[ Page 3073 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents.

Management Advisory Council annual report.

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 3073

Oral Questions.

Cheque for Burnaby Meals on Wheels. Hon. Mr. Mair replies –– 3073

Tabling Documents.

British Columbia Heritage Trust annual report for the year ending March 31, 1980.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 3073

Private Investigators and Security Agencies Act (Bill 38). Hon. Mr. Williams.

Introduction and first reading –– 3073

Mines Act (Bill 39). Hon. Mr. McClelland.

Introduction and first reading –– 3073

Interim Supply resolution –– 3073

Supply Act, No –– 2, 1980 (Bill 35). Hon. Mr. Curtis.

Introduction and first reading –– 3074

Supply Act. No –– 2, 1980 (Bill 35). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3075

Mr. Hall –– 3075

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3076

Supply Act, No –– 2, 1980 (Bill 35). Committee stage.

On section 1.

Mr. Hanson –– 3077

Mr. Cocke –– 3077

Mr. Barber –– 3078

Mr. Levi –– 3079

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3079

Mrs. Dailly –– 3079

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3079

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 3080

Ms. Brown –– 3080

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3080

Mr. Howard –– 3080

Mr. Cocke –– 3081

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 3082

Report and third reading –– 3083

School Amendment Act –– 1980 (Bill 20).

Third reading –– 3083

Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act (Bill 18). Committee stage.

Division on section 2 –– 3083

On section 3.

Mrs. Wallace –– 3083

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 3083

On section 8.

Mr. Macdonald –– 3084

Division on section 8 –– 3084

On section 10.

Mr. Leggatt –– 3085

Report and third reading –– 3085

Land Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 13). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 3085

Mr. Howard –– 3085

Mr. Barber –– 3085

Mr. Hanson –– 3086

Livestock Brand Act (Bill 32). Committee stage.

On section 4.

Mrs. Wallace –– 3086

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 3086

On section 9.

Mrs. Wallace –– 3087

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 3087

Mr. Howard –– 3087

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 3088

On section 11.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 3088

On the amendments to section 11.

Mrs. Wallace –– 3088

Report and third reading –– 3089

Royal Assent to bills –– 3089

Tabling Documents.

Ministry of Municipal Affairs annual report, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 3089

Agricultural Land Commission annual report and financial statement for the year ended March 31, 1980.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 3089

Appendix –– 3089

FRIDAY, JUNE 27, 1980

The House met at 10 a.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Joining us today on the floor of the House from Ottawa is the Hon. Romeo LeBlanc, federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Before beginning to make him welcome, I would remind all members that it's summer holidays even in Ontario because his son, Dominic, is in the gallery. I would ask you to make them both welcome.

MR. HOWARD: I want to join the Minister of Environment in welcoming a former colleague and dear friend. I enjoy your company and presence. I hope the two ministers will have been able, by now, to come to a mutually agreeable conclusion about the flow of water in the Nechako River.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: In the gallery today are two good friends, Jean Almas and Jim Dudley. The House will be interested to know that Jean and Jim are associated with one of the very fine free enterprises of this province, the King Neptune restaurant in New Westminster. The King Neptune has made a tremendously good name with tourists and residents alike, and really has been an example of a business that has grown through the free enterprise system and succeeded with hard work. I'd like you to welcome them to this House for the first time this session.

MR. PASSARELL: In the galleries today are Mr. and Mrs. Norman Williams from Telegraph Creek, and I wish the House would welcome them.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Every day seems to be a celebration of some kind or other in the House, and as the unofficial herald of such ridings I'd like to ask members to acknowledge another anniversary today among our members. Believe it or not, it's the twenty-fourth anniversary of our member for Surrey, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), and his good wife Lillian.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I have a not so pleasant task here. Yesterday when we were discussing a matter of privilege the member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland) made a statement about my columns in the Alberni Valley Times which I did not hear at the time. He said that if the House "would attempt to get copies of the Alberni Valley Times and review the columns by the member for Alberni, which are clearly full of lies...." I would ask that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources withdraw that statement, which is untrue and unparliamentary.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I apologize, but as Chairman at the time, I did not hear the remark. If the remark was made, certainly I must ask the hon. minister to withdraw it.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I just wonder: is the member reading from the newspaper or the Blues?

MR. SKELLY: I'm quoting from the Blues, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I didn't attribute lying to any member of this House yesterday, but if something I've said offends the House I'd be very happy to withdraw it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. For the record, the member withdraws the remark.

Hon. Mr. Smith tabled the second annual report of the Management Advisory Council.

CHEQUE FOR BURNABY MEALS ON WHEELS

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, with leave I'd like to answer a question asked of me yesterday in oral question period.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. MAIR: I notice that the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) is not in his seat, but I'd like to advise him that the cheque of which he inquired yesterday of both the Minister of Finance and myself was mailed on June 25 to the Meals on Wheels people in his constituency, and it's now in the laps of the gods and the federal mail.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe tabled the annual report of the British Columbia Heritage Trust for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1980.

Introduction of Bills

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS AND
SECURITY AGENCIES ACT

Hon. Mr. Williams presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Private Investigators and Security Agencies Act.

Bill 38 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MINES ACT

On a motion by Hon. Mr. McClelland, Bill 39, Mines Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to withdraw Motion 19 standing under my name on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move that from and out of the consolidated revenue fund there may be paid

[ Page 3074 ]

and applied in such manner and at such times as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may determine a sum not exceeding in the whole $1,470,000,000 towards defraying the several charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981, not otherwise provided for and being substantially one-quarter of the total amount of the votes of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981, as laid before the Legislative Assembly of the province of British Columbia at the present session.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolution and asks leave to sit again.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the resolution as reported be considered?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of resolution from the Committee of Supply on June 27, 1980, be now taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move that the resolution be now read a second time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The resolution is that from and out of the consolidated revenue fund there may be paid and applied in such manner and at such times as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may determine a sum not exceeding in the whole $1,470,000,000 towards defraying the several charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981, not otherwise provided for and being substantially one-quarter of the total amount of the votes of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981, as laid before the Legislative Assembly of the province of British Columbia at the present session.

The question proposed is that this House doth agree with the committee and the said resolution.

Motion approved.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the committee sit again?

HON. MR. CURTIS: At the next sitting, Mr. Speaker.

I move that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means.

Motion approved.

The House in Committee of Ways and Means; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move that from and out of the consolidated revenue fund there may be paid and applied in such manner and at such times as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may determine a sum not exceeding in the whole $1,470,000,000 towards defraying the several charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981, not otherwise provided for and being substantially one-quarter of the total amount of the votes of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981, as laid before the Legislative Assembly of the province of British Columbia at the present session.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the resolution, as reported, be considered?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move that the report of resolution from the Committee of Ways and Means on June 27, 1980, be now taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the resolution be now read a second time.

Motion approved.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the committee sit again?

HON. MR. CURTIS: At the next sitting, Mr. Speaker.

SUPPLY ACT, NO. 2, 1980

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I present Bill 35, intituled Supply Act No. 2, 1980.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, I would ask you to remain in your places pending the distribution of the bill.

It would appear that the distribution has been completed and with agreement, the Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

Motion approved.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move that the committee rise and report recommending the introduction of the bill.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports, recommending the introduction of the bill.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report be adopted.

[ Page 3075 ]

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and now read a first time.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the debate on second reading of this second supply bill, on behalf of the official opposition I assure the treasury benches opposite and the Minister of Finance in particular that we don't seek to hold up supply in any way whatsoever, and it will be done as expeditiously and quickly as possible. We hope to see the Lieutenant-Governor here at the appropriate moment to give royal assent, all of which has been arranged, I'm sure, with the correct amount of protocol and smoothness for which the House Leader is renowned. I want to, however, spend a few moments discussing a couple of disconcerting events, one of which is very serious, the second of which is not so serious but is politically immoral. I want to deal with the second one first, and get that out of the way, because the second one is a feeling which is shared by both sides of the House to which the Minister of Finance can bend his mind and deal with in the normal way. I want to deal with the second one first, and other members will be addressing themselves to it.

