[ Page 3563 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Transpo 86 Corporation Act (Bill 19). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Wolfe)

Sections 13 to 18 inclusive approved –– 3563

Third reading –– 3563

Mr. Nicolson

Division on third reading –– 3563

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1980 (Bill 34). Committee stage.

On section 7 –– 3564

Mr. Barber

Hon. Mr. Fraser

On section 10 –– 3565

Mrs. Dailly

Hon. Mr. Wolfe

On section 15 –– 3565

Mrs. Wallace

Hon. Mr. Rogers

On section 20 –– 3565

Mrs. Dailly

Hon. Mr. Smith

On section 22 –– 3567

Mrs. Wallace

Hon. Mr. Smith

On section 23 –– 3567

Mr. Howard

Mr. King

Hon. Mr. Williams

On section 24 –– 3568

Mr. Levi

Hon. Mr. Curtis

Mr. Barber

On the amendment to section 24 –– 3571

Hon. Mr. Williams

Division on the amendment –– 3571

On section 25 –– 3571

Mr. Barber

Division on the amendment to section 25 –– 3571

On section 27 –– 3572

Mr. King

Report and third reading –– 3572

Revised Statutes Correction Act, 1980 (Bill 33). Committee Stage (Hon. Mr. Williams)

On section 5 –– 3572

Mrs. Wallace

On the title –– 3573

Hon. Mr. Williams

Report and third reading –– 3573

TUESDAY, JULY 29, 1980

The House met at 10 a.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, this is one of these days of celebration in this Legislature. I gather that the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) is a proud father. I would like to extend the very best wishes and heartiest congratulations of the whole assembly to his wife Debra, to the baby daughter and certainly to him. We look forward to a bountiful supply of cigars.

Secondly, I'm very pleased to introduce and welcome to the assembly and beautiful British Columbia two friends of Rev. Gilbert Smith, who graced us with prayers and a very lovely message this morning: Mr. and Mrs. William Saunders from kiwi land — Tauranga, New Zealand. We like to have you here.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to extend congratulations to the member for Atlin and especially to his wife. But I would publicly appeal to both the Passarells to stop this cliff-hanging business. It took us 11 days to find out whether or not he won by one vote, and the baby was over 11 days overdue. Mr. Member, that does not give you any excuse to be late for this assembly. Congratulations to your wife, your daughter and yourself.

HON. MR. CURTIS: In the gallery today — and I don't think he's here too often — is the father-in-law of the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith), the hon. member for Oak Bay. I refer to Mr. Wallace Courtney, who is known to many members. He counts many individuals among this assembly as good friends. Would the House please welcome him.

MR. BARNES: I'd like to recognize two visitors who were here yesterday, Jon and Audrey Waldorf from Spokane, Washington. These two people were high school sweethearts in 1948 and are still together after 32 years. Jon was one of the quarterbacks on the 1948 Jefferson High School city championship football team in Portland, Oregon, a team with which we both played. He and Audrey were doing a group tour yesterday in the legislative precincts with the tour guides when they recognized this hon. member returning in the evening from one of his jogs. Not having seen Jon or Audrey since high school graduation in 1949 I was naturally quite elated to see them after some 30-odd years. Jon's father, Eric, who passed away some three years ago, was a mighty influential man in my life, and it was not without substance that sports writers and athletes alike used to refer to him as the "Grey Fox" — affectionately, I might add. Unfortunately, Jon and Audrey had to leave for home last night, but I would like to have the record show that this House appreciates having had them visit Victoria. I would like the House to join me in making that a unanimous affirmative decision.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I have the pleasure of having breakfast with Mr. Courtney every morning at the Union Club, but visiting the assembly with Mr. Courtney this morning is Mr. Godfrey Perkin. I would ask the House to also welcome Mr. Godfrey Perkin.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 19.

TRANSPO 86 CORPORATION ACT
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 19; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 13 to 18 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed, Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 19, Transpo 86 Corporation Act, reported complete without amendment.

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

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

MR. NICOLSON: I would urge that the minister not have the bill read a third time now, but that for two reasons he consider a delay. The first reason is that there is no knowledge of the agreement between the CPR and the Crown as to the site upon which this exposition is to take place; the second is that the minister stubbornly put through a piece of legislation which makes the use of the words "Transpo '86" an offence with a fine of up to $2,000. I would hope that if we were to delay this reading for some time, some sanity would prevail.

I have done some checking over the evening and I find that I'm not alone in my opinion that some of the wording of the act was indeed — I suppose in the interest of trying to keep things simple — made so simple as to make the very utterance of the words "Transpo '86" after this act is proclaimed an offence. Mr. Speaker, I wish to serve notice to this House that if there is not a delay in the passage of this bill, I will write to the Bar Association complaining and hoping that they can bring some pressure to bear in terms of the sloppy drafting of this particular section, which I find very offensive. I hope that some corrective measure will be taken before this House adjourns.

Bill 19, Transpo 86 Corporation Act, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 28

[ Page 3564 ]

NAYS — 21

Hon. Mr. Gardom requested that the division be recorded in the Journals of the House.

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

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 1), 1980
(continued)

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

On section 7.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, the last time we were debating this section, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), in consultation with the House Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom), I gather, decided to pull this section until they had an opportunity to study a proposal we had made in order to get around the obvious problem with giving powers far greater than they deserve or need, according to the minister's own statements, in regard to the designation of arterial highways and the paying for and paving of them. I wonder if the minister responsible could now advise what advice he in turn received from legal counsel in regard to our proposal to amend another section of the Highway Act and drop this unnecessary section altogether.

