We assisted Trinity Western College to receive those federal funds, because it was contemplated at the time that federal legislation was passed that institutions such as Trinity Western College would receive the kind of support that the federal government intended when they brought forward their legislation. If at such time there was a policy change in British Columbia whereby some provincial funding was to be provided to Trinity Western College, that would be the time for the Universities Council to play a role, as they did with Notre Dame University, and to pursue the public dollars and the value there obtained for the taxpayers of British Columbia, just as we do now with the independent schools that receive public funding.

On the other hand, it would be unfair for us to intercede in a private institution that is not receiving funds from this Legislature or from the taxpayers of British Columbia. But this institution, as a feeder institution to our public institutions here in British Columbia, has demonstrated its academic ability to survive in the marketplace. I can only tell you that if that institution is unable to provide the kind of quality education that my friends opposite seem to think is so lacking, then it will fail, because it will not survive the toughest test that an educational institution faces today, which is the test of the marketplace.

[ Page 1141 ]

MR. BARBER: How the standards have fallen! This man, when a Liberal, used to talk about academic excellence and the maintenance of academic standards. Today he talks about the marketplace. How the standards have fallen! When in opposition, and when in some moment of principle, when in his own book he used to talk about the vital importance of a competent public policy that recognized academic standards and supported them, some of us thought he meant what he said. He never used to talk about the marketplace in those days. Had anyone done so, he would have considered it a gross offence and misstatement of the nature of a good education in this province.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, may I interrupt you just long enough to remind you that we are not now in Committee of Supply, and therefore the matter of administration is not in question. We are debating a motion. Please make your debate relevant.

MR. BARBER: The motion would have this House and this province accept a particular decision in regard to a particular institution, the basic information about which is not available to this committee, not available to this House, not available to the people of British Columbia. In part, it's not available because of neglect by the Minister of Education, who hasn't done his job properly. In part, it's not available because this House has not had an opportunity to date to do the kind of work that could and should have been done, based on the work that could have been done but wasn't, by the Universities Council. The standards of academic excellence are further impaired because this government appears not to know what should be done to deal with a private member's bill. We know for certain, had any member of the House on this side sponsored it, it would surely have failed.

I've never been to Trinity Western College. I have read their syllabus. It contains, as far as I can tell, some perfectly good and perfectly ordinary courses, at least based on my own university experience. It contains some other things I find rather curious, but those are just my personal judgments; it's got nothing to do with the matter. Personal judgment shouldn't have anything to do with the judgment of this House. It should be a judgment based on policy. But the motion we have here ignores policy and ignores the requirements of good policy. Those requirements are: a factual analysis by the competent authorities — we don't have it; a factual analysis by the minister particularly responsible — he didn't present it. He talked instead in a completely bizarre way about the test of the marketplace. This House also requires evidence from the persons administering this particular institution who would stand to benefit from it — we don't have that here either. Nothing of the sort exists. So how is it possible for a member of this House to understand the consequences of this motion? We have no documents, no evidence and nothing in writing — except a report from Hansard, which the Speaker wisely rules we may not refer to.

What exists as a body of hard fact, hard evidence and hard documentation? Nothing, precisely zero, zip. And the government asks us to decide this matter of public policy on the basis of zero evidence. The Minister of Education, Science and Technology has been grossly neglectful and incompetent. This House should never be asked to decide such a matter without a wholly able and detailed report. One should have been prepared by his ministry, but was not.

What kind of academic standards can be maintained in the face of that neglect and incompetence? I don't know if Trinity Western College can do the job. I do know that this House isn't competent to decide. Very few members of this House are professional educators. Very few members of this House have gone to that school, if any. Very few of us, on the basis of an empty desk in front of us, have anything more to offer than a question of procedure — and the question provides its own answer. This procedure is utterly faulty and simply foolish. You're asking us to vote finally on a matter of personal prejudice. You have provided no other information. No other facts appear on the table. None, zero, except for a transcript of a committee report which we are not permitted to refer to. Now what is that? How do you expect anyone to make a decent decision on the basis of this motion before us?

There is a question of serious public policy and consequence here. It is this: shall any institution be permitted to persuade one member of this House, who happens to sit in government, to bring forward a bill that provides nothing in the way of information behind it that we have on our desks at this time, and have thereafter the imprimatur of government granted to its degrees? It is an important question of public policy.

If any outfit in the province could come forward, through a private motion — and a private bill that I'm sure will follow this motion — and persuade the government of the day that it was doing a good thing and that its degrees should be recognized by the province of British Columbia, what would be the final consequence, Mr. Speaker? I think it would be that we would debase the currency. We would debase the currency, and a provincial imprimatur on a bachelor, master's or doctorate degree would no longer mean anything at all. If this procedure were followed again and again, as this first procedure has been introduced today, the currency would be debased and the province of British Columbia would be the laughingstock in educational circles in the western world.

I want to restate that I don't know if these people are competent to grant degrees. But I do know that you have no right to ask me to make the decision on the basis of no information, no reports and no facts. The government has no right to present the case they have and ask us to make the choice they are asking on the basis of no evidence whatever showing that the consequence of terms of public policy would be a good one. If they can do it with this group, which may or may not have academic merit, they could, I presume, do it with any old group in the province. Thereby and thereafter the currency would be debased and these degrees would mean nothing, no matter what the province of British Columbia said about their worth.