When the opposition allows supply to go through in this way, brooking no delay, cooperating in every way, we do so in the assurance that everything is going to be paid, that salaries are going to be paid, estimates are going to be met, that there are going to be no delays, no problems at all associated with the expenditures of the moneys that are represented in sections 1 and 2. And yet, Mr. Minister of Finance, just recently there have been instances whereby we are hearing that things are not being done because the opposition is debating the estimates. Frankly, that is not good enough.

I want to draw to your attention an incident that happened yesterday in this chamber, let alone what's happening outside. Yesterday, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) was asking the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) about the payment of money for the Meals on Wheels programs. The minister made a special effort to tell us today, by leave, answering a question of my colleague, that the cheque had been mailed on June 25. An exchange of information correctly took place and was correctly done by the minister. There was an interjection by the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty). The member for Kootenay said: ''Pass the estimates and you'll get your cheque." Mr. Minister, we had already passed one-quarter of the estimates. We're now passing another quarter of the estimates. I use that as an example and say to you that that is political trickery, if that is going on outside. I will not accept that kind of behaviour from anybody.

I asked the member for Kootenay if he was saying that outside this chamber and he said "yes." I asked the member for Kootenay if he was spreading that story outside the chamber and he said, "yes." That's not good enough, Mr. Minister, and I want you to dissociate yourself, as the Minister of Finance, from that kind of activity.

Mr. Minister of Finance, we're passing now, when this bill goes through, half of the total expenditure of the province. You don't have to be much of a genius, you don't have to be much of an expert, particularly when you've got B.C. Systems Corporation helping you — or perhaps you do have to be a genius, perhaps you do have to be an expert if you've got B.C. Systems helping you — in order to pay half of what everybody wants.

I think the member for Kootenay and anybody else within or without the public service of British Columbia who is suggesting for one second that the opposition or the members of the government benches debating estimates today are holding back payments of cheques in any shape or form whatsoever should be ashamed of themselves. That's the first thing. In my view, members of the Legislative Assembly, that is political trickery at its worst. Enough of that. I hope the Minister of Finance comes to it when he answers me on second reading. We'll go back to it in committee if necessary.

The other point, and a very serious point, was addressed correctly by the Minister of Finance, in terms of revenues. I regret reading what I read yesterday. As a British Columbian and a member of this House, I think we are all disturbed and upset about the loss of revenues, the downturn in the economy, and the symptoms that the minister pointed out yesterday. None of us can take pleasure in seeing those kinds of figures illustrated and pointed out by the Minister of Finance.

What remedies the Minister of Finance is going to put into place I don't know. I'm sure he's going to tell us about them, perhaps in second reading, perhaps in a revised set of estimates, perhaps during his own discussions during his ministerial estimates: I don't know. I do know that belts will have to be tightened; some of the crazy advertising programs may have to be looked at. Some of the flights of fancy, subterranean and otherwise — if I may mix my metaphors — will have to be looked at. The doctor from Point Grey may have to be brought under control.

AN HON. MEMBER: How do you do that?

MR. HALL: How do you do that? That's your problem. There are 19 of you over there. If you can't control him, who can?

Interjections.

MR. HALL: I've pointed out it's a mixed metaphor. I know you allow me one of those each time I make a speech.

Somebody is going to have to stop his grandiose ideas of spending money, because there isn't any money to spend. Maybe he's going to try to buy a used tunnel somewhere. Maybe he can accompany the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) on one of his Far Eastern trips and buy a plastic used tunnel somewhere. I don't know.

Nevertheless, some of these spending habits of the government will have to change. Certainly some of the grandiose ideas, some of the political expenditures that have been announced since February 28, will have to be revised. I think it may well be an opportunity for the minister to present the House with a revised set of estimates in terms of revenue. I certainly think that when we come back after the celebration of our national holiday, we may well look on our desks and find a revised set of revenue estimates. I hope that the minister will do that.

[ Page 3076 ]

Certainly it's a cause for concern in the province. It's a cause for concern on both sides of the House, as we see the revenues from our natural gas resource, stumpage and other revenues go down. Certainly expenditures must be trimmed, and I know that the Treasury Board must be working overtime, as it was in previous years, to try to handle that situation.

Those are my concerns as we enter debate on second reading of this second supply bill. We don't wish to delay it, but I hope the minister enters into those two points of debate dealing with, first of all, the essential nature of what estimates are supposed to do: keep the expenditure engine of this government working, and not put up with this nonsense that we heard the other day; and secondly, provide an up-to-date statement, because a printed statement isn't due from the minister until the end of July, when I think the quarterly report that he would normally be giving us is due. In view of the seriousness of the situation perhaps a full statement is due, and maybe this is the opportunity.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I appreciate the cooperation of the official opposition in what is essentially authorization to ensure that salaries, payment for goods and services and the business of government continue without interruption. My remarks will be brief.

As the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) mentioned two points, I shall deal very briefly with the second point which he raised first. Each member of this House is responsible for his or her remarks. I did not hear the interjection to which the member referred.

I would remind all hon. members that the policy which I announced earlier this year at budget time indicated that prompt payment of all accounts by government was a policy which I endorsed and which I intended to improve upon even to the extent where the announcement has been made that after a given number of days — my colleagues and I in treasury benches are working on this particular point right now — the province should pay interest on overdue accounts. That was the statement in March and that is the statement reiterated today, recognizing that it takes a little time to flush out all the details in such a policy or the flow from such an announcement.

With respect to the main point made by the official spokesman for the opposition in second reading of this Supply Bill No. 2, it is this government which introduced quarterly reporting. The member is correct. The first quarterly report of this fiscal year will be presented as quickly as possible, pending the closure of the quarter. I would anticipate that that would be about one month from now, in the last few days of July, if all our targets are met in terms of the mechanics of producing that material, gathering it and putting it into a complete form. This government introduced quarterly reporting. This government continues the policy of quarterly reporting so that all members of this assembly and all interested British Columbians have a more current report — if you will permit — on the state of the province's economy, the state of the provincial accounts and the state of revenues and expenditures. I think that my predecessor, now the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), is again to be commended for introducing the policy of ensuring that that information is officially produced and made available every three months for all British Columbians to consider, observe and comment on.

What has occurred in the last several days — I think it is appropriate that the member mentioned it and it is appropriate in second reading that I respond to it — is the early warning of certain circumstances which could affect the provincial budget if they were permitted to go unchecked. I suggest that the actions which have been taken thus far — the member did not suggest otherwise — are in line with prudent management of the people's money: appropriate response quickly enough that we're not faced with a more serious situation as a result of hoping that something will change, hoping that a problem will go away or that magically other revenues will flow.

That is responsible management of the province's accounts. I have no trouble with that. I was never in a majority ownership situation of business, but I earned my living, as many of us have in this House, from the success or lack thereof of the economy in a particular community. I had targets in terms of revenue and targets in terms of what the organization could spend. You can't always see those targets met precisely as planned some months earlier. I am not pessimistic about the material which was presented to the members of this Legislature on budget day in March of this year. I am not pessimistic with respect to the short; medium or long-term future of the province of British Columbia. I am optimistic in the short, medium and long term, and I'm not alone.

The rather quiet member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) will enjoy my next remark. He can already hear it. Within recent days I was able to stand in my place in this Legislature and indicate that Standard and Poor Corp. of New York had raised the ratings of the bonds issued in the name of British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority from AA to AAA. It did not take place in December, January, February or March of this year; that review has been ongoing. The announcement was made in New York six or seven days ago, and then I was able to make the announcement here. It's a very up-to-date assessment of the prospect for British Columbia — again, in the short, medium and long term.

As Minister of Finance, I stated certain policies in the budget address in March. I have had an opportunity to discuss those policies briefly in some legislation. The members opposite know that my estimates have not yet been presented to this House. I suggest that the more appropriate opportunity for discussion would occur at that time in Committee of Supply, when the members opposite can question to the fullest extent on a variety of matters which fall within the jursidiction of this particular portfolio.

Mr. Speaker, we are doing what the people of British Columbia would expect us to do. In the event that revenues show a decrease, it is appropriate — indeed it is more than that; it is demanded of a Minister of Finance — that he turn to his colleagues and give that early warning sign; that he give full notice to his colleagues, and then to the public, that measures which might be necessary later on are now being considered.

