[ Page 4143 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 55). Hon. Mr. Williams

Committee stage –– 4143

Horse Racing Tax Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 64). Hon. Mr. Curtis

Committee stage –– 4143

Ministry of Environment Act (Bill 59). Hon. Mr. Rogers

Committee stage –– 4144

Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications Act (Bill 58). Hon. Mr. McGeer

Committee stage –– 4144

Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations Act (Bill 63). Hon. Mr. Gardom

Committee stage –– 4145

Ministry of Tourism Act (Bill 53). Hon. Mrs. Jordan

Committee stage –– 4145

Ministry of Finance Act (Bill 49). Hon. Mr. Curtis

Committee stage –– 4145

Livestock Act (Bill 50). Hon. Mr. Hewitt

Committee stage –– 4145

Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 48). Hon. Mr.

Vander Zalm

Committee stage –– 4147

Ministry of Agriculture and Food Act (Bill 57). Hon. Mr. Hewitt

Committee stage –– 4147

An Act to Amend the Cultus Lake Park Act (Bill PR403). Mr. Ritchie

Committee stage –– 4149

An Act to Amend the Royal Canadian Legion Act (Bill PR404). Mr. Davis

Committee stage –– 4149

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1980 (Bill 60).

Committee stage –– 4150

Holiday Shopping Regulation Act (Bill 56). Hon. Mr. Williams

Committee stage –– 4158

Forest Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 17). Hon. Mr. Waterland

Committee stage –– 4159

British Columbia Place Act (Bill 46). Hon. Mr. Rogers

Committee stage –– 4160

Family and Child Service Act (Bill 45). Hon. Mrs. McCarthy

Committee stage –– 4161

Employment Standards Act (Bill 36). Hon. Mr. Heinrich

Committee stage –– 4170

Revised Statutes Correction Act (No. 2), 1980 (Bill 61). Hon. Mr. Williams

Third reading –– 4180

Municipal Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 54). Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Committee stage –– 4180

Utilities Commission Act (Bill 52). Hon. Mr. McClelland

Committee stage –– 4182

Presenting Reports

Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs.

Mr. Stupich –– 4187

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Tourism estimates. (Hon. Mrs. Jordan)

Votes 189 to 192 inclusive approved –– 4188

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations estimates. (Hon. Mr.

Gardom)

On vote 141: minister's office –– 4188

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Macdonald

Votes 141 to 145 inclusive approved –– 4188

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications estimates. (Hon. Mr. McGeer)

On vote 211: minister's office –– 4189

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Barber

Ms. Brown

Mr. Howard

Votes 211 to 219 inclusive approved –– 4189

Committee of Supply; Auditor General estimates.

Votes 3 to 5 inclusive approved –– 4190

Committee of Supply; Ombudsman estimates.

On vote 8: computer and consulting charges –– 4190

Mr. Lauk

Committee of Supply; Legislation. estimates.

On vote 1: legislation –– 4190

Mr. Howard

Mr. Hyndman

Ms. Brown

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Macdonald

Hon. Mr. Wolfe

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Cocke

Supply Act (No 3), 1980 (Bill 65). Hon. Mr. Curtis

First, second and third reading –– 4192

Royal Assent to bills –– 4192

Tabling Documents

Ministry of Tourism and Small Business Development annual report, 1979.

Hon. Mrs. Jordan –– 4193

Appendix –– 4193

FRIDAY, AUGUST 22, 1980

The House met at 10 a.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: In our gallery today are 18 members of CGIT, Canadian Girls in Training, who are celebrating their sixty-fifth anniversary in Canada this year. They are accompanied by Mrs. Joanne Taylor, who is the girls' resources coordinator. In introducing them to the House, may I pay tribute to the remarkable work that has been done over 65 years in Canada by the Canadian Girls in Training. I'm proud to have been a past member of the organization. I'm pleased to introduce them to you today.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call committee on Bill 55.

ATTORNEY GENERAL
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

The House in committee on Bill 55; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 42 inclusive approved.

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 55, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 1980, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 64.

HORSE RACING TAX
AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

The House in committee on Bill 64; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MRS. WALLACE: I would like the minister to clarify for me this change in the section which puts the responsibility with the Racing Commission for deciding how the 3.5 percent is to be divided means that the statements of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) that the 1 percent increase would go to the bonus fund and another 1 percent increase to the incentive fund. Does that mean that that's going to happen or does that mean it's riot going to happen?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, through you to the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat, it's my understanding that that is going to happen. I listened carefully to the comments made by the hon. Attorney-General in second reading on this bill, and the member will know that while the bill is being piloted by the Minister of Finance, the responsibility for the Racing Commission and for racing matters and so on rests with the Attorney-General. That is historic in this province. Therefore I think that it's desirable — and indeed it is the intention of the legislation — that the Racing Commission will have the opportunity for initiative in matters of this kind, in consultation with the Attorney-General and, if necessary, in consultation with the Minister of Finance.

MRS. WALLACE: Will those specific figures be in the regulations?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, that is the intention.

MRS. WALLACE: So what the minister is telling me then is that how this 3.5 percent is spent is not going to be at the discretion of the Racing Commission, how this 3.5 percent is spent in line with the points that precede that particular line. It's not going to be at their discretion; it's going to be laid on by cabinet regulation.

AN HON. MEMBER: By negotiation.

MRS. WALLACE: Is that what he's saying?

HON. MR. CURTIS: In order to assist the member, Mr. Chairman, I would defer to the Attorney-General in this regard, if that's the wish.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, in the development of these regulations, with the assistance of the Racing Commission, formulas will be established for dealing with the way these moneys are used.