If a group of, people came forward representing something called Tommy Douglas College and wanted to grant a degree in socialist education, and we happened to be the government of the day and a private member brought it forward, what would you think about that? Would you allow that to take the test of the marketplace in a vote in this House? Of course not!

HON. MR. McGEER: It would be very exciting to have the socialists do the test of the marketplace.

[ Page 1142 ]

MR. BARBER: The minister says it would be exciting. As far as I'm concerned it would a betrayal of competent procedure, competent policy analysis, and a competent examination of the alternatives that exist. I don't even understand yet — we've had no evidence presented — why this particular institution needs this authority. Why do they need it? To the best of my knowledge, no such case has been made. If it has I don't know it. I read the report of Hansard that we are not permitted to refer to. I find no evidence in there as to why they actually require this authority. Maybe they do, but if they do they didn't make their case. If they did that page was ripped out of Hansard; I didn't see it. I don't see any analysis. There may be such a case, but it's not here.

The point remains simply this: regardless of the academic merits — they may be very high, I don't know — of Trinity Western College or any other institution, none of them should have to be put through this ridiculous procedure that this one is going through today, because the government is unwilling to do its job properly. The ministry should have conducted an evaluation, and they didn't. The Universities Council should have a report; it isn't here. Had the proper procedures been followed, it may well be that this side of the House would have supported such a bill were the information at hand to justify us doing so. But there is no information here, except what a few of us have been able to dig up for ourselves, and the transcript of a short meeting in a committee of this Legislature, that provides, as far as I can tell, wholly inadequate information upon which to base a decision today.

I know the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), were he still in opposition, would object to this procedure. He used to talk about academic standards and mean it. We talk about academic standards, and we ask whether or not this particular institution shall meet them. If they shall and can, let's have the evidence; at the moment there is no such evidence regarding the fundamental problem of whether or not this Legislature shall recognize and grant status to a group — it could be this or any other — by this laughable procedure. We shouldn't have to debate this matter in this fashion; it should be debated on another level in another place.

We cannot support this motion.

Motion 8 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

NAYS — 17

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, with leave, may we proceed to Bill PR 401?

Leave granted.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE 
TRINITY WESTERN COLLEGE ACT

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to simply amend the Trinity Western College Act by adding to paragraph (p) in section 11 the words "a baccalaureate degree" and thereby remove any uncertainty and clarify Trinity's role in offering a full university program.

Trinity Western College can be proud of the quality of its academic program, and the high calibre of teaching staff it has attracted.

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is healthy for individuals in society to have a choice between public and private learning institutions, and I believe that academic degrees will either stand or fall with the test of time.

Trinity Western College is prepared to open its doors to government scrutiny at any time, and compare the quality of its courses and the qualifications of its instructors with the public university equivalents.

Mr. Speaker, for over 15 years the college has not only provided a fine academic program, but it has played a very important role in the Fraser Valley community. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to sponsor this bill, and I move that this bill be now read a second time.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I realize that to a large extent the debate on second reading would be a repetition of the debate on the motion, and I certainly don't want to delay the House any longer than is required to simply state our objections to this method. We don't seek to delay the passage of the bill, having given leave. Nevertheless I wish to rise again in my place and state quite simply that when there are clear and distinct instruments of public policy such as a ministry and a Universities Council which are totally ignored, and not only ignored, but alas placed in an invidious position by a minister who will not, in my view, superintend the passage of this bill, or, indeed, the health and welfare of post-secondary institutions, we can only again protest to you, sir, that we will not support second reading of this bill.

MR. NICOLSON: I can only assume from the rather extraordinary manner in which this bill has been passed that if many of the well-qualified PhDs residing in the Nelson-Creston riding decided to band together to offer an alternate form of education, and to create a University of the Slocan Valley, or a University of the Kootenays, or

[ Page 1143 ]

whatever, I should expect to be afforded the same cooperation in this House, because I can guarantee to you, Mr. Speaker, that I can bring forward a pre-eminently qualified faculty already resident within my constituency.

MS. BROWN: In speaking against this particular piece of legislation, I would like to respond to some of the statements made by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), and say that it certainly is to our shame that we have a Minister of Education with no commitment whatsoever to academic standards.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I trust that the hon. member is not going to reflect on a previous vote already taken in the House.

MS. BROWN: No, I am reflecting on a vote which we are about to take.

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

MS. BROWN: We are about to vote on a piece of legislation which had the support of the Minister of Education, based on his lack of commitment to any kind of educational standards. He stated instead that the ability of this college to survive in the marketplace is the only standard by which it should be judged. That government does it in every area. If it's health care and it can't survive in the marketplace, it is starved. If it's Human Resources and it can't survive in the marketplace, it starves. And now we find that the only criterion which education in this province has to meet, as voiced by the Minister of Education, is survival in the marketplace.

A university that is opened up that sells degrees, that asks you to send in your name, address, phone number and $50 for a BA or $100 for an MA would survive in the marketplace, and according to the criteria laid down by the Minister of Education that's all it has to do. No longer do we have any kind of academic standard in this province. It is to our disgrace and our shame that we have a Minister of Education who believes that the only standards that should exist in this province is whether an academic institution can survive in the marketplace or not. That same Minister of Education makes comments to the press about how disgraceful it is that students are entering first-year university unable to pass the English 100 exam; yet it's the same Minister of Education who turns around and tells us that the success or failure of an academic institution should depend on whether or not it can survive in the marketplace.