HON. MR. FRASER: First of all, there was a lot of confusion in the last debate, and I take responsibility for that: in other words, the effect this amendment has on the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) and the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall).

The first point I want to make clear is that it only affects cities over 30,000. It doesn't affect district municipalities at all, where their concerns were. In other words, it has no bearing on Burnaby, Richmond, Delta, Surrey, Mission, Langley, Saanich, Abbotsford, Chilliwack, etc. It only has application to cities over 30,000 in population, and they are as follows: Vancouver, Victoria, North Vancouver, Nanaimo, Prince George, Kamloops and Kelowna. The last four have recently been enlarged in their boundaries and so in turn have enlarged their populations.

The Highway Act states that when the population of a city or city municipality is over 30,000, then arterial highway classification or secondary highway classification will not apply to that city; that is, the province will not maintain any of the roads. It also states that when a city or city municipality has a population in excess of that stated, then grants may be made to the city by the province to offset the costs of maintaining the provincial highway system through that city.

However, continuing from the time that Kamloops, Prince George, Nanaimo and Kelowna enlarged their boundaries to increase their populations to over 30,000, the province continued to maintain the provincial highway numbered route system through these cities. The reason Kamloops, Kelowna, Prince George and Nanaimo were not immediately burdened with the construction and maintenance responsibilities for all arterial highways in their cities and were not immediately denied assistance to maintain and construct all secondary highways within their new boundaries was that they were not capable of undertaking this burden. They are not even capable of assuming the burden of the lesser roads and streets within their new boundaries for several years after enlargement.

The amendment is therefore aimed at maintaining the status quo in Kamloops, Kelowna, Nanaimo and Prince George in respect to arterial and secondary highways.

The only cities where the status quo may be changed by the amendment are Vancouver, Victoria, North Vancouver and New Westminster. For many years New Westminster has been pressing the province to take over the maintenance of certain provincial highway routes in their city. They have complained of their inequity of treatment compared to Burnaby. They would also not object to the province taking over responsibility for the Queensborough Bridge.

North Vancouver has never had to maintain the Trans-Canada Highway and interchanges inside its boundaries. Vancouver has indicated the province has a responsibility in respect to the Cassiar Street situation. The province has agreed to help if it can. This amendment makes that possible.

Victoria has long asserted that its problems in moving traffic to the Western Community in Esquimalt merit provincial assistance. This amendment would make this possible.

The other comment I have is that both Victoria and Vancouver are basically terminal or end-of-the-road cities. Therefore the problems of moving provincial highway traffic through to them are not major. The examples above more or less contain it. There is little interest for widespread provincial input of highway construction within these two cities, but this does not apply to Kamloops, Kelowna, Prince George, Nanaimo or New Westminster, although the last two are not quite so vital, as winter conditions do not dominate. What we are saying here is that we're trying to legalize. As a matter of fact, what we're trying to do is help, not hinder, and certainly help in the financial aspect. I think what I would say with the Hastings-Cassiar connector, as an example of one estimate I saw, is $20 million to $25 million. The city of Vancouver wants it fixed. There is certainly discussion going on about the impact and so on, engineering-wise, but they don't want to have anything to do with the financial aspect. These amendments will allow it. I can't see it having really any effect on the capital city at all.

The other concern that the committee has had before, affecting zoning and so on, does not apply to the arterial highways. That only applies to limited access highways. I recommend the amendment continue.

MR. BARBER: I would like to conclude debate on this section by thanking the minister for his lengthy reply and by saying again that we agree with the object. Most certainly the longtime member for New Westminster, Mr. Cocke, has

[ Page 3565 ]

been among those in the forefront of pressing for provincial support of that particular highway problem.

We agree with the object, but the mechanism you have proposed and the powers you have given yourself through this section are far too great for the much smaller job that both you and we agree should be done. We support the object, but we simply cannot support the instrument of policy you've chosen in order to obtain it.

Sections 7 to 9 inclusive approved.

On section 10.

MRS. DAILLY: I think any amendments to the Library Act, which have been wanted and awaited for many years, are welcome. But I want to make a point to the minister in charge of this particular section, which is that the concern expressed to me by some people in the Library Federation and the Library Association is that they'd been hoping for a far more comprehensive change to the act.

I don't really know who I'm talking to on this particular bill, Mr. Chairman. Can you help me?

AN HON. MEMBER: So what else is new?

MRS. DAILLY: You're right; it happens all the time. Does it really matter? I don't know who's going to reply.

MR. BARBER: The Provincial Secretary.

MRS. DAILLY: Well, I know it should be, but he's not here, Oh, I see, he came back. I know he's in charge, but I couldn't see him over there.

Anyway, what I want to ask — and I hope he will reply — is that this amendment certainly allows for and opens the door for more cooperation between different types of libraries throughout the province, and I think that is welcomed. I'm sure the taxpayer welcomes the fact that cooperation is being made easy for the libraries in the province. In the long run, it not only facilitates better service, but from a financial point of view it's good also. I think the thing that's missing here — and I wonder if the minister could tell us if he intends to bring it in in the future, and why it isn't in now....

Why is there nothing here that helps facilitate cooperation between the public libraries and different kinds of libraries? I'm thinking here of university and community college libraries. It seems a bit ridiculous to have all these institutions having their own libraries without cooperation. I can understand their wanting their own, but there should be far more cooperation between public libraries and libraries of a different kind. I wonder if the minister could tell us if he agrees with that and if he's planning to facilitate it.