We don't know precisely what is going to happen. Is it going to be a beautiful summer in British Columbia? Is the sun going to shine? I hope so. I'm optimistic about that. How deep is the recession in the United States going to be? This recession was late. The recession in the United States should have been here in 1979, according to all the economists. It didn't occur until just a few months ago in 1980.

The variety of circumstances in an economy such as ours

[ Page 3077 ]

demands that the Premier, cabinet, Minister of Finance and the senior staff have the opportunity to respond quickly, not in a panic, not in a crisis-oriented atmosphere, but rather to respond as circumstances dictate. In my view, Mr. Speaker, that is prudent, responsible management of the great trust placed by the people of British Columbia in any Minister of Finance of the day. Those are the guiding principles which I intend to follow through the course of the next months and years.

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

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, Supply Act, No. 2, 1980, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

SUPPLY ACT, NO. 2, 1980

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

On section 1.

MR. HANSON: As revenues turn down, priorities in spending should be reassessed. As I look around my riding and see the needs before me.... I'm following on from the minister's remarks about advising his colleagues of spending priorities....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, debate in second reading allows for great latitude in discussing the principle. However, debate in committee has to be strictly relevant to the section before us. The section before us is explicit that money shall be paid and about the amount; that is what the committee must consider at this point. The second member for Victoria continues.

MR. HANSON: I'm seeking the advice of the Chair. Is it not within the rules of the House to indicate some priority emphasis that may be placed on that $1.47 billion?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, hon. member. The section says we shall pay or shall not pay, and it designates an amount: that would be debatable in committee.

The first member for Victoria rises on a point of order.

MR. BARBER: There's another key phrase, which reads: "shall pay towards defraying the several charges and expenses of the public service." If I understand correctly, the argument raised here is that there is some moment for examination of the several charges and expenses, That's the argument being put forward now and it's specifically named within this section and thereby in order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that would be for the estimates as they came before us. This section discretely says that we shall or shall not pay, and it describes the amount of money that will be paid as covered in this section. The second member for Victoria continues on section 1.

MR. HANSON: Sometimes it's very difficult for a new member to determine where one should best make one's point. The point I am trying to indicate in a very brief fashion to the Minister of Finance is that as a member for Victoria concerned about expenditures and the needs of my own constituency, I am extremely concerned that money from this vote may go to the bridge-tunnel possibilities that are being outlined by the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I'm afraid that debate cannot be accepted in committee.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, under section 1 we're debating $1,470,000,000. That's a quarter of our total budget for the year. I'd like to reflect on a vote that took place in this House a few months ago. That was on $1,470,000,000 in a former bill — Bill 11, as I recall — and I'm not reflecting, because I want to use that as an example. This House passed a quarter of the budget for a quarter of the period of the year. Now we're being asked to pass another quarter of the budget. Mr. Chairman, don't be nervous; I'm debating this $1,470,000.000.

I was very disappointed not only with members of this House indicating that the people who have a right — that is people receiving grants and their portion of the budget for that particular period.... I say that for the ensuing particular period I want it duly noted here that the opposition is totally cooperative with the government and is cooperating in terms of giving the government this portion of this year's budget.

If the government needs to come back in September.... The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) sits there and shakes his head — that minister who goes running around the province telling stories....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member....

MR. COCKE: And that's what I'm warning about.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member....

MR. COCKE: I don't want to hear any more stories, not only from members of this House....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You held up the bills so that we couldn't get on with projects and you know you did. The appropriation bill....

MR. COCKE: What bill?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, you did. You held them up. You stand there in the House and talk about nothing

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, there are 20 bills that haven't even come forward yet.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development and all hon. members come to

[ Page 3078 ]

order, please. We are in committee and thus we have to be specific and discuss the detail of the section before us. That's the only debate that can be allowed. Under standing order 43, any debate that strays from that would have to be discontinued.

Now the Chair will recognize the member for New Westminster on section 1.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. COCKE: Section 1 provides the government with an additional quarter of the 1980-81 budget. When this section passes and this committee rises, the government will be afforded that portion of this year's budget. If we again hear that either bureaucrats or politicians are indicating to the public or to people who are to receive grants that the reason that they're not receiving them is something to do with the opposition, then I really think there has to be a great deal of trouble in this province.

There has been total cooperation, as there will be this morning. This shows the willingness of the opposition, despite the fact that the estimates are not finished and all the legislation has not come before this House. If anybody's holding it up, believe me, a government that has announced 20 more bills coming down the line can hardly say that the opposition are the ones that are standing in the way of progress of this province. What nonsense! We're quite prepared to go for this, but we don't want to hear any more of this talk.

There have been actual letters put in the hands of people who were to receive grants in this province from the Ministry of Human Resources indicating that the reason the grants are not forthcoming is that the opposition is holding things up. That's a bit much. That's almost the kind of exaggeration that I saw from the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) yesterday. It's totally unacceptable behaviour.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I will have to ask you to discontinue that line of debate. The section is specific. Will all hon. members address themselves to the section.

MR. COCKE: That section is specific. It asks us to authorize the expenditure by the government of this sum of money. We are authorizing the expenditure of this sum of money. Therefore we don't want to hear charges that somehow or other we are standing in the way of these expenditures. That's sheer and utter nonsense. That's what we are talking about. That's the only point we want to make and it's a very serious point with us, an extremely serious point indeed.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, I rise to make essentially the same point as my colleague for New Westminster. Three months ago I had in my office two people representing a legitimate community service agency in my riding. They had been to the Ministry of Human Resources and had made a legitimate proposal well within the terms of reference of the ministry itself. They were told so by the public servant who looked at the terms of the application itself. They were also advised falsely and wrongly that because the opposition had not concluded the estimates debate, no such grant could be paid regardless of its merits or how closely it fell within the guideline. That was a false and wrong thing. That should never have been said by any person, even a government MLA.

We are awarding today in the second supply bill, which certainly will pass this morning, in the same way that we awarded in one morning on a previous occasion, more than adequate operating authority for this government in its financial organization. Twice now — I predict — within one morning the opposition has granted clearly and indisputably more than adequate funds to pay for the entire public service in the forthcoming quarter, and to pay for all of those programs authorized in ordinary estimates. It is an offence to this Legislature that any person purporting to speak for the government should make the false claim that because estimates have not been wholly concluded it is justifiable that certain expenditures, in the form of community service grants within Human Resources, for example, may be denied.

This morning we are awarding $1.47 billion. We are awarding that without any undue delay. It will pass shortly. It will pass unanimously. It will grant the authority necessary.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Not "we" — the Legislature.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARBER: Speaking for all of us, we in the Legislature will do this.

That is why when debating this section it is most necessary that every person who has a legitimate proposal, from the point of view of private or public business within the private or public sector in any regard, not be misled by those who argue that because we have not yet concluded main estimates it is impossible to provide such grants.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, at this point I will read to all members of the House standing order 43: "Mr. Speaker or the Chairman after having called the attention of the House or of the Committee to the conduct of a member who persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition, either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other members in debate, may direct him to discontinue his speech...."

Hon. member, we have before us section 1, which is specific and discrete. Debate in this committee must be strictly relevant to that section. Nowhere in that section does it mention that members will or will not mislead members of the public. The section, in my estimation, is discrete. I cannot allow debate to continue outside of the bounds of the language contained in that section.

MR. BARBER: I quite agree, Mr. Chairman. Nothing you or I have said is outside the bounds of section 1. What I am trying to do — and I understand the special usage of the word "discrete" that you apply — is make sure that the people of British Columbia understand it as clearly as you and I do. That's valid. When we pass this $1.4 billion for deferring the several charges and expenses of the public service of the province, we are doing that in order to allow the government to get on with its proper business. There should be no mistake about that. Nor should any person be mistakenly advised. This is the central point and a very important point to this opposition, which will vote for section 1 very shortly. The point simply is that people must understand that in the financial organization and in the fiscal structure of British Columbia, when you award a quarter of the budget in the first interim supply bill and another quarter of the budget in the second interim supply bill, that doesn't mean that

[ Page 3079 ]

public servants only receive 25 percent of their pay for the first three months and then 50 percent for the three months after that and then 75 percent, if we're here still in September. That's not how it works.