As my colleague for Victoria has stated, McDonald's Hamburger University survives in the marketplace, and this legislation now indicates to McDonald's Hamburgers that they can open a university here, because all they have to do is be able to survive in the marketplace. This legislation has made a mockery of this province in terms of its academic standards. It heralds quite clearly to Canada and the rest of the world that in British Columbia all you have to do as an academic institution is survive in the marketplace.

You can come here and set up any kind of academic institution, and if you can prove you can make money at it, this government will give you the right to grant any kind of degree you want. This government insults the people of British Columbia. That should show on the record that this opposition certainly does not support that kind of thinking on the part of this government.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I draw the attention of the member opposite, and indeed of the public of British Columbia, to what has been the traditional test of greatness in academia. Harvard University operates by a standard no different to what we're proposing in this legislation today. Nor does Princeton, nor does Cal-Tech, nor does Columbia; nor do most of the great institutions of higher learning in North America and throughout the world.

We're not suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that Trinity Western College is a Harvard. But we wish to point out the misunderstanding that so easily crops up from an opposition that understands only government subsidies and government handouts, that doesn't understand that through all time there has been a strong discipline in academia, a discipline that has produced greatness, and that has been the discipline of the marketplace. There's a marketplace for academia. They are very expensive institutions to operate and to run. Their success depends upon the acceptability of the graduates, the loyalty of the alumni and the respect of those private individuals who keep those institutions going. They don't depend upon the taxpayers. I can tell you this, Mr. Speaker, that if in Canada at some future time we ever have an institution that will rival Harvard, that institution will arise entirely from private sources. It will be supported on the strength of its academic offerings, on the demand for its graduates, on the respect of its donors and the loyalty of its alumni. We must never forget, in all this denigrating talk about cheap mail order degrees, something which is prevented in British Columbia by the very existence of a private member's bill such as this in order to confer on an institution not asking for any provincial funds the opportunity to prove the strength of its offerings. It's quite clear if it lacks that strength, if its graduates are not respected, if its alumni do not have loyalty, if it has no respect from potential donors, then, of course, that institution will not survive. But unlike the dilemma we faced with Notre Dame University, where public funds were being poured into it at a faster rate than into public institutions, this failure would not hurt the taxpayers of British Columbia, nor the academic reputation of our public institutions. Nor would it cause any injury to the students themselves. According to the testimony presented — and not challenged at all in this House — by those who appeared as witnesses before the private bills committee, it indicated that the students were being accepted for degree completion on the basis of the academic strength of the offerings now being given at that institutions.

So, Mr. Speaker, we have complete security as far as this bill is concerned: security for the public purse in British Columbia; security for the students who are attending that institution. In addition, there is a challenge of the kind that has made institutions in other countries of the world great, and which will be the challenge that must be met from academia in Canada if we're to have comparable greatness in this nation.

MRS. DAILLY: We've listened to the Minister of Education for the province of British Columbia now insult all the public universities in this province, just as he did when he stood up here and fought for his own little baby — aid and subsidization of private schools. He has since then insulted all the public school teachers and the public schools of this province by bringing up comparisons between the

[ Page 1144 ]

public institutions and the private. He's always coming down on the side that the private are the best.

He is supposed to be responsible for public education in this province. Full of these biases, he stands in this House today in support of this bill and his only defence is to say to us that the socialists believe in subsidization. Mr. Speaker, who is subsidizing the private schools in British Columbia but this government?

When this bill passes this House by sheer numbers, based on no philosophy or study whatsoever, I can guarantee that there will be further subsidization of Trinity College coming right down the pipe. There is no question about it. Already they are being subsidized by the taxpayers. The federal government, because of this government, is now giving money to Trinity College. I mentioned that in the other reading, Mr. Speaker, so I will not continue. The Minister of Education compared Trinity College to Harvard, when in front of me I have a basic concern expressed by the members of the Universities Council and the members of the universities in this province. They raised a legitimate question, which I don't think should have to be raised on the floor of this House, because I am afraid that there will be cries of religious prejudice. But I am going to have to take that in stride because of what the minister has just said.

The statement I refer to should have been brought up in a proper study of this bill over a number of months. But we were not given the opportunity so I have to bring it forward here. There is a statement which must be signed by all faculty members who teach at Trinity College. This statement is based on 12 fundamentalist beliefs, ranging from belief in Jesus Christ to acceptance of man as sinner and loser. It states that the scriptures, both old and new testament, are the divine and final authority for all Christian faith and life. Then it states: "We believe in the bodily resurrection of the dead, of the believer to everlasting blessedness and joy with the Lord, of the unbeliever to judgment and everlasting conscious punishment."

This statement has to be signed by all faculty members and that is the right of the school to insist on it. Their faculty members are free to sign it.

The only question that is posed here in this Legislature has been posed by the people in the universities because this government insists on making this public and ramming it through. We ask, can a faculty member who must follow those doctrines and sign that statement objectively teach such courses as anthropology, biology and history? These courses are a necessary part of any degree program offered at B.C.'s three degree-granting universities.

Mr. Speaker, these are the questions which should have been answered in a proper study before any degrees are granted. In raising this point, it is not a question of religious prejudice on this side of the House, because we all endorse different religions. It is a question of doing things in the proper manner, and this government — I want to repeat again, Mr. Speaker — acted because of political motives only. To the people involved there they obviously made campaign promises or election promises that this bill would go through this House; otherwise what are they afraid of? If they didn't make such commitments, why didn't they let the light of day come in on a proper examination and put it through a proper process before we were forced to do this in this Legislature?