HON. MR. WOLFE: In response to the member's question, this amendment, as I think she is aware, really gives legal status to a federation that was organized in greater Vancouver in 1975. This Library Federation encompasses libraries in eight communities of the lower mainland, Vancouver, Richmond, Burnaby, New Westminster, North Vancouver city and North Vancouver district. The federation has facilitated equal access to library resources for a population of close to one million people. This proposed amendment will give precise legal status to the Greater Vancouver Library Federation in exercising the powers and duties it has undertaken as a society and — this perhaps will answer her question — permit the formation of similar federations should public libraries elsewhere in the province wish to so organize themselves. It should be noted that in a federation the member library boards retain their autonomy by agreement. So they have, to the extent that is feasible, the best of both worlds: control of their local affairs and participation in a system which gives them access to greater resources and provides them with centralized services and economies in the processing of materials.

The member asked whether the same status could be provided to libraries other than public libraries. I'm not sure that they are really covered under this act. I would have to explore that matter further, but I'll certainly give it a lot of consideration.

Sections 10 to 14 inclusive approved.

On section 15.

MRS. WALLACE: I would just like to ask the minister responsible for this act what the thinking behind this change is. Why is the appointment of a director being put directly in the hands of the minister rather than being left in hands of the rather non-partisan Pollution Control Board? It seems to me that this is opening the door to allow political influence in the appointment of directors under this act.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I think the notes on the side of the bill explain it pretty carefully. It's a matter of semantics more than anything else. It's not a question of appointments.

MRS. WALLACE: That may be true in the second part of the amendment, but certainly not in the first part. In the first part it is simply changing the definition of "director" from someone appointed by the Pollution Control Board to someone appointed by the minister. There's nothing that relates to semantics in that: that's a definite change in the method of appointing those directors. It's a change that allows political influence into the appointment, much more so than having those people appointed by the Pollution Control Board, under whom they're going to work.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 15 pass?

MRS. WALLACE: I would like an answer from the minister. He talks about semantics and semantics is not an answer to that. He has no answer.

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't know.

MR. HOWARD: And he doesn't care.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. WALLACE: Obviously the minister doesn't know or else he doesn't care — perhaps both.

Sections 15 to 19 inclusive approved.

On section 20.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I regret that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) is not here, because this

[ Page 3566 ]

section deals with scholarships. It's a revision of the Scholarship Act. The dispensation of scholarships to the students of the province is a very vital function of the ministry. So I have a question to ask. The minister is not here, Mr. Chairman, but I'd like to get it on record and I hope perhaps the minister, if he's in his office, will be aware of the question and perhaps will bring back an answer. I'm really surprised that the minister whose.... You know, they can see ahead as we can that these sections are coming up.

I think the Minister of Education has had a number of appeals made to him on this matter of scholarships, so it's a fairly controversial matter right now. The concern I have, and this is a major concern, is the question of the revision of the scholarship regulations and how a student can apply for a scholarship. The regulations have been drastically changed under this minister. I'm very anxious to know if he has taken a second look at the delegations and the letters he has received, which have asked him to change the new regulations for scholarships which he has brought forward. Mr. Chairman, for those of you who may not be aware what the basic concern is in the change of the scholarship award regulations, it's that under this minister it has become and taken on the tone of a very elitist scholarship system with the whole emphasis being on those who are academics. I think it's important to get this out now, Mr. Chairman, as briefly as I can.

Under the new regulations — unless the minister has changed them, and I haven't heard he has — it means that students must qualify in at least five courses in their chosen specialty. This will become a very difficult criterion to meet for many schools in B.C. as some, Mr. Chairman, are unable to offer that many courses in certain specialties. So really what we're seeing here is perhaps discrimination against the smaller secondary schools, which means that the rural members of this Legislature should really be up on their feet asking the minister to make changes, surely, in anything that's going to discriminate against the students who reside in rural areas. Unless the minister can tell me otherwise, this is the way we see it.

Also, to get a scholarship, it has now been changed to this: that the recipient of an award....

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could impose upon the hon. member for Burnaby North. We've asked the Minister of Education if he could be here to deal with this subject, because it's one which I know is important to you and to the legislation. If the rules of the committee would permit, Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest that we would move to a subsequent section, so that the minister could be here in order to respond to the member.

MRS. DAILLY: Fine. Thank you.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: So may we defer, Mr. Chairman, the consideration of section 20 and move on to other sections until the minister is present?

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you agree?

MRS. DAILLY: Agreed.

AN HON. MEMBER: I don't think we can do it.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, apparently the rules of the committee do not permit the granting of leave of this kind. I suppose I could stand here and talk for a while until the minister arrives, if I was sure he was coming.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about a 15-minute recess?

MRS. DAILLY: We'll both talk.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I could go through a list of scholarships that the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) has won.

MR. KING: It says leave can't be granted.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, he says leave can't be granted. Perhaps the committee could just relax for a minute, Mr. Chairman, until we find out where the minister is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. minister, the committee is empowered to deal with the bill section by section. That is what the committee is called for, and I unfortunately have to tell you that that's all we can do.

MRS. DAILLY: Do you want me to continue and put this on the record, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, all is saved, hon. member. Please continue.

MRS. DAILLY: The point I am making to the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications, whom I am glad to see is here, is on scholarships. As I said earlier, I think the minister is well aware of the concern that people have expressed to him as well as to myself and other members in the House. Generally we feel that the emphasis on your change on scholarship awarding is on the academic. We must remember that whether a student is academic or vocational, the student should be treated the same in our society. I am really concerned that there is an elitist turn to this change in scholarships. I think a concern has been expressed that students in the past have used the scholarship money to buy a kit of tools that would give them a good start in their vocational trade or their apprenticeship or even a new wardrobe. Students are now going to find it very difficult to do these things which they could in the past.