It means the government has 100 percent of its budget to draw from during the entire period of the quarter where we've awarded interim supply. It does not mean the government is restricted by section 1 to simply paying 25 percent of the total moneys to which it may be committed by salary or any other expenditure. Now there may be some people who think, because now we only award another 25 percent of the main budget of the province, that that's all the province can spend — 25 percent only of every application. Some people who are naive might actually believe such mistaken advice, but a number of the members of this opposition have had the experience in the last quarter of hearing from people who have been the victims of false information. We want to make sure that that doesn't happen in the next quarter, Mr. Chairman, which is why we're taking a few moments to make sure that the full import of section 1 is clearly understood.

The existence of a second interim supply bill is no excuse for a government that chooses not to make certain expenditures. If a grant is to be turned down for Meals on Wheels or any other good and decent purpose, let it be turned down on its own merits, or lack of them. That's fair. But let it not be turned down or delayed because someone falsely claims that the government can't spend this money because main estimates aren't passed. That is a false, disreputable claim which some have made, and I want to make sure that no one who reads these remarks in Hansard, which I will be mailing to them shortly, is under any illusion at all about the import of section 1.

Let me restate it briefly, Mr. Chairman. We are awarding $1,470,000,000 to allow the government of British Columbia to pay its bills, to make its grants, to give welfare to business, to give non-interest-bearing forgivable loans to human beings and to do all of the other things that the government should do by law and should do by policy. That's why we're doing it. There is no dispute about why.

But I don't want to have to come back here for the third interim supply bill, together with my colleagues, and stand up and say: "For a third quarter people were misled about the nature of the estimates debate and the nature of interim supply." If that point is understood and if we don't hear the same false information in the next quarter, then, when we come to the third interim supply bill, the debate will be even shorter than it will prove to be this morning.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could ask the minister a question under this section. He's been minister now for about seven or eight months and this is his second go-round for an interim supply bill. Can the minister tell us that in terms of the expenditure of $1,470,000,000, has he issued any special instructions to either his ministry or to others — I presume comptrollers — about how money is to be given out in terms of this quarter? Has he said, for instance, that no grants can be made because we don't have the full estimate; we have not had full approval on the estimate? I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that while we're doing interim supply — and this is the second time around, and we could very well be doing a third one — there is an understanding among people in this Legislature that when it comes to the reality, the numbers game counts and the government will pass its interim supply after debate every time. The presumption has to be to the public out there that the operation of the government does not slow down because instead of completing the estimate process and getting into an interim supply process somehow everything has to stop. Now, as my friends have pointed out and my colleague said, it seems to be abroad among some people that this is the case.

Can the minister tell us — now that he's had seven months in the ministry — whether he has issued any special instructions curtailing the expenditures within the scope of $1,470,000,000, or is the government proceeding to run as we expect all responsible governments will run, on the basis of making the grants available? We know the statutory programs — the ones they can't interfere with — but are there any special instructions relating to non-statutory programs? Has the minister given such instructions? I'd be interested to know. Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I would refer the hon. member who has just taken his seat to the brief debate which occurred on April 2 of this year, as shown in Hansard, when the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), who is not present today, put a similar question. He may care to glance at that. No such instructions have been issued.

In answering the question further, Mr. Chairman, I fear that I'll incur your wrath and stray from the section. But interim supply, as the member opposite well knows, is not the only financial mechanism to have come before this House. and there is one bill which, indeed, took considerably longer for passage than I think anyone on the government side of the House would have expected. Some of the remarks which have been alluded to may have flowed from that. But to answer the question specifically, no such instructions have been put in place with respect to interim supply than have existed in the past, under my predecessor, or under Supply Act, No. 1.

MRS. DAILLY: I just want to follow up very briefly what my colleague the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) has brought to the attention of the House, and just ask the minister one very brief, simple question.

It has been brought to our attention that misleading statements have been made by someone in government with reference to the opposition holding back money for payment because of interim supply. All I want to ask the minister is whether he will assure this House that he will take the responsibility of informing the public that it is an impossible thing to happen when you have an opposition that is willing to support the passage of interim supply. Will you repudiate any of those misleading statements which have come to our attention?

I think, as Minister of Finance, it is a major responsibility for you to take, and we would like to hear your reaction to that.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I could give that assurance if such were required, if this were the only financial legislation to have been presented to this House in this session. As the member opposite knows, this is not the case. This is the second supply act, but quite apart from interim supply we have had other bills where concern has been expressed by the public service in terms of an inability to proceed with a certain program until that bill has been given royal assent.

[ Page 3080 ]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I just want to make one point for the purposes of the record. The members opposite are talking about quarterly expenditures as if the government had a constant flow of expenditures throughout the year. I would point out, and I hope the record will indicate, that many of our ministries do not have a constant flow of expenditures throughout the year. In mine, for example, the springtime — the early part of the fiscal year — is a very heavy expenditure period when we're into our reforestation work, cruising work, road construction, all those things that are seasonal in the manner in which they have to be done. I'm sure my colleagues the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) have similar situations. If we have very heavy expenditures in a part of the year — the first quarter — higher than the normal quarterly expenditure would indicate by going on 25 percent in each quarter, then obviously other ministries would have to tighten back some, and there must be a disruption in the normal operation of the government. So I hope that the record will indicate that their argument is not completely accurate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will remind all hon. members again that our question is shall it or shall it not, and shall the amount pass or shall it not. That is debatable in Committee of Supply. If members would be reminded of that, then our debate will he in order.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, certainly it shall pass. No one is suggesting that it shall not pass. What we are suggesting is that the government should cease and desist from accusing the opposition of holding up the passage of interim supply, because that is just not true. We are very much in favour of this interim supply bill passing. We are very much in favour of the estimates being dealt with too. But when a constituent of the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) phones me, as the critic on human resources, and explains that she has been told by the Human Resources office there that they cannot receive the grant money for their community project because the opposition will not pass the estimates of the Ministry of Human Resources — estimates which have not been presented to the House — well, that just is not true. All that the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) is asking the Minister of Finance to do is to repudiate the statements being made by some of his colleagues on the government benches that the opposition is holding up interim supply. The opposition has never held up interim supply and does not intend to do so now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, your statements do not deal with the question before us. The statements that have been made during second reading clearly address some concerns, and they were permitted during second reading, as the records of this House will show. We are now in committee and we have a question before us. The committee is only empowered to discuss the question before us.

MS. BROWN: I am merely stating that in supporting the passage of interim supply in the amount of $1,470,000,000.... We have not received any statements that the Minister of Finance has himself been spreading this kind of information around, but certainly his colleagues have been. We are suggesting to the Minister of Finance that he draw the attention of the community at large that the opposition very quickly, on two separate occasions, has passed interim supply and that, in fact, his colleagues on the government benches have been very wrongly accusing the opposition of not doing so.

The Minister of Finance is the person who has to take responsibility for getting that information out to the Ministry of Human Resources in, for example, the Powell River area and in Victoria and in Vancouver, so that those community grants can get at least a half or a quarter of their allotment. The opposition has very quickly, on two separate occasions, passed interim supply — given it in one day. For his colleagues to continue to accuse the opposition of holding up interim supply or indeed holding up the estimates is just not true. It is the government's responsibility to introduce interim supply; the opposition doesn't have the right to introduce interim supply. It is the government's responsibility to present the estimates to the House; the opposition doesn't have that responsibility either. Surely the Minister of Finance must recognize that he has a responsibility for seeing to it that the facts get out there, if his colleagues can't do that.

One is continually being reminded that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), whose department is stating this erroneous information, is precisely the same minister who went around this province accusing us of having a secret police, which she has never been able to substantiate to this date.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I'm just tired of your lies.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair heard that remark. I'm afraid I will have to ask that you withdraw.

MS. BROWN: I withdraw the fact that I'm tired of their lies.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, that is not acceptable. You have imputed a falsehood against another hon. member. It is unparliamentary. Would the member please withdraw.