I know, the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) looks exercised now. Maybe he doesn't feel that he's giving in to any political promise. If he is going to say, "I did not," I will accept it. The point is that you leave yourself open, Mr. Member, unless you agree to pull this bill and put it through the proper process.

MR. HANSON: In response to the Minister of Education's (Hon. Mr. McGeer's) comments regarding the finances of Trinity Western College and the likelihood that they will not be coming to the public purse, I would like to read into the record the comments of Dr. Perry of the Universities Council when he said, indicating to us his concern about the departure in the process, that the bill before you "would extend unlimited degree-granting powers at the bachelor's level to Trinity Western College, and this would mark a major change in the British Columbia educational scene." They had two concerns. First: "Any serious proposal to establish a full-fledged university must require financial support well in excess of what can be reasonably drawn from private sources, and therefore at some stage involves the prospective expenditure of public funds." We already know that $500,000 has been received from the federal government. It's only a matter of time until a draw is made on the public purse at the provincial level.

I want that into the record so that we can read that back to the minister in four years time.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that when the sponsor of the bill closes the debate, he would indicate to us how the financing will be handled. I was particularly interested in the remarks made by the Minister of Education, because it reminded me that those remarks which he made were the same remarks that were made some two years ago in a brief that was submitted to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private bills in July 1977 — and I can reflect on that committee, because it was two years ago, Mr. Chairman.

That brief was put together by Mr. Robert Thompson, who at that time was the assistant to the president, and in his remarks he is responding to a brief that was submitted by Dr. Armstrong of the Universities Council. He says at the top of page 2 of the brief: "It's stated that the purpose of the various government Acts restricting degree-granting privileges is the maintenance of standards of acceptable quality." Further down the page, in the third paragraph, it's pointed out that: "Private degree-granting institutions cannot be monitored by the government in relation to their academic services. In fact, no university, whether public or private, can be monitored by the government in relation to the qualities of degree, teaching or learning. There is no instrument in existence that can measure these things." This was conceded by Dr. Armstrong during the oral discussion. Mr. Thompson goes on to say: "Only the marketplace, the general acceptance of the degree, can tell what is good and what is bad. The private institution is therefore much more exposed and much more sensitive to public accountability than is the more protected public institution."

I can recall, Mr. Speaker, when we discussed this particular proposal some two years ago, that to question the sponsorship was also raised — sponsorship by an existing university that would move, if it was so inclined, to assist the university that wanted to develop itself to the level of granting the baccalaureate degree.

[ Page 1145 ]

At that time that was not available to Trinity Western College. As I recall, they had not sought it, and they felt they would want to go on their own. Basically, what I'm trying to say is that two years ago, when we dealt with this particular subject, we tried to have the minister or his deputy come to the committee, but we finally had to settle primarily for Dr. Armstrong. At that time there was no willingness on the part of the government to accede to the request by Trinity Western College.

What I'd like the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) to tell us is: what has happened since then, in his opinion, to convince the Minister of Education, or the Deputy Minister of Education, that this is a worthwhile bill and that we must now go ahead with it? All the arguments here today were raised two years ago. Something, presumably, has happened. Frankly, when I examine the record, the only thing I can recall that happened that may be of significance in the bill being before the House today is that there was an election.

When the member gets up to close the debate, I think the member has an obligation to tell this House what has happened to Trinity Western College in two years to make it possible for the Minister of Education to endorse this, when two years ago we couldn't even get a peep out of him. The only things we got were indirect messages that in no way would the government agree to, this particular legislation. The member has an obligation to tell us what has happened. Have they suddenly come into a large amount of money? Are they, in fact, not going to be a burden on the public purse? He should tell us that. After all, the Minister of Education started to tell us about Harvard. Basically, it's true. It's a private university and has an enormous amount of private money coming into it. But it's still dependent to a large extent on various large and significant grants from the public purse. I would appreciate hearing from the member on what has happened to Trinity Western College in two years that now gets the government to change its mind, and to endorse this bill.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'll be very brief. I only want to say a couple of things about this bill. I'm strongly in favour of this bill now before the House, which is to allow Trinity Western College to make the next logical move in the development of that facility as a top-notch educational facility within our province, one which offers a choice for those people who chose to go and find their education in that way. I might say that more and more young people in our society in British Columbia and in Canada are making that choice, and they should have that opportunity.

The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) talked about financing. There is no provision for financing in this bill, and that is a red herring which should not be raised in this discussion.

I also wanted to comment about the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) talking about the principles which Trinity Western College have established, both in terms of recruiting teachers and students. What is wrong with principles? I know that the members have some difficulty living with any institution which might have at its bottom the best kinds of principles, and certainly religious principles in our country are the best kind. At the same time that member for Burnaby North talks about academic excellence.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. On a point of order, the second member for Surrey.

MR. HALL: I find it grossly offensive that the minister says that we would not support anything with high principles, and I want him to withdraw.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let me ask the question....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: May I have order? I would have to ask the hon. minister if he imputed any improper motive to any hon. member in this House. If he did I would invite him to withdraw.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, Mr. Speaker, I didn't. However, if one of the members of this House finds something that I said offensive, I understand that it has been the tradition of this House that the member who made the statement would withdraw. That tradition has not always been upheld in this House, Mr. Speaker. Certainly since I have not had the opportunity to arrange for television, nor do I have a prepared script, I would be happy to withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: On the same point of order, the member for Surrey.