They must also pass the government English composition examination. In the past the committee was content to accept the school's statement of English competency. The new regulation also tips the advantage again to the academically oriented student. Basically, without becoming too repetitious, I am asking the minister to reconsider these regulations so that all students in this province, whether they are vocational or academic, will have an opportunity to receive scholastic moneys.

HON. MR. SMITH: I heard what the hon. member said on my squawk-box, so I appreciate her remarks. This amendment, though, hon. member, is not in any way inconsistent with what she said. It simply allows some leeway to fix larger scholarships regardless of whether they are given for academic or vocational purposes, in keeping with the present level of inflation. All her remarks on the criteria for awarding

[ Page 3567 ]

district scholarships are pertinent ones. I am reviewing those criteria and have said that I would review them. I am sure she would not want to stand in the way of scholarship recipients receiving additional moneys in a time of inflation. That really is all this amendment is aimed at.

MRS. DAILLY: I appreciate the minister's clarification. As he knows, I was aware that it was dealing with moneys. As long as the Chairman allows me that freedom to go into the reasons for the money being given, which I think was a fair understanding.... Your ruling was to let me proceed, Mr. Chairman. I took that opportunity, because I didn't know when else I could do it.

Sections 20 and 21 approved.

On section 22.

MRS. WALLACE: I find myself in the same position the former speaker did, in that the minister responsible for this particular section is not in the House. I have some concerns on which I would like to see some guidelines set to ensure that this money that we are putting into research is being spent in directions which are the most needed directions in the province of British Columbia.

I had a grave concern when that minister stood in the House not too long ago and told me that none of that research money is going into the agricultural industry, I have some hesitancy in just letting this amendment go through without at least drawing that point to the attention of the minister, if he were here, because I would like to know whether or not there are any guidelines as to how the money is going to be allocated, if there are guidelines showing where the most desperate needs are in research and which areas of research would best benefit the economy and needs of the province. Some research can perhaps be very interesting and very valuable but it has no immediate effect. Certainly we are spending far less of our gross provincial product on research than a great many other jurisdictions, which have in fact proven themselves much more successful in competing in the economic markets around the world. If we could ensure that the research money we are spending was directed into those areas of research that would have the most beneficial results for our economy here in British Columbia, I think this would be a good direction to go to that council.

I am sorry the minister is not here to give some comments on this particular matter. I had hoped when the member for Burnaby North raised this earlier — we have similar concerns about this — that the minister might have been in the House. Unfortunately he has not arrived. I can do no more than record in Hansard my concerns about this and my strongly expressed wish that some direction go to ensure that the moneys we are spending in research here in the province be directed into the kind of areas that will have a much needed beneficial effect, to ensure that we have programs in place — I am thinking of environmental concerns. We should be directing a lot of our money that way to ensure that if we come to a point where certain chemicals or items are no longer allowable — 2,4-D in agriculture and pentachlorophenol in the lumber industry, for example — we have alternatives and we don't find our agriculture and forest industries going into the doldrums because we haven't done our homework in the research field.

HON. MR. SMITH: As an alternate for that other minister I would point out to the member that what this amendment really does is to now allow the funding of those parts of the act that deal with the awarding of scholarships and encouraging development of improved technology and skilled research. Of course that embraces agriculture as well as other....

MRS. WALLACE: There's no money for agriculture.

HON. MR. SMITH: Section 23 of the act makes it clear that the funding is available broadly for technological training and skilled research. I would think that that certainly embraces agriculture, hon. member. So you should welcome the amendment but persuade the minister to encourage the council to fund in the direction in which you are interested.

Section 22 approved.

On section 23.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, on first blush you might say that this is a properly worded amendment or change, saying that directors of the council or secretariats shall not be personally liable for anything done or not done as long as it is done or not done in good faith. But on thinking about it further it does raise in my mind something that probably shouldn't be there. Directors of the council and secretariat would obviously operate under policy decisions of the council itself. If the policy decision, for argument's sake, was to make a decision to engage itself in nuclear research and the secretariat and directors then proceed to do things in good faith — meaning within the bounds of whatever the policy decision is — and as a result of that some terrible damage may occur to persons or property, the individuals would feel completely protected and in a cocoon insofar as their operations are concerned.

I just think it gives too broad a blanket of protection to do anything whatsoever as long as the individual director or secretariat feels that it is "in good faith." Good faith becomes a judgmental thing, really, because it is within the bounds of policy and the conscience of the individual who may be conducting experiments with chemicals, poisons, explosives or whatever that may have an injurious effect upon people's lives and/or their property. I think it is far too broad a definition and protective mechanism to put in there, and that it should be worded in some other way to ensure that the policy decisions themselves are the ones that should be examined.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I think that there should be someone in the cabinet prepared to answer the very serious points which my colleague from Skeena has raised. I can understand why personal liability is something that the government may want to modify, but to immunize the whole apparatus from any civil action certainly seems to me to be taking a very long step. This would mean, as I understand it, that any citizen whose health was jeopardized or property was damaged in any way would not have the right of a civil action against the agency which the government is setting up. If the directors, secretariat and council are immune from any civil action, does this mean that there is no area of redress for the average citizen of the province who is done damage either to his personal being or to his property?