MS. BROWN: I withdraw the statement that I'm tired of their lies.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, you have pointed out to a number of members opposite that we are dealing with a section in committee. I would suggest that the concern which has been expressed by the member who has just taken her seat is more appropriately dealt with in estimates. On three occasions in this brief debate I have indicated that concern has been expressed not only by members of this assembly, I'm sure, but by senior public servants in various departments, where other financial legislation which has been before this House has not permitted the processing of accounts or the undertaking of certain projects until royal assent has been given. The matter is not as straight and fine as the members opposite would suggest.

MR. HOWARD: What we've been examining is not expenditures or items that may have been included or covered by other legislation that the Minister of Finance now refers to. What we have been talking about is the normal, ordinary course of expenditures that arise within a department as a result of the estimates being dealt with, and not some other piece of legislation.

[ Page 3081 ]

The complaints that have been lodged by members on this side are about a situation in the past and a request — an insistence, if you want to put it more strongly — that these kinds of abuses against the integrity of members in the opposition be discontinued and not become active as a result of the particular bill we are now looking at. That is what the complaints are about and they are very serious ones. I don't think they can be sluffed off by referring to other legislation and saying: "Well, maybe under other legislation public servants have been dismayed because the bill didn't get royal assent and therefore there is not specific legislative approval for that particular item."

What we are talking about are the matters concerned with the normal course of the flow of money through the departments as a result of the estimates of expenditure, not as a result of specific pieces of legislation or programs. We are talking about these things.

Having listened to what you said earlier, Mr. Chairman, I hope I'm not going to offend the rule that I think you were talking about, or how you attempted to apply it. I want to relate a couple of instances within the constituency of Skeena where the complaints that other hon. members have mentioned, in fact, took place. In the section now before us, a portion of it says: "...there may be paid and applied in such manner and at such times as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may determine a sum of money not exceeding...." We're talking about that specific application "in such manner and at such times." I suggest to you that if the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council determines that particular moneys are not going to be paid within this particular period encompassed by this bill, and the result of that decision of government is then misrepresented by cabinet ministers or backbenchers on the government side as an accusation against the opposition holding up that particular expenditure, then, I submit, it is perfectly within the ambit of the section before us to talk about it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The exception being, hon. member, that great latitude was allowed during second reading to make that point. At this point to continue that line of debate would, in fact, be repetitious.

MR. HOWARD: Second reading, with respect, Mr. Chairman, did not and does not afford an opportunity that the informality in committee affords of posing questions to a minister following upon responses. It offers one opportunity for debate, a closing debate by the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sure I don't have to tell the member what the rules of second reading are in the House. All members are afforded the opportunity to debate. The member for Skeena continues on section 1.

MR. HOWARD: Talking about that aspect of it. It applied in a previous bill. It was with respect to a particular situation in Skeena relating to the Lakelse Hot Springs. Money was not forthcoming and was not provided for a particular feasibility study. The word got out — and I'm not saying the Minister of Lands Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) generated the word or originated this message. I don't think he would. But somebody in his department, somebody associated with that department or with that project and with political sensitivity, spread the message all over Terrace that the reason that money wasn't available was because the opposition was not passing the estimates. That was a false statement. The minister himself, by responding to the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi), indicated that was a false thing to do, but it happened.

I'm sorry the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) is not here at the moment because part of this relates to forestry. The Ministry of Forests, insofar as a few parks were concerned in that area, determined that there were a number of trees that had to be removed from the parks. They were ancient, decadent trees and were in danger of falling upon those people who used the parks, and they had to be removed. The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing issued a press release to that effect, saying they had to get the trees out of the park, and then proceeded not to do it. People in the area were wondering why they didn't get to work on Furlong Bay and remove the trees.

MR. KEMPF: That's not what they were saying. They were saying just the opposite, and you know it. I know the story.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Will the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) come to order, please, and will the member for Skeena try to relate to the section in front of us. We are in committee.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Omineca will maintain his place, and the member for Skeena continues on section 1.

MR. HOWARD: Your request for the member for Omineca to be in order.... It's not possible for him to be in order at any given time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I can't accept that.

MR. HOWARD: In any event, the message that got back to the people there who were concerned about it was that the reason they were not removing the trees was because the money was not available, and the money was not available because the estimates of the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing had not been considered by the Legislature.

MR. KEMPF: Not true, and you know the story.

MR. HOWARD: I'll have to repeat it; it is true. That was the message that was distributed in that community. Perhaps if others in this House on the government side are now saying that something else happened, maybe they had a hand in that something else. Maybe they were responsible for spreading this false information; maybe they're responsible for the fact that in that community baldfaced lies were told about why that money was not available. That's what we're complaining about.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I'm going to have to ask you, under standing order 43, to discontinue that line of debate. You may feel you have a grievance and if you have a grievance against a member it can be brought to this House. However, the House is in committee right now and can only entertain debate on section 1 .

[ Page 3082 ]

MR. HOWARD: I have no grievances against any member in this House, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the member is to continue his debate, the debate will have to be within the guidelines of this committee and within the specific details as laid out in section 1 — strict relevance.

MR. HOWARD: Section 1 is what I'm talking about. As you did earlier, Mr. Chairman, I want to read it into the record again. It says: "In addition to the amount authorized under Supply Act No. 1, 1980" — and what I was talking about earlier arose during that period when Supply Act No. 1, 1980, applied — "from and out of the consolidated revenue fund there may be paid and applied in such manner and at such times as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may determine a sum not exceeding...."

That's the point I'm talking about. We are now being asked to give the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the authority to spend up to a certain amount of money in such manner and at such times as he, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, deems fit. We raise the earlier complaints about falsehoods that were told in particular ridings and told to a number of people in this province as to why they couldn't get money. We raise that as a complaint now, saying that we hope that doesn't occur again in this period of time contemplated to be covered by the authority here, and that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council will decide in such manner and at such times to proceed in the normal, ordinary course of expending the funds available to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and that no falsehoods will be spread about it and no misrepresentation designed to advance the interests of Social Credit and to denigrate the interests of anybody else who disagrees with him. That's what we're saying.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I think we've made the point at this juncture, but I would just like to reply to what the Minister of Finance had to say with respect to other finance bills and the fact that they didn't go through as quickly as maybe he would have liked. The government determines the rate at which bills are put before the House and whether or not they remain before the House. Those particular bills came and went like yo-yos. They also called the time that the session began.

AN HON. MEMBER: When was that?

MR. COCKE: This session began February 28, one month before the last budget was finished. That's why we're debating section 1 of Supply Act, No. 2 — because this government was reluctant to come back to the House. Not only are they reluctant to come back to the House and discuss the people's business; they're also in a great hurry to get out of here.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. COCKE: Well, in that case, let's proceed with section 1 of this bill and pass it with an understanding that no longer will people be informed that something is happening here in Victoria that's inhibiting the expenditure of government funds. Provided we have that kind of an undertaking, we're quite happy to cooperate with this government in every way possible, and particularly with this minister, who I feel is responsible — comparatively, in any event.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, on section 1, there's no doubt in everybody's mind in British Columbia that the opposition have been stalling the passage of a variety of things.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair has had to bring to the attention of this committee....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. The Chair has had to bring to the attention of the committee on numerous occasions this morning the fact that in committee we can only debate section 1 as it appears before us. We have, in second reading, approved the bill in principle. Committee allows us to discuss and debate the detail of the section, and that's the only debate that the committee will allow.

HON. MR. CHABOT: We're talking about the allocation of funds for specific government projects. The member for Skeena has talked about the failure to allocate funds for the cutting of timber in Furlong Bay, Lakelse Lake Park, and in the north. He is attributing statements made by me and possibly officials of my ministry....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the member for Skeena was advised to discontinue that debate. The debate did discontinue, and I'm now going to ask you to discontinue that debate. We are in Committee of Supply. The chair cannot allow discussion or debate out of the bounds of section 1.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, thank you very much. If there's no longer any discussion or debate I will have some great difficulty in speaking, Mr. Chairman. But I just do want to say that the opposition has been very draggy. I want to say that those statements that are attributed to the government, and possibly to officials of my ministry, relative to Furlong Bay, are untrue and false.

Section 1 approved.

MR. HOWARD: Perhaps it should be pointed out, Mr. Chairman, that I attributed nothing of that sort to the minister that he alluded to.

HON. MR. CHABOT: To who?