MR. HALL: I want to thank the minister for making the withdrawal on my request.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I wanted to make one comment, too, about the comments made by the member for Burnaby North about academic excellence. We had the opportunity to have the evidence that dealt with this bill before us at the committee, and the question of academic excellence was dealt with. As a matter of fact, I find it interesting that the comments about academic excellence should come from that member, who, at one time during her career as Minister of Education, was responsible for delivering a famous White Paper to the people of British Columbia, which some of the academics in the province were convinced was written by a group of five-year-olds. She is also the member who found it necessary to have her boss fire one of her advisers on television, of all places, because he had the audacity to advise her on the matter of academic excellence. Mr. Speaker, I think the actions of that member in the past speak for themselves.

The members opposite are against freedom of choice. They wish everything to be grey, if not white. They are afraid of freedom of choice, because they know that given the opportunity to choose, the people of this province will choose in the direction that is not the same direction as that party wishes to go. I'm for the bill.

MR. HANSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health was misleading the House. My charge is that he misled the House by saying that a review had been conducted on academic excellence. There is no such review. Dr. Perry said.... All information is second hand. There is nothing at all at our disposal for judgment.

[ Page 1146 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, I think we have misunderstood the reasons for points of order. Number one, a point of order does not give any member licence to say what would be out of order in debate. Therefore I must ask the hon. member to withdraw the statement that the minister misled the House. It is a statement that is just not allowed in this chamber. Please withdraw, hon. member.

MR. HANSON: I withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: The member withdraws willingly, and I appreciate that.

The second matter is that we cannot gain the floor on a point of order to make a correction in a speech that was made unless the error was cited in the speech which the member himself has made. If the minister misquoted any member in this House, then that member can stand and ask for a correction. But other than that we cannot gain the floor through a point of order.

MR. HYNDMAN: I will be mercifully brief. In one respect it's unfortunate that we are deprived of the presence of the Leader of the Opposition in this debate, because he holds a master's degree of which he's suitably proud. It's a master's degree in social work. It comes from St. Louis University, and if you research that university you will find it is privately funded. There are 58 Jesuit priests on that faculty, and I don't think any member of this House would suggest the Leader of the Opposition's master's degree is by virtue of those factors second-rate or second-class. It's a fine institution, and there are many fine institutions, privately funded on this continent.

Very briefly, may I just outline for the record some of the evidence which in Hansard sets forth what the committee, at which the opposition members who were members were present could have asked more questions, found.

"1) On accreditation, the evidence before the committee is that one of the key reasons for seeking this legislative change is that the Association of Canadian Universities and Colleges, 'the closest thing to an accrediting body we have in Canada' is prepared to accredit Trinity Western but requires the addition of this phraseology so to do."

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I must remind you for the second time that we cannot bring evidence from the committee to debate in second reading. That debate was concluded in the committee itself and properly reported to the House. Please proceed.

MR. HYNDMAN: I appreciate that. I will simply comment that the record discloses not a scintilla of negative evidence about the academic qualities of Trinity Western, and the members of opposition who have spoken had ample opportunity in their questioning to draw out any such evidence.

It's amazing that yesterday all members of this House had on their desks a report from the office of institutional analysis from the University of Victoria. It decried the low participation rate of young British Columbians in the university process, and called for steps to remedy that. They had this to say, and I say the passage of this bill is going to assist in correcting this matter. This is the University of Victoria speaking from the office of the president and vice-chancellor:

"It seems grossly unfair that young people from the small cities and rural areas of the province are not able to participate on a more equal basis with the young people who happen to be fortunate enough to have their parents living in Victoria or Vancouver."

That's just one small example of what this bill will do.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a very short extract from a well-known educational document in this province — the Macdonald report of 1962, "Higher Education in British Columbia and a Plan For the Future." This is what Dr. Macdonald — and nobody is going to doubt his credentials — had to call for in terms of the educational system in British Columbia. He said:

"At the present time we require two kinds of degree-granting institutions in British Columbia. We need the university concentrating on (1) undergraduate education, (2) advance teaching and research, and (3) professional preparation. In addition, we need four-year colleges offering degrees in the liberal arts, science and education. "

In all that he'd written, he was not suggesting one kind of institution is academically superior to another. They have different functions to perform. There is nothing to prevent any institution from attaining a high standard of excellence consistent with its aims and goals. The university will be different from, but complementary to, the four-year colleges and the two-year institutions. I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that in the passage of this bill today, for the first time we will be taking a step toward the blueprint for quality that Dr. Macdonald addressed.

MR. RITCHIE: First of all, I would like to correct the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly). I am the member for Central Fraser Valley, not Langley.

I would also like to correct a statement she made saying that there was a campaign promise made in respect to education. I would further like to tell you that this is correct. The promise is as follows, and this is to a Mr. Gerry Ensing, Independent Schools Association of British Columbia.

"Dear Sir:

"I have been authorized to make the following statement on behalf of the NDP caucus with respect to the Independent Schools Support Act. If the NDP are elected as government, the present legislation will remain in place. I trust this statement will be taken into consideration by your members, and I will make myself available for discussion."