[ Page 3568 ]

Does this mean that there is no avenue of civil redress? I think the Attorney-General could tell us what is meant. What avenue does the average citizen have? It's pretty hard to look down the road and forecast all of the vagaries that surround the activities of the council and predict any damage or controversy that may arise which should, in fact, be litigated before the courts in terms of damages. I just wonder how broad this is. What's intended? I'd appreciate the Attorney- General commenting on it.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I think the position taken by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke is an extension of the comments made by the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), which indicate that he has not carefully considered the words of the proposed amendment. The amendment is only intended to and does only provide immunity with respect to personal liability of the individuals who may serve as directors or employees of the council or the secretariat. However, it does not extend immunity from civil action at the behest of any person who may be wronged to either the council or the secretariat.

I would simply refer members to the Science Council Act, which in section 13 makes it clear that the council and secretariat are, for all purposes, agents of the Crown in right of the province, and the council and secretariat are as agents of the Crown, legal entities. Therefore if the secretariat or the council were to engage in activities resulting in damage to any person, then the council, the secretariat and through them the Crown in right of the province would be proper parties to be included in any process which might be necessary and would be liable for damage in the event that wrongful acts had taken place.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General missed the point of where I was going. I read the amendment and saw the question about "personally liable" and so on — and that's fine — and I knew that the council itself, as an entity, was liable. What we're talking about here is that we either have given or are now giving the Science Council all of the attributes of an individual person, except a conscience or a soul. The Science Council can go ahead and do whatever it so desires to do. The individual director or the people in the management and administration of it, because they don't feel the sense of personal responsibility — only perhaps to the extent that their consciences permit them to feel that — can go ahead with complete abandon to do whatever it is the council in policy decides to do, and the individual feels no part of that. That's what I'm getting at. It is in fact removing or seeking to remove what spiritual guidance the individual working within this organization may have. That's all we're getting at — not the question of liability of the council. We know that that exists. I'm just saying that that was not a very satisfactory answer that I got from the Attorney-General about the matter.

I just feel that the more we go in this direction.... I'm saying that the individual working within the structure doesn't feel, and by law doesn't have, any personal liability. Therefore that seems to lessen his personal responsibility and commitment to the matter, and his conscience then tends, as we have discovered the situation to be in many, many institutions in North America, to be suppressed by the policy weight of the council or the organization itself. All I was seeking to advance was the idea that we should structure the wording in some other way, to ensure that that individual soul and conscience of the person working in there should have some force in what takes place.

Section 23 approved.

On section 24.

MR. LEVI: I just want to ask the minister.... I don't think that the change that's envisioned here is going to help this House or the minister in any way in understanding what's going on financially in the Systems Corporation. We've been very unfortunate in this House that we've had two ministers — the present minister and his predecessor — who simply are not aware of what's going on in that Systems Corporation. Neither of them were able to answer any of the financial questions that were raised in this House. The fact that you move it is rather swift retribution. The comptroller-general only left yesterday and here we are changing him for the auditor-general.

But there is a very serious problem with respect to this corporation. It has been operating fully for two years and its budget has doubled in two years. It has gone from $22 million to $40 million. We did not have a chance to examine the finances in terms of this any more than we're going to get much of a chance to examine them, other than if the auditor-general reports on it and we get in front of the public accounts committee.... I asked the minister's predecessor — and I would ask the present minister — to consider putting this new Crown corporation on the schedule of the Crown corporations reporting committee. It's not just sufficient to change the auditor. It is a new Crown corporation. Decisions are being made which have very serious financial implications. One was made the other day by the minister's president that they're going to go into one particular main-frame manufacturer; that is, they're going to lock themselves in completely with IBM. There should have been some consideration of what the financial implications of that are in terms of this corporation.

The fact that we moved just from the auditor-general to the comptroller-general, or the other way around, is not going to add anything in terms of the ability of this House to understand what is going on in that corporation. There should have been in here or should have been an amendment....

The minister should look to putting this Crown corporation on the schedule of the Crown corporations reporting committee. It would have made eminent sense to have done that right in the beginning, because then that committee would have had an opportunity to look at the Crown corporation as it is being developed and understand some of the policies that were being made by the board of directors in terms of development. For some reason the government prefers to avoid this. This is not going to meet the problems that exist in that corporation. We've not had a minister yet who can understand what's going on or who has been able to express any specific opinions about it. If that is going to be the case then this isn't going to help at all.

I ask the minister to give consideration, which his predecessor did not, to moving this onto the schedule of the Crown corporations reporting committee. Then we can understand what's going on in the corporation.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The point — while it may be beyond the limits in the strict interpretation of this section which is being dealt with by the committee — is well taken, I

[ Page 3569 ]

feel. I will give it very serious consideration. I wasn't paying close attention last year when the former Minister of Finance, now the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), answered questions posed to him in committee during debate on his estimates regarding the Systems Corporation. I don't pretend to understand all the language that is used by the computer specialists in this system or any other organization, but I do suggest, with respect, that we've not yet dealt with my estimates. You will judge for yourself how I handle the questions that are posed at that time. I think that I have certainly made myself felt in the Systems Corporation and intend to continue to do so. That debate, perhaps, is more appropriate at the debate on estimates stage. I think the specific suggestion of which the member spoke a few moments ago is one that merits very serious consideration, and it will be given.

MR. BARBER: According to the explanatory notes, section 24 would have the effect of substituting the auditor-general for the comptroller-general as auditor of the Systems Corporation. However, the actual language of 24 — and 25, for that matter — does no such thing. It does not name the auditor-general in either section.