MR. HOWARD: Aha! Now the minister, by asking, "to who?".... As my colleague from Burnaby North tells me, "to whom?" is the correct form of that. But now that he is using that, he is admitting that he knows full well that I've made no such attribution of remarks to him. He knows it. He just came in here to try to confuse the issue.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All hon. members, I call for order.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Tell the truth.

[ Page 3083 ]

MR. HOWARD: The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing and I both always tell the truth.

Section 2 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report Bill 35 complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed, Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 35, Supply Act, No. 2, 1980, reported complete without amendment.

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

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

Leave granted.

Bill 35, Supply Act, No. 2, 1980, read a third time and passed unanimously on a division.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 20.

SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

Bill 20 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 18.

LIQUOR CONTROL AND
LICENSING AMENDMENT ACT

(continued)

Section 2 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS- 17

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

On section 3.

MRS. WALLACE: I am concerned about this section. In adding the words "where the general manager requires it" after "unless" in section 10.... Just to bring into context what are talking about, "(1) For the purposes of this act, the province is one licensing area. (2) A licence shall not be issued for an establishment unless....'' is how it reads now. It lists several things that have to be done in order that a licence can be listed. Now by this amendment we are going to say that a licence will not be granted "unless where the general manager requires it," which to me means that a licence can be issued just at the wish of the general manager, with none of these provisions, not even an application. Item (a) is that a licence shall not be issued for an establishment unless the applicant has given, in a form and manner approved b the general manager, reasonable notice of the application and the name and so on. Now we are going to say that he will have a licence as long as the general manager says it's okay. It can go ahead without even an application in the required form or any notice. Unless I am misreading this, that is the kind of thing that is happening in this section, and I have some real concerns, I would like the minister responsible to indicate just what the intent of this particular part of this section is — in putting in the words ''unless the general manager requires it."

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I believe I heard most of what the member said, although the noise level was getting a little high. Madam Member, the reason for this change — not to do with the application, but the application once in process — is to allow the general manager additional discretion as to whether certain forms of advertising and other methods of obtaining information are required. As you correctly pointed out, the province is one licensing area. Circumstances in various parts of the province are very, very different from others. It is to permit the general manager more capability and more flexibility in requiring certain procedures to be followed by applicants.

MRS. WALLACE: I don't like to belabour this point, but it seems to me that in putting that particular phrase into this particular section we are into a position where the general manager can simply grant a licence to anybody, with no information obtained in any way, shape or form from anybody. That is really what this is doing. It may not happen, but it is opening the door for that kind of thing to happen. As has been pointed out in this House many times, this is a very sensitive area: it is a one where a lot of dollars are involved. There certainly should be some kind of protection to ensure that that kind of thing can't happen — with no rules and regulations at all. completely at the discretion of the general manager. It seems to me that's what this is doing.

[ Page 3084 ]

Sections 3 to 7 inclusive approved.

On section 8.

MR. MACDONALD: I just want to say another couple of things about this appeal section. This is the one that extends a little bit this right and discretion of the minister to decide appeals on liquor licences which have been denied. There is no appeal to the minister on liquor licences granted. They would go, in a proper appeal procedure, to the Corporate and Financial Services Commission if the neighbours or general public or another applicant thought it was an unjust denial. This cozy little power to grant a licence goes right to the minister, and he gives no reasons.

He said that the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) is wrong, as usual, because the appeals don't take place in the minister's office. I believe they used to, Mr. Minister. They take place in the Oak Room or the Hemlock Room or something like that. No reasons are given, and the minister defends that. He said: "We on our side of the House have respect for the integrity of a politician to decide on the rights of people. " Without impugning anybody's integrity, I say the minister, philosophically, is all mixed up. That should not be a political decision.

What do you want to do? Do you want to take Workers' Compensation Board decisions right into the minister's office too, on a discretionary thing by a politician? You wouldn't think of it, because you are dealing with the rights of people. But you do it here. What you are doing, in terms of taking it into politics, is mixing politics in a heady mixture with liquor, and liquor in a heady mixture with politics. It's a hangover situation, insofar as the public....

This is the new minister, eh? I say it is fraught with the potential of corrupt influence. There have never been any reasons. I asked the minister in a letter what reasons you give on an appeal of this kind — because the corporate and financial services division gives excellent reasons. They decide the rights as between, say, four applicants, or as between the public and somebody applying for a licence. They decide those kinds of things and they give proper reasons. They are an impartial body in the sense that they are not applying any political consideration to it. The minister says: "Oh, we are different on our side of the House. The minister can leave his politics aside, go into the Oak Room, and decide this kind of appeal without any political considerations." I say you can't do that; no human being can do it, Mr. Minister.

You should have all of the appeals going to an impartial body that gives reasons for its decision and has a proper forum of appeal, not just going in.... This is exactly what you did under the Land Commission Act for leaves to appeal. You said that all you've got to do now is go to the minister and he makes a decision. In some of the cases the minister concerned said he didn't know anything about them, but he granted leave to appeal anyway. So you are politicizing things. I say that for this government, of all others, with its record in the field of public morality, to take unto its ministers the right to decide this kind of question is just a pathway back to the bad old days when, without any question, liquor ruled politics in this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: You know all about it.

MR. MACDONALD: I know perfectly well that even in the days of W.A.C. Bennett, through Arthur Fouks, they used to pay 10 cents per barrel of beer delivered to a hotel to the Social Credit free enterprise fund, just as regularly as the days went by one by one. Ten cents on the barrel!

AN HON. MEMBER: What about 1916? Macdonald was in.

MR. MACDONALD: That was bad too, I know. There were wets and drys. I'll tell you the whole story of that.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Macdonald in 1916?

MR. MACDONALD: I know. The wets got him. You know that story. So do 1. I'll tell you that story.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell it as it is.

MR. MACDONALD: They paid 10 cents per barrel to the Social Credit Party.

Now the minister comes along with an amendment....

AN HON. MEMBER: Fifty cents in the days of Macdonald.

MR. HOWARD: What was that?

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I don't know what....

MR. HOWARD: He said 30 cents in the days of Macdonald. Is that John A. Macdonald?

MR. MACDONALD: Yes. I'm not related to John A. Macdonald. He had a red nose, for one thing.

Anyway, you are taking us right back to the bad old days with this legislation. I think this kind of a decision is made non-politically up to a certain point through the liquor licensing branch. Then at the last you say: "Ah, but we've got an angry friend out there who knows somebody. He's mad and he's got a right to appeal right to the minister and walk away with that licence in his pocket." It has happened and everybody in this chamber knows it has happened — just that scenario. You now extend this power of personal appeal to the minister. I say you are just laying a bed for potential corruption there, Mr. Minister. I know you are a new minister. I'm not attacking any of your decisions. I'm just telling you that this is bad legislation.

Section 8 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

[ Page 3085 ]

NAYS — 14

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to comment on this section, which gives such a broad right to search in respect to looking for liquor, or offences taking place under the liquor act. One of the dangers of this kind of section where you don't require a warrant is that the effect can be that this is an excuse to do a general search. When you give the police the general power to move without warrant, as you do in regard to drugs and liquor, you enter into a very dangerous area.

We now have to rely on the police entirely not to use either of those excuses as an illegitimate way to avoid the application for a warrant on another offence for something they may really be searching for. We have, of course, listened for some time to evidence before the McDonald inquiry with regard to police abuse — and I'm not saying here that I have any specific evidence that this section is being abused and that searches, supposedly for liquor, are being used as a way of getting into someone's premises for other purposes. Nevertheless I just wanted to point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that the real danger in permitting the police to proceed without warrant, either in drug cases — that is the writ of assistance, the open-warrant system — or in regard to liquor.... The legislatures must be very cautious when providing authority to the police to move without reference to a judge in terms of doing something that the average citizen doesn't have the right to do. So I just make these few remarks to express our concern as to how we have moved in giving the police authority without going before the courts to get that authority.

Sections 10 to 14 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 18, Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act, 1980, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 13. Mr. Speaker.

LAND AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, Bill 13 is the bill.... I was going to say it was without principle. Seriously. It's a bill with a variety of principles, and I think it's a bill that could be more appropriately debated in committee. Under those circumstances, I move second reading.