You know, Mr. Speaker, we're looking at a group of mugwumps. Do you know what a mugwump is? A mugwump is a politician with his mug on one side of the fence and his wump on the other.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, I find "mugwump" unparliamentary, and I ask the member to withdraw. [Laughter.]

MR. SPEAKER: If the member was referring to any member of this House as a mugwump it may be unparliamentary, and I would ask the hon. member to withdraw.

[ Page 1147 ]

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, if the description "mugwump" offends them, then I would say that they are hypocrites.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That is unparliamentary for sure.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, if we want to conclude this business rationally, then let us have order.

I would ask the hon. member, first of all, if he was referring to any member of this House when he used the expression "mugwump," to withdraw.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I was referring to the members of the opposite benches, and I will withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. May I proceed to the second request? I would ask the hon. member to withdraw the word hypocrite, which has never been allowed in this chamber.

MR. RITCHIE: Oh, that's not allowed either. Very well, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you very much. Please proceed.

MR. RITCHIE: It is very interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that party over there was in favour of the independent school system, but only so long as they were running for election. Since they failed, I am sure they are going to vote against it.

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE: That was written by Gary Lauk, MLA and education critic; but it's not his fault. This was endorsed by the full caucus. I expect you to vote against it because you lost the election.

There were a couple of questions from the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi). He was asking a question on financing. I think that was quite adequately answered by the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland). Then you asked a question on what has happened in the past two years that would justify this. Progress, my friend, progress at Trinity Western College.

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

Motion approved.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill PR 401 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
TRINITY WESTERN COLLEGE ACT

The House in committee on Bill PR 401; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, now the member who is piloting the bill has an opportunity to behave like a minister and answer some questions.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Where's your tie?

MR. LEVI: I've got it on. Can't you see it?

I asked the member indirectly in second reading if he could tell us what has happened in the two years since this bill last went before the private bills committee. Just saying "progress" doesn't lend very much credibility to the member's arguments. Perhaps you might just tell us what, in fact, has happened. After all, you are supporting the bill. Tell us what has happened in the intervening two years.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: Oh, he doesn't want to answer.

MR. STUPICH: He's behaving like a minister again.

MR. LEVI: Yes, he's behaving like a minister, and he's not even a minister yet, but he's a good candidate for being a minister.

You can't stand up here, Mr. Member — or maybe you can; you feel you can — and talk about a bill, and then refuse to answer some of the basic questions. I can only conclude that you don't really know what it is you are talking about. Somebody handed you the bill and said: "Look, you sponsor it and we'll push it through."

Now what has happened in the past two years? Because there were some very serious reservations about this whole effort in 1977, so much so that the Universities Council was brought to bear to make some of the convincing arguments. Is the member indicating to us, Mr. Chairman...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The principle of this bill has been discussed in second reading. At this point we are in committee stage, a clause-by-clause study which must be strictly relevant to the words "Trinity Western College Amendment Act, 1979."

MR. LEVI: Then we're talking about whether it's expedient to grant, and I'm trying to find out from the member....

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, that is out of order. That would have been in order in second reading, but not in committee stage.

MR. LEVI: Well, I'll have to try again under section 2.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. LEVI: Okay, this is the section then. What has happened in the past two years in Trinity Western College that has enabled the Minister of Education to support the bill, where two years ago the Ministry of Education was not even prepared to look at it? Now something must have happened....

[ Page 1148 ]

MR.CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Once again, hon. member, this is the committee stage of the bill, and we are merely discussing its clause-by-clause progress. Your current line of debate is out of order.

MR. LEVI: There's a question in there, Mr. Chairman, of the granting of a baccalaureate degree. Two years ago they came to seek that very permission and they couldn't get it. Now in the second clause that is exactly what they're seeking — a baccalaureate degree.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Quite correct, hon. member, and that is the principle of the bill, and the principle of the bill was discussed in second reading.

MR. LEVI: What is the principle of the bill? It's adding a baccalaureate degree.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's quite appropriate and....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LEVI: Can't we ask what has happened in the past two years to enable them to get a baccalaureate degree?

MR. CHAIRMAN: This section merely defines what the principle of the bill is. Second reading provides the opportunity for discussing the principle of the bill.

MR. LEVI: You mean we can't ask anything about a baccalaureate degree? Is that what you're saying, Mr. Chairman? Because that's what it says. Somewhere within this bill there's got to be an opportunity to ask the sponsor of the bill what has happened in the last two years to enable them to get a baccalaureate degree. Surely there's got to be an opportunity to ask that question, Mr. Chairman. I seek your guidance. His guidance is going to be to rule me out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You leave me little choice, hon. member. The principle of the bill was discussed in second reading. At this point we're merely discussing the bill clause by clause.

MR. LEVI: The clause relates to the baccalaureate degree.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's appropriate.

MR. LEVI: Now what can I ask around that? Can I ask why it is that they can do it now? What has happened in the past two years to make it possible for them to get the degree-granting status? Is that a fair question?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's not appropriate for the member to ask guidance of the chair. It's merely for the Chair to guide the committee.

MR. LEVI: Well, that's the question I'm asking the committee. What has happened in the past two years to enable this university to now grant...?

AN HON. MEMBER: Progress.

MR. LEVI: That's the answer we got — progress — with no substantiation at all.