But debating — for the moment — section 24, I wonder if the government would be prepared to accept an amendment which I have prepared which would simply substitute the words "auditor-general" for "a person appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council." If it is the government's intention to name the auditor-general, I think that should appear in the act. I would observe that in a section we have earlier passed, section 21, the specific term "auditor-general" now appears in the amended section of the School District Capital Finance Act. It does so because wisely, in that section, the auditor-general was highlighted by name as the office responsible for this term.

I would observe as well that in section 26, which we have yet to debate, the auditor-general by name, rather than simply as we have it in 24 — "a person appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council" — will shortly be named, I expect, if it passes, the auditing authority for the Capital Commission Act, the Captain Cook Bi-Centennial Commemoration Act, Creston Valley Wildlife Act, Harbour Board Act, Institute of Technology Act, Pension (College) Act, Pension (Municipal) Act, Pension (Teachers') Act and Workers Compensation Act. In all those other sections — almost a dozen statutes which will be amended when this entire bill passes — we see the actual name, auditor-general, wisely and appropriately appear. But for some inexplicable reason it does not actually appear in 24 or in 25 and simply substitutes instead "a person appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council."

I have an amendment in hand which I believe is technically in order and which would serve, I think, the mutual interests of both sides of the House. The question separate is, of course, whether the comptroller- general, the gentleman or the office, should have these duties. That's a different issue, and I don't propose to raise that now. We do not object to the auditor-general being made responsible for examining the books of the System Act or the Transit Services Act: that's just fine with us. But the explanatory notes offer an explanation that is not justified by the actual language of the amendment. I don't know why that's omitted or why, instead of simply saying "auditor-general," the language is "a person appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council." That could, of course, Mr. Chairman, be any person. It could be you or me for that matter. Hopefully they wouldn't make that kind of appointment, but worse mistakes have been made by governments in the past — well, at least in the case of myself, I don't know about you. It would certainly be a mistake to appoint me or any other person who has no technical background in auditing.

HON. MR. CURTIS: There is a difference in this section and in one following section which has been identified by the member who has just taken his seat, I think that the committee would understand that I believe that we may indeed want more than one audit. I agree that in previous sections that have been dealt with it says "auditor-general." But there may well be, in this instance, an external audit. I think the member knows that it can't be just "you or me," as he said: it would have to be someone who is fully qualified to conduct such an audit. That is known by all members of the committee. It may well be, therefore, an external audit by a firm recognized for that purpose or an individual recognized for that purpose, and then by the auditor-general. "Person" in this context — and I wouldn't seek a legal opinion, but we've had it previously — would be in the singular or the plural. I trust that assists the member. It is not the intention here to exclude the auditor-general but rather to have the opportunity of both an external audit and the auditor-general. I trust that assists the member.

MR. BARBER: The minister's explanation is not consistent with the explanatory note in the bill. The explanatory note simply reads: "This amendment substitutes the auditor-general for the comptroller-general as auditor." Either the explanatory note is simply not correct or the government's intentions are somewhat distinct. I take the minister at his word, that in fact they propose to do that.

Nonetheless, we're not entirely satisfied with what the government apparently proposes to do here. If there's a need for an external audit,the board of directors, I would presume, has the authority on its own accord to order an external audit. I don't believe there's anything whatever that prohibits the board from taking that step. There's no language that I'm aware of, in this or any other comparable act, that would actually say they may not order an external audit. What we're concerned about, however, as legislators is not whether or not the board may of its own accord require an external audit or the government may require it on its behalf; that's not the issue. Our concern as members of the Legislature is whether or not the auditor-general will perform the basic functions required here, formerly performed by the comptroller-general. The specific language of the act does not in fact name the auditor-general, and the explanatory note in the bill is just.... Well, I don't want to say false, but it is clearly inaccurate; it's just not correct at all. The minister's own explanation verifies that.

Once again, if there is no prohibiting authority which would deny the right of the corporation in question or the government to order an external audit at any time for any purpose at any point in the year, if anything happened to funds and they wanted a quick examination, then I wonder why they could not simply accept an amendment which would name the auditor-general and seal it in the language of the law to the satisfaction of both sides of the House — in

[ Page 3570 ]

particular because this side of the House wants the auditor-general named here and not simply "a person" substituted and not named.

MR. LEVI: Perhaps the minister could tell us that at the present time the Systems Corporation does have an auditor — it's Clarkson, Gordon. The proposal now is that the auditor-general do an audit. What other audit is necessary?

I'd also like to ask the minister, in relation to the whole business of financial accountability.... In the recent report issued by the Systems Corporation I don't see any reference at all to an audit committee, which is a very strong recommendation that was made by the former federal auditor-general, Mr. Macdonell — that there be a function for an audit committee within the board of directors of a Crown corporation. If we have Clarkson, Gordon doing the audit, and we will have the auditor-general, what's the purpose of the third one? Is it that the government wants to move more into the private sector? I don't understand the reason for the third audit; that's what I don't understand. You've got one by the corporation, which has its own auditors, and you will have the auditor-general. What's the third one?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, in response to both members, yes, there is the internal audit, if you will. It's the audit which is ordered by the board. There may well be an opportunity or a requirement or a desire on the part of the government of the day to have an audit done externally by some firm other than the corporation's audit in addition to the audit which the auditor-general would undertake. That one could be on a specific aspect of the Systems Corporation's financial function or on a much broader basis. As we know, the auditor-general reviews and carefully studies those sections of a corporation which she and her staff desire so to do. It may be narrow; it may be complete. I've heard what the members opposite have said. The intention here is to have the auditor-general under the general heading of "person," and certainly the auditor-general will be involved to the extent that she or her successor would wish. In addition, there may well be the need for yet another audit externally, quite apart from that which the board has on a continuing basis.