MR. HOWARD: Bill 13 lends itself to consideration in committee stage. However, there is.... I don't want to transgress against the rules by referring unduly to a particular section of it. There is concern on the principal question with respect to the bill, and that is the retroactivity feature in it with respect to easements.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which section?

MR. HOWARD: Section 5, which seeks to amend section 37 — on the following page, page 2. I realize this is a delicate area, and in case the Chair stops me from referring specifically to it....

It is a principal thing, and it says that in respect of easements other than statutory rights as may be defined in the Land Titles Act, the section is retroactive in its application. It applies to all easements over Crown land whenever created, and the Crown shall be deemed always to have been able to create assessments by grants or otherwise. That implies that there's.... This is obviously correcting something that was either done erroneously in the past, in a specific case, or has been done erroneously ever since the authority existed with respect to easements, because it says that the Crown shall be deemed always to have been able to do that.

I think that before we get to the committee stage I would appreciate some information from the minister about the impact of that and, if the minister is able to do it, some indication whether or not this will have — so far as the law officers have been able to examine it — any application to the aluminum Company of Canada's proposal with respect to the Kemano completion project, as it is referred to — whether or not there is anything in error with respect to easements that Alcan may have had and may have been granted, and which it is now desired to correct and change. In any event, I'd appreciate, before we get to second reading itself, a declaration from the minister about that particular aspect, because it does seem an unusual course to follow — to say forever and for all time in the distant past the Crown was always deemed to have had this right. That obviously indicates that there's something rather serious that's perhaps been prevailing over a long period of time.

MR. BARBER: The minister advises that there is no consistent principle in this bill, and that it would be preferable for the purpose of competent debate to debate the principle of each of the sections. That's fine, but I would ask the Speaker that he ensure that whoever is the Chairman when we get to committee stage not repeat certain of the directions we've heard recently in regard to other bills that have no unifying principle. and which by prior agreement we will discuss, in effect in principle, during committee stage. There's been a fuss in this House in the last week and it has not been reasonable or necessary. When we give consent, in effect by foreshortening the second reading debate because

[ Page 3086 ]

there is no thematic principle to a bill, we do not expect to have that turned around and used against us, and to be told in committee that we may not debate the principle because we already had our chance in second reading. That's really important. The particular Chairman who has occasionally made that suggestion is not here at the moment; but I want to go on record as one member of the House who, when giving consent not to debate a bill that has no principle — it has many features and no single principle — urges that we not be denied in committee the opportunity to debate the specific principles of each of sections one by one. If we have that understanding on the opposition side, the government will get a lot of cooperation and these things will go through a lot quicker than they have.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, with respect to what has just been raised, I want to say this. The House can't do that because the committee can undo it. If the Chairman in committee decides — as he has in he past — that that's the case, then that's the route that we go. We deny ourselves the opportunity to do it unless there's a very clear commitment beforehand — not through the Chair, I submit; that's not the way to do it. It must be a consultative process; then we'll be able to look at it.

MR. HANSON: This particular bill has been on the list for some days and leapfrogged over, back and forth. Unfortunately, I happened to leave the hall for just a minute and I missed the lengthy, detailed debate on the principle that the minister put forward. I understand what he did was move second reading.

So it is not entirely clear on our side exactly what the principle here is in this bill. My assumption, and I hope it's correct, is that it flows from a reorganization within the ministry. There are clauses in this bill which indicate that authority will be regionalized, that the disposition of Crown land will be regionalized, and that is a position with which we agree. We don't necessarily agree that everybody in all of 365,000 square miles of British Columbia has to have all decisions made in Victoria. We agree that it's a sound move to have it regionalized.

At the same time, however, I'd like to point out to the minister that there is a growing concern within your ministry that the planning, biological and various other kinds of usages of Crown land are being downplayed. Information on the planning and biological aspects of the land — the impact assessment part — is being downplayed, and land as a commodity for solely residential purposes is the emphasis. That is of concern to many employees within your own ministry. I'd like to point that out to you.

Now when I say to you that the principle is not clear in the bill, I mean that there are clauses pointed out by the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) which are of a technical nature, indicating retroactivity: they indicate the right to flood retroactively. They deal with easements and changing the notion of easements, having a dominant and servient tenement. I would like to ensure that the minister clarifies for us how section 37 relates to the principle of the bill.

I'm reluctant to take my seat and have the minister close debate, because as occurred earlier today, when we got to committee stage, legitimate questions were raised and they were ruled out of order. I want to ensure that we have an understanding of exactly what the principle of this bill is. Will you give me your commitment that you're not going to close debate?

HON. MR. CHABOT: When?

MR. HANSON: Now.

Interjections.

MR. HANSON: Okay, I'm going to indicate my concerns, and if he could come back in his closing remarks....

Interjections.

MR. HANSON: Okay, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 32, Mr. Speaker.

LIVESTOCK BRAND ACT

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

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On section 4.

MRS. WALLACE: I just want to raise again in committee a point I raised on this particular section. I'm wondering why it appears the word "may" is used so loosely there. I know it's not mandatory, but certainly it seems to me that this is a very weak section dealing with suspension and cancellation. I wonder how the minister anticipates that that section will work in actuality. What guidelines will be set down to cover this problem when anyone is believed to have contravened the act or the regulations? It appears to be a very loosely written section.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Section 4 states: "Where the recorder believes the licensee has contravened the act," he may do something. The flexibility is there to have some discretion as opposed to a shell situation, because the circumstances surrounding the infraction of the act or the regulation may not be that severe. It may be a case of cautioning the individual as opposed to a suspension or cancellation.

MRS. WALLACE: My question really was asking what kind of authority the recorder is going to have. What kind of powers will he have under this act? As I indicated, the act is very much a skeletal piece of legislation with everything covered in the regulations. I am wondering what kind of powers he is going to have.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In regard to the powers that he has, they are the powers that are delegated to him by the minister under the act and the regulations of the act.

Sections 4 to 8 inclusive approved.

On section 9.

[ Page 3087 ]

MRS. WALLACE: This is the section that covers the regulations. As I pointed out previously, there are any number of them, ranging from (a) to (r). I was interested that the minister indicated that the suspension and cancellation would be covered by regulation. In reading the regulations I can see no reference to the recorder at all. The only reference is in (k), where it says: "The regulations will specify the records to be kept and made available by a person slaughtering livestock or dealing in livestock hides or meats." I am wondering where in the regulations there is any authority given to the recorder relative to suspension and cancellation.

Also, I am concerned about the very great amount of legislation that has been done away with and put into this section on regulations where, in fact, the whole meat of the act is covered here and we don't really know what it is. We just know that something is going to be done and we have no assurance what it is. I certainly am wondering where the recorder is going to get his authority for suspension and cancellations under these regulations.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Section 9 deals with regulations. It states, of course, in the opening statement that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations. These aren't the regulations as such, of course. The regulations will set out, in their content, what the individual has to comply with, what records must be kept, how they handle the transportation and records in regard to hides or livestock, etc. This gives the items which relate to regulations which will be put into place.

As I mentioned in second reading, the determination of those regulations will certainly be with input of the industry itself. The benefit of going to regulations rather than just maintaining all the various sections of the act — as it was in the old act — is that we can be flexible and we can adjust to the modern times in the livestock industry. I think- that's a plus, as opposed to a minus, with regard to the industry itself.

MRS. WALLACE: I think that the minister has outlined the reasons that I'm opposed to regulations. The underlying thing in this act is that we don't know what we're doing or what we're passing, and the cattlemen don't know what we're passing. It's something that's going to be decided at a later date, and that's the problem with this kind of legislation — nobody really knows what it's all about.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a comment in that regard as well. There's a tendency in recent times to do fewer and fewer detailed things in a legislative way and more and more by cabinet. It's a practice that the federal parliament and the federal government have engaged in for years. It's a practice that is not friendly toward the democratic system, because decisions of a regulatory nature are made behind the closed doors of cabinet and the general public hasn't an opportunity to examine the debate with respect to them — to have anything reported to it. There's a whole tendency toward concentrating power and authority over the people of this province more and more into the hands of a few hand-picked people in the cabinet. I think the fact that we have here a so-called modernization of an ancient statute, compressing and combining into the power of cabinet the authority to do pretty nearly everything, is really not a very good thing.