MR. HANSON: Under the Universities Act, section 70, the role of the Universities Council is to make recommendations to cabinet regarding new degree-granting universities and any new courses offered in universities. Has the Universities Council conducted a review of the third and fourth year at Trinity Western College?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not relevant to this section.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

MR. RITCHIE: 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 PR 401, An Act to Amend the Trinity Western College Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Motion 9, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the member for Nelson-Creston.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, we've already disposed of motions.

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, we haven't.

MR. NICOLSON: If you read Orders of the Day, it says presenting petitions, reading and receiving petitions, presenting reports, standing and special committees, motions and adjourned debate on motions. Now we've gone to a bill. We've already disposed of most bills. I guess we now go to private bills, which is the only matter of business that we haven't disposed of today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, no. Why didn't you speak to your House leader?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member makes a good point. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

On Motion 9.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I simply refer members to Motion 9, which I believe is self-explanatory and which, I trust, meets with the acceptance of all members.

[ Page 1149 ]

MR. NICOLSON: Let there be no mistake about the intent of this motion. It is simply a motion which will allow the government to remove cabinet ministers from standing committees and replace them with government backbenchers in order that they can get a little bit of a per diem, which will keep them a little happy down on the farm. The minister can be quite sure that we know what the intent of this motion is. Let there be no mistake about that.

Motion 9 approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Motion 10, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HALL: I take great pleasure in moving Motion 10 standing in my name on the order paper. I move that the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs be adopted.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, with leave, I move that the proceedings in relation to third reading of Bill 30, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1979, be declared null and void, and the bill be recommitted for the purpose of adding section 6.1. It deals with the Colleges and Provincial Institutes Act amendment: "Section 33(2) of the Colleges and Provincial Institutes Act is amended by adding the figure '36' after the figure '34'."

By way of explanation, Mr. Speaker, may I assure the House that this is only a consequential clerical addition which was omitted during the discussion of the amendments to section 36 of the Colleges and Provincial Institutes Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is, nonetheless, motion without notice and therefore leave will be required.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: The recommittal.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

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

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the hon. Minister of Education, Science and Technology, I move the amendment to the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1979.

Amendment approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 30, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1979, reported complete with amendment.

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

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

Leave granted.

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

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

Leave granted.

Bill 30, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1979, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 35, Mr. Speaker.

CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

HON. MR. CURTIS: Some of the amendments contained in this bill deal with the payment of money by the Crown to members of this assembly under the present Constitution Act. There are a number of provisions dealing with the holding of offices and the receipt of remuneration by members, provisions that we feel are archaic and almost impossible to interpret clearly. I suggest that the amendments might be more appropriately dealt with in committee.

The present provisions contain ancient prohibitions against a member of this assembly holding office, commission or employment to which remuneration is attached, and against a member contracting with the Crown, all of which were understood and were of practical application when they were first enacted. These provisions have led to confusion and, having their origin in antiquity in a day when the relationship between the Crown and Legislature was very different than it is now, are quite unsuitable to protect the public and the members of this Legislature.

The proposed prohibitions are against the accepting of money by a member for the supply of goods, services or work to the province; against the acceptance of money from an office or employment to which he has been appointed by the Crown; and against being a director, a senior officer or a 31 percent shareholder in a company that accepts such money as appears in a section of the bill. There is therefore an explicit list of exceptions so that, for instance, a member may be paid an annual indemnity and proper expenses, and also so that a member may have the ordinary rights of a citizen under a variety of government programs.

We also have in this bill the procedure that would be used to obtain the decision of this House with regard to any allegation that a member has contravened those provisions and thus is in danger of forfeiting his or her seat. Forfeiture is the penalty.

Mr. Speaker, we also have a measure which would extend the tenure of the person holding your office to polling day in a general election.

There are also substantive changes through which members will receive an annual indemnity of $21,000 and an annual expense allowance of $10,500. All remuneration

[ Page 1150 ]

would be subject to adjustment on January 1 of each year, by using an adjustment factor; that factor would be 75 percent of the percentage change in the average weekly wage in this province for the previous year as compared with the year before that.

There is included, as well, a provision for six months' payment of the annual allowance to the estate of a deceased member.

In addition, the penalty for absence from the House or from a committee of the House is to be raised with passage of this bill from $100 to $250 per day after the tenth day.

With respect to superannuation, members would be required to make superannuation contributions on their expense allowance as well as their annual indemnity, and expense allowances would form part of pensionable earnings of members in the future.

The bill provides that members may retire earlier than is now the case. A member would be entitled under these proposed provisions to retire and receive a pension at any time after the sum of his age plus service equals 60 years or more.

The bill also provides that members' superannuation contributions be increased by 2 percent of covered indemnities, allowances and salaries. Contributions by members would be made at a maximum rate of 8.5 percent in total on indemnities, allowances and salaries. This increase means that the benefit improvements proposed in this bill would be paid for in large part by the members themselves. The rate of contribution would be measured by the maximum allowable pension contribution for income tax deduction purposes under the Income Tax Act of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I had some difficulty with respect to second reading notes for this particular bill — I was almost tempted to say that it is a committee bill. I'll be happy to answer any questions in committee that members may have. This completes my legislative program for this session, Mr. Speaker, and I move that the bill now be read a second time.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 35 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 35, Constitution Amendment Act, 1979, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

The House in committee on Bill 35; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Sections 1 to 27 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: 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 35, Constitution Amendment Act, 1979, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed unanimously on a division.