MR. BARBER: What in current law prohibits the government from doing that without this amendment?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It's mandatory.

MR. BARBER: You have used other auditors for other purposes at other times. One well remembers the famous Clarkson, Gordon report of 1976. You've done it before. Did you do it without lawful authority then? Well, hardly. It's simply the prerogative and the right of government to audit any of its own functions; no one objects to that. We're not aware of a single legal hurdle that would disenable you from doing what you say you want to do.

The corporation currently has an auditor, Clarkson, Gordon. We currently have an auditor-general who is not named in this section, although we are asked to rely on the good intentions of the government. Now we're told there may be a third audit. Assuming three audits are necessary in any case, why do you need, through this section, such broad and general language? What argument would you have against our proposal to specify it and name in particular the auditor-general? We have confidence in that office and I'm sure you do too. We have such confidence that we would prefer to see it named in the bill, and not simply to be relied upon the good intentions of the government for its execution.

MR. LEVI: We might get from the minister, presumably from what he said, that there could be some concern about the financial operation of the corporation leading to the possibility of doing a third audit. Nobody is mucking with the books; it's just.... But I raised earlier that you can obviate that by simply putting it on the schedule of the Crown corporations committee, where it would get a rather minute scrutinization, because there is very adequate staff there. In my opinion, the minister has a much better option than the one he's suggesting here. I don't know of an example, frankly — maybe the minister can tell us — of where a Crown corporation has an auditor, an audit done by the auditor-general and where there has been a third one brought in, unless we refer to what my colleague referred to, which was in 1976 — and I don't know how you did that. But I don't quite see what we're doing here in respect to making it possible for a third auditor — I just don't see that.

The government operates by order-in-council. The important thing is that it goes a little contrary to what the Premier said about the function of Crown corporations, that you have arm-length decisions and you build in sufficient kinds of checks and balances to make sure that the public know what's going on. You have built-in....

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what is here.

MR. LEVI: Yes, but you've already got an act which covers the Crown corporations reporting committee. Why do you want to disregard that and go into something which is generally not the practice?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'm not disregarding it; I said it's a good idea. We'll took at it. But it's not in this section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all members please address the Chair?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Through you, Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in this section which would permit us to deal with the Crown corporations reporting committee. I give the undertaking that I shall certainly examine that. That statement is given honourably.

MR. BARBER: In order to enter into the record the opposition's commitment to the use and the person of the auditor-general, rather than to the general language here in this section, I would move an amendment to this bill at section 24, line 3, to read "and substituting the auditor-general" in place of the former language: "and substituting a person appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council." I so move. If the amendment is in order, I would like to speak to it briefly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member can continue, before the ruling.

MR. BARBER: The government has yet to present any case as to why they are denied by statute the right to do an external audit. Apparently the government feels they have to have that language in this section, because by result of some other prohibition they can't do it.

[ Page 3571 ]

They've yet to make a case for that; I don't think they can make a case for that, because by their own precedent — again one thinks of Clarkson, Gordon in 1976 — they did it anyway, without the benefit of law or reason.

Because they can do it in any case, we reject the general language here and the lack of specificity and would much prefer, and thus by amendment move, that the auditor-general be named specifically as the replacement for the comptroller-general. I would observe that that is precisely what the government itself did in section 21 of this same bill and what the government proposes to do in section 26 of this same bill. For the same reasons we support the government's initiative in sections 21 and 26, we ask the government to accept our amendment in section 24.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I thank the member for his comments. I just wish to advise him that the government does not accept the amendment.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

NAYS — 28

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

Section 24 approved.

On section 25.

MR. BARBER: In this amendment once again the explanatory note does not in fact indicate the precise case. The explanatory note purports that this amendment substitutes the auditor-general for the comptroller-general as auditor. In fact, the language of this section says: "and substituting 'a person appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.' " It is not necessary to restate the same argument, but I will once again move an amendment, in this case to section 25, line 2, which if approved would read "and substituting 'the Auditor General' " in place of "and substituting 'a person appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.' " It is identical to the language of the previous section, assuming it is in order.

I want to make the case again that we are not content to rely in law on the announced good intentions of any government. Certainly the Social Credit Party would never rely on the supposed good intentions of the New Democratic Party, nor do I think it is reasonable to expect this opposition to rely on the government's good intentions. Both parties should rely instead on common sense and good language in law. The current language in this law is not adequate. It does not in fact name the auditor-general and should. We have confidence that the auditor-general can and should do the job under the Transit Services Act. Presumably the government does but for some reason they have failed to actually name the auditor-general and instead simply removed the comptroller-general altogether and substituted the term "a person" which could be any person, including Bernie Smith or Yvonne Cocke, eh?

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: That is right. You don't like the second any better than we like the first. The language is too broad. This section is too general. It should be made more specific and the language of the law should more clearly spell out the intentions of the Legislature. The intentions are apparently, on the government side, that the auditor-general be responsible. Well, those are our specific intentions and thus we move the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order. Shall the amendment pass?

The nays have it.

MR. BARBER: Division.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

NAYS — 28

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

[ Page 3572 ]

Sections 25 and 26 approved.