We are in a period of concern about the large size and the authoritarian structure of government and the power government has over the general populace. With that concern growing it would seem to me that government, taking cognizance of it, should be moving more in the direction of openness and in the direction of the Legislature making alterations of a more detailed nature than is available now, and less and less in the direction that the minister seems to be going with this particular bill. This bill isn't one in isolation either. There are other bills that the House has dealt with that, I think, give more power and authority to cabinet than in these times or probably is sensible in any period of time. I want to level with the committee and with the minister my disagreement with that process and tendency and trend and the hope that perhaps mine is the voice of just a few in this province in objecting to greater and greater control over people by government and by cabinet. Nonetheless, it needs to be expressed. I know the minister, personally and individually, I'm sure, feels the same way, which makes me wonder why he brings in a piece of legislation of this nature when he himself. I'm sure, within his conscience does not agree that this is the way to go.

One can argue that there are certain matters that need to be dealt with by regulation — those of a highly intricate and involved nature, usually, and those that require a great deal of statistical references where there are formulas involved and so on — but I think the government has gone overboard with this one. I want to draw a specific reference, only as an example, to subparagraph (d) in this section, which says that the establishment of the board, which as I read it is the board of brand commissioners set up under section 6 which we've already dealt with, and which is the appeal body, can be by order-in-council. The constitution of it can be by order-in-council: the membership of it by order-in-council; the powers and procedures of the board all by order-in-council. It would seem to me that, if nothing else, shouldn't be contained within the regulatory authority of the Lieutenant-Governor.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: I want to move an amendment to this. This is a very important principle in here that the whole structure of a board, with the powers that the board has and so on, needs to be amended. We don't have the time to do it now. That being the case....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Move the amendment and we'll vote on it.

MR. HOWARD: The purpose of amendments is not just to have them voted on, Mr. Chairman. The purpose of an amendment is to accompany an argument in the hope that you will be able to convince the government of the error of its ways. That's what I seek to do. I want to establish and find out first, by debate, whether we can get some response from the minister to agree that he would do it a different way. If he will do that, then there is no need for an amendment. If he won't, then we have to try it in a formal way. If there is a compression of time....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Why don't you at least let us know what the amendment is?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, we are in committee. Could we stick to the rules of order.

[ Page 3088 ]

MR. HOWARD: In the first place, it should not be on the order paper. It doesn't need to be. The rules provide that it doesn't need to be. While I have the floor I will just scribble out the amendment on an ordinary, simple piece of paper here, as we proceed. In fact, somebody has given me a proposed amendment to Bill 32, the Livestock Brand Act. I'm writing it out. The amendment is to delete subparagraph (d). Is that what you want, Mr. Minister of Intergovernmental Relations?

I was hoping that the minister would be able to tell the committee why he wants this super-authoritarian regulatory power with respect to the whole structure of a board of brand commissioners, who are the final decision-making body with respect to any decisions by the recorder of brands and that sort of thing. Why does he want that kind of power'? Why doesn't he just leave that in there?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I was waiting for the member to sit down before I rose in my place. We're talking now of a consideration.... Has your amendment been put? It hasn't. You're still discussing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're in committee.

HON. MR. HEWITT: We're talking about consideration of why subsection (d) of section 9(2) is in the new act. Am I correct? Are you sure?

MR. HOWARD: I thought the minister was following the debate and understood that.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I am following the debate. I want to make sure that I fully understand, because you seem to be all over the ball park. I understand it's the line which says "the establishment, constitution, membership, powers and procedures of the board," and that's the item that you're questioning. Would you nod your head'? Am I correct in that? He's not going to nod his head; he's going to stand up and talk again.

MR. HOWARD: I would like to know why the minister wants these authoritarian powers of this nature. That's what I asked him before and that's what I'm asking again.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, Mr. Chairman, the old act stated that the minister may appoint a board of brand commissioners to consist of four persons resident in the province, each of whom shall be an owner of a stock, etc., etc. The purpose of that board was to "meet at times and places its chairman or the recorder appoints" and "shall advise and report on all matters connected with the administration of the act." The role of that board of brand commissioners was an advisory one. Under the old act, suspension and cancellation were a responsibility of the minister. We have determined that under section 4 on suspension and cancellation in the new act, the recorder has that authority designated to him by the minister. However, instead of having just an advisory role of the board of brand commissioners, we now have set them up as an appeal board, so that a stock dealer or whatever can go and state his case to that appeal board and possibly get relief from a suspension or cancellation by the recorder. He would be judged by his peers, as opposed to giving the minister that power.

So I'd suggest to the member, Mr. Chairman, that item (d) in there establishes that board, its constitution, acts, memberships, powers and procedures in conjunction with section 6, which in effect gives that board more effectiveness and more powers than it had before, and takes, you might say, the cancellation or suspension out of the "political arena," which sometimes is of concern to the member, and allows an individual who feels that his cancellation or suspension is in error the right of appeal to his peers.

MR. HOWARD: I don't know why the minister has to be so obtuse about it all. I didn't ask him for an explanation of what has taken place in the old act. We know that.

Inasmuch as he has turned the board of brand commissioners into an appeal body, giving it that final authority with respect to these matters, that's all the more reason why the cabinet shouldn't have anything to say about what the constitution of that board is. That's all I'm saying. Now that you've elevated it to a higher level of authority — the final authority — do you want political interference in its constitution, membership, powers, procedures, and everything else? Those matters should be contained within the legislation where they can't be touched, meddled with and interfered with politically. I asked the minister why. He just refused to recognize the "why" part and refused to answer it.

Sections 9 and 10 approved.

On section 11.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I move amendments to section 11 standing in my name on the order paper. [See Appendix.]

On the amendments.

MRS. WALLACE: I just wanted to say we on this side of the House have no objections to the amendment. I'm glad that the minister realized these were required before the act went through, so that we wouldn't have to come back and change it later.

Amendments approved.

Section 11 as amended approved.

HON. MR. HEWITT: We've dealt with (a) under the amendments, changing section 11 to 13. Amendment (b) is putting in section 11 and section 12 prior to 13. I'm not sure whether we've done that procedure all in that one moving of the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I understand that the amendment was moved in toto, as it states on the order paper. It is now passed.

Title approved.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 32, Livestock Brand Act, reported complete with amendment.

[ Page 3089 ]

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

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

Leave granted.

Bill 32, Livestock Brand Act, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I understand that His Honour is in the precincts. We might have a short recess so he may enter the chamber.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would ask hon. members to retain their places, if possible. We are just a few moments away from the entry of His Honour.

The House took recess at 12:42 p.m.

The House resumed at 12:44 p.m.

DEPUTY 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:

Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 1980

Special Funds Act, 1980

Crown Corporations Borrowing Authority Increase Act

Credit Union Amendment Act, 1980

Consumer Protection Amendment Act, 1980

College and Institute Amendment Act, 1980

Consumer and Corporate Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 1980

Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act, 1980

School Amendment Act, 1980

Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 1980

Fort Nelson Indian Reserve Minerals Revenue Sharing Act

Fire Services Amendment Act, 1980

Home Owner Grant Act

Livestock Brand Act

Supply Act, No. 2, 1980

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. Vander Zalm tabled the annual report for 1979 for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt tabled the annual report and financial statement of the provincial Agricultural Land Commission for the year ended March 31, 1980.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I think if all of the hon. members would take a deep breath and blow upstairs we might get the clouds to dissipate slightly so we could enjoy the weekend.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:48 p.m.

APPENDIX

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

32 The Hon. J.J. Hewitt to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 32) intituled Livestock Brand Act to amend as follows:

    (a) By renumbering section 11 as section 13.

    (b) By adding the following as section 11:

"R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 44

    "11. The Cattle Horn Act is amended

    " (a) By repealing the definition of 'dealer' in section 1 and substituting the following:

    'dealer' means a person licensed as a livestock dealer under the Livestock Brand Act; and

    " (b) By repealing section 9, and

    (c) By adding the following as section 12:

"R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 246

    "12. Section 2(2) of the Livestock Public Sale Act is amended by striking out 'stockdealer' and substituting 'livestock dealer'."