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

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity I've had to draw to your attention an error which appeared in Votes and Proceedings yesterday. I ask your indulgence and that of the House to correct the information. On page 1 of Votes and Proceedings for July 30 my name is incorrectly shown as having voted in the division with respect to the automobile insurance bill. I was not able to be present at that time. I'm sure you would like the Journals to be corrected.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The Journals will be amended.

HON. MR. GARDOM: His Honour the Lieutenant Governor is in the precincts. We might have a few moments' recess.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you for that advice. I'm advised that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precincts and will be approaching the chamber shortly. There will be a short recess. I will ring the division bells when your presence is required. My advice is that you remain in your seats.

The House took recess at 6:13 p.m.

The House resumed at 6:15 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I am informed that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is about to enter the chamber.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Land Amendment Act, 1979

Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act

Energy Amendment Act, 1979

Metro Transit Operating Company Act

Legal Services Society Act

Industrial Development Subsidiary Agreement Loan Repayment Revolving Fund Act

Attorney-General Statutes Amendment Act, 1979

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1979

Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1979

Refugee Settlement Program of British Columbia Act

Automobile Insurance Non-Discrimination Act

Resort Municipality of Whistler Amendment Act, 1979

Constitution Amendment Act, 1979

University of Victoria Foundation Act, 1979

An Act to Amend the Trinity Western College Act

[ Page 1151 ]

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to these bills.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, before we adjourn — and we are not proroguing — I think every member would like to wish every other member a very pleasant, sunny and healthy remainder of summer.

I would also like to take this opportunity to express the appreciation of all of the members of the House to the Pages, to the attendants, to Hansard, and to the staff in the buildings and in the chambers. They have provided us with most efficient service and, indeed, courteous attention throughout the whole of the session. I also wish a good summer holiday to the Fourth Estate.

Mr. Speaker, I would move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet, or until Mr. Speaker may be advised by the government that it is desired to prorogue the first session of the thirty-second parliament of the province of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, or has been so advised, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and may transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time. In the event of Mr. Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purposes of this order.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:20 p.m.

APPENDIX

MOTIONS AND ADJOURNED DEBATES ON MOTIONS

1 Mr. Barnes to move —

This House resolves that the British Columbia Summer and Winter Games should exemplify the spirit of grass-roots participation; that local community organizations, individuals, and athletes who cooperate in staging the Games should be recognized and that local TV community channels and local commercial TV stations be afforded equal opportunity to record and report these Games as the larger commercial TV networks.

2 Mr. Hyndman to move —

That this House endorse the principle of the private sector making legal services more available and more affordable to the people of British Columbia, and

That in pursuance of this principle a Special Committee of this House be appointed to inquire into:

(a) advertising by lawyers as a means of promoting public understanding of available legal services and the cost thereof;

(b) ways and means of substantially reducing the legal costs of home acquisition; and

(c) the practicality and potential benefits of a prepaid legal-care program for British Columbians.

3 Ms. Brown to move —

In keeping with the spirit of International Year of the Child, this House endorses the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child.

4 Mr. Barber to move —

That this House urges the Government of Canada and the Government of the United Kingdom to protect the pensions of British citizens resident in British Columbia by indexing and increasing those pensions to the same extent as in the United Kingdom, and, urges the governments of Canada and the United Kingdom to sign a reciprocal social security agreement to ensure that those pensions are protected.

[ Page 1152 ]

6 Mr. Smith to move —

Since metric conversion in Canada has proceeded beyond the reasonable comprehension of Canadians and out of step with American policy, with the result that Canadians are confused and our consumers may be victimized:

This House urges the Government of Canada to introduce legislation modifying the national policy of metric conversion to ensure that previous Canadian standards of measurement (Imperial) must accompany any metric measurement displayed in Canada so as to avoid confusion and protect the consumer.

This House specifically urges that the Government of Canada support the truth in metric policy and introduce into Parliament the necessary modifications to The Statute Law (Metric Conversion) Amendment Act, 1976 (S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 41) and The Weights and Measures Act (R.S.C. 1970, c. 2-7) and other applicable Federal statutes so that former Canadian measurements (Imperial) of length and weight and surface and capacity and temperature must accompany metric measurements.

8 Mr. Mussallem to move —

That the Third Report of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills be adopted.

9 The Hon. H. A. Curtis to move —

That a Sessional Order be adopted as follows:

If any member of a Select Standing (except on Crown Corporations), Special or Select Committee shall cease to be a member of the Legislative Assembly, or, if by reason of illness or other good cause, a member be unable to continue to serve on such Committee, the Chairman of such Committee shall, upon resolution of the Committee, name another member to fill any vacancy so created. Provided that, in naming such member, the ratio of Opposition and Government representation on such Committee may not be altered and this Order shall only be in effect during an adjournment of the House.

10 Mr. Hall to move —

That the First Report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs be adopted.

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

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

By inserting the following heading and section:

"Vancouver Charter Amendments

"50. The Vancouver Charter is amended by inserting in Part VII after the heading "Business Tax" the following section:

"Government activities.

"279 AA. For the purposes of this Part and section 272, "business, trade, profession, or other occupation" does not include an activity carried on by the government, its agencies or government-owned corporations.

Section 58 (2): By striking out "Section 34" and substituting "On proclamation, sections 34 and 50".