On section 27.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I think this should be entitled: "A section to Remedy the Premier's Faux Pas." This provides for the retroactive payment of a member of cabinet to whom the Premier had no authority to pay a salary. While I have the greatest admiration for my neighbour from Okanagan North, who was the latest member of the cabinet and who has been functioning without cabinet salary since the first of the year, I must express my concern about retroactive legislation which now serves to remedy an error which the Premier made in forming his cabinet.

I should remind the Premier that a famous Prime Minister of Canada once listed his occupation as cabinet-maker; that was Sir John A., I believe. Even back in those days of the history of Canada the Prime Ministers of the nation could count, and they provided well for their colleagues. If one is to construct a cabinet, one should be able to count and one should be able to guarantee one's colleagues payment for their services. On the other hand, with the greatest affection to the member for Okanagan North (Hon. Mrs. Jordan), who has been performing her duties as the Minister of Tourism....

I think the slogan of the Minister of Tourism this year is: "Good show." A "Good show" award and a button accompanying it should be extended to all people involved in the hospitality and tourist industry in British Columbia who have done something beyond the pale of their normal obligation to promote the province and the economy. I would think that it might be appropriate under these circumstances if we voted a "Good show" button to the Minister of Tourism herself for performing the duties that she has undertaken without pay. I am wondering if, in lieu of passing this retroactive legislation to pay her her ministerial salary from last January up to the present, it wouldn't be sufficient to just extend her a "Good show" button, and let the people of the province place into general revenue that ministerial salary which she was prepared to forgo during these many months of her activities.

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) has announced "a crude instrument of restraint," as he termed it. We're going to freeze all of the hirings in the public service. We're going to cut back on health care and all those other crucial social programs. Just think, if we withdraw this section giving retroactive salary to the Minister of Tourism we may be able to hire a couple more people to dispense social services to the people of the province of British Columbia.

MR. BARRETT: Good show.

MR. KING: I think that would be a really good show. So I'd like the Minister of Tourism to stand up this morning and tell us whether she would be prepared to accept the "Good show" button in lieu of the retroactive salary.

Section 27 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 34, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1980, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Committee on Bill 33, Mr. Speaker.

REVISED STATUTES
CORRECTION ACT, 1980

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

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

On section 5.

MRS. WALLACE: I have some problems with this amendment and I think for the information of the committee I would like to read this amendment to section 28. The first part, section 5(a), amends section (1) by striking out "not later than 90 days after the end of its fiscal year." Therefore subsection (1) would read: "The commission shall submit annually to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council (a) a report of its operations for the preceding fiscal year; (b) a financial statement showing its business for that fiscal year, in the form required by the comptroller-general. "

Then it goes on in 5(b) "in subsection (2)" of section 28, to add to the end of that subsection "but the commission need not submit its report sooner than 90 days after the end of its fiscal year." I would like to read to you section 28, subsection (2) as it would now read with that amendment. I would ask that the minister, if he can, explain to me what it means, because I certainly don't know. Subsection (2) of section 28 would read: "The report shall be laid before the Legislative Assembly within 15 sitting days, following submission, of the session next following the end of the fiscal year, but the commission need not submit its report sooner than 90 days after the end of its fiscal year." Can anybody in this committee tell me what that means?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the first amendment to take out the words which would oblige the commission to submit its report and statement within 90 days has been introduced because of the time it has been found to take to prepare such reports. It is increasingly the practice in dealing with statements, particularly when audits are involved and financial statements are required both in government and in the private sector, to provide for time additional to 90 days.

The second amendment was put in to ensure that while we would have an obligation to file a report within 15 days following its submission, we also accommodated the earlier amendment so that that couldn't be earlier than 90 days after the end of the fiscal year.

The second amendment follows from the first. The second amendment does not affect the responsibility on the

[ Page 3573 ]

part of the minister to table that report with the House within 15 days following its submission to him.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm quite aware of what the minister is trying to do with this amendment, but I suggest to the minister that the wording is extremely unwieldy and very difficult to interpret. I would urge that this section be withdrawn and brought back in some kind of understandable language, because as it reads now it is so unwieldy that it would be extremely difficult to interpret. Certainly I recognize the intent of what the minister's trying to do. He's trying to allow a little more lead time — at least I think that's what he's trying to do — but he doesn't do it with these words; they don't accomplish it. It leaves the thing completely open to almost any kind of interpretation. It's so unwieldy that no one could know what it is really supposed to mean, particularly when that first part of section 1 is deleted, which takes away any guidelines that you might have had. I think it's completely open to misinterpretation, and I would urge that the minister withdraw it so that it can be brought back in some kind of a revised form that makes a little more sense.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: All I can say is that I understand what it means and I'm advised that the commission understands what it means. It's simply this: in each fiscal year there will be a report and statement prepared by the commission, and the ministry that has charge of this legislation has an obligation, upon receipt of that report, to table it with this House within 15 days.

Sections 5 to 16 inclusive approved.

On the title.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: In dealing with the title of this legislation I would like to advise the committee that a concordance with respect to all of the revised statutes has now been prepared with the active assistance of the Law Society of British Columbia and the Canadian Bar Association, and has been distributed to all subscribers to these statutes by the Continuing Legal Education Committee. In addition there is under preparation a new and extensive form of index which is being prepared by the Canadian Law Information Council. The index will be analytical by concept, word and subject matter. It is expected to be in print and distributed by October of this year. British Columbia is the first province to move into this new field of indexing, and I was advised yesterday that the provinces of Ontario and Alberta will shortly be following the same style.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 33, Revised Statutes Correction Act, 1980, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.