MRS. WALLACE: A formula?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Formulas which will attempt to follow as best we can the previous practice. The member is aware that there has been half of 1 percent to the breeders and 1 percent for first supplements. Therefore in the development of the formulas the same proportions are intended to be used.

The member is also aware that not only do we have thoroughbred racing in this province, we also have standardbred racing. That is a growing sport, and therefore whether the pool will be divided between the two types of racing or not and exactly how the purse supplements will be applied may depend upon the development of the industry.

We also have in this province a developing segment which is interested in quarterhorse racing. It has not yet achieved the levels of thoroughbred and standardbred racing in this province, but those who are supporters of it hope that it will be one day. Therefore, as the circumstances change, as

[ Page 4144 ]

the nature of the races and the nature of the industry change, it is desirable that there be flexibility in dealing with these funds. When I made the joint announcement with the Minister of Finance with respect to this matter I indicated that we would be establishing in the industry, working with the commission, an advisory group so that as circumstances changed the Racing Commission could have the benefit of input from the breeders and horse owners in the various racing categories in this province.

The experience in other jurisdictions is that the provision of flexibility in dealing with these matters is essential if we're to overcome some of the pitfalls that the member has already identified. She talked about the effect on claiming races and so on. If you have rigid formulas — and this was the problem with the previous legislation — it creates patterns that are not in the best interests of the industry. I wish to assure the member and the committee that it is the intention of the Racing Commission and this ministry to ensure that those difficulties don't arise.

With regard to the making of grants, these moneys, as the member knows, accumulate month by month as the racing season goes on. They're deposited, and interest is earned on those moneys, because the distribution doesn't come until the racing season ends and all the records are complete. The interest on those moneys, we anticipate, will be sufficient to provide the grants to the three segments of the industry I referred to — in particular to the equine health research fund. If I could just comment on that for a moment, it has been the practice of the B.C. Racing Commission and all the racing commissions in western Canada to make grants through the veterinary school at the University of Saskatchewan for this purpose. We sincerely hope that in this particular way we will be able to provide even greater financial assistance than has been the case in the past.

MRS. WALLACE: The Attorney-General makes a very good speech, but unless I missed it, I didn't hear the answer to my questions.

The first question was: will the regulations specify that 2 percent goes to the B.C.-bred owners' bonus fund, and 1.5 percent, which would be the changes that the Attorney-General has indicated, will go into the incentive fund? Will the regulations specify that, or is the distribution of that money going to be left to the discretion of the Racing Commission?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the distribution of the moneys will not be left to the discretion of the Racing Commission. The regulations will specify the formula by which the fund or funds.... There may be two or four funds. There may be a fund for purses for thoroughbreds, there may be a fund for purses for standardbreds, and there may be a fund for breeders for thoroughbreds. The proposal is to utilize this 3.5 percent in a way which will be most effective for the industry.

What I said to the member was that the development of the formula is that the relationship between the moneys which are presently flowing to breeders with those which are flowing to the purse supplements will be maintained.

MRS. WALLACE: What is happening then is that the cabinet, by regulation, will make the decision as to how this money is to be spent in consultation with whoever and whatever. But the cabinet is going to make that decision behind closed doors rather than having it included in the legislation, as it was before.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The work of the cabinet is always behind closed doors, but the recommendations will come from the B.C. Racing Commission, and the B.C. Racing Commission will be communicating with the industry on a regular basis to ensure that the regulations that are in place from time to time are those which are most supportive of the industry.

Sections 2 to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: 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 64, Horse Racing Tax Amendment Act, 1980, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 59, Mr. Speaker.

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT ACT

The House in committee on Bill 59; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 8 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. ROGERS: 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 59, Ministry of Environment Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 58, Mr. Speaker.

MINISTRY OF UNIVERSITIES,
SCIENCE AND COMMUNICATIONS ACT

The House in committee on Bill 58; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. NICOLSON: I just want to say that the minister hasn't expanded the purposes of this. Taking into cognizance

[ Page 4145 ]

the fact that about 5 percent of the people really care about science and technology and where it is going, the minister should embody in the purposes of the act something a little bit more enlightening and informative towards enhancing people's consciousness toward a healthier attitude to scientific development.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I think the member's point is extremely well taken.

Sections 3 to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. McGEER: 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 58, Ministry of Universities, Science and Technology Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 63, Mr. Speaker.

MINISTRY OF
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS ACT

The House in committee on Bill 63; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 63, Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 53, Mr. Chairman.

MINISTRY OF TOURISM ACT

The House in committee on Bill 53; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. BARBER: Does the Ministry of Tourism have any staff left? We've had a question on the order paper for some weeks now about all the resignations. I wonder if the minister could inform us whether, while establishing her ministry, she has any staff left.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: To the hon. member, I appreciate his interest. Yes, we not only have quite a number of staff left, we have added new staff.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: 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 53, Ministry of Tourism Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 49, Mr. Speaker.

MINISTRY OF FINANCE ACT

The House in committee on Bill 49; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 12 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 49, Ministry of Finance Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 50, Mr. Speaker.

LIVESTOCK ACT

The House in committee on Bill 50; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

On section 6.

MRS. WALLACE: I have some concerns about how it is proposed to establish a pound under this act. The old act, which this one is replacing, covers the establishment of a pound in sections 2 to 5. It indicates that before a pound is established, a notice of intent has to be filed; it has to be posted within 30 days. There are eight proprietors who object. There has to be a hearing, there has to be notice of the hearing posted, and there has to be an appeal.

This bill simply says in section 6(2) that the recorder may establish a pound district. There is nothing to indicate what has to happen before this is done. Under this piece of legisla-

[ Page 4146 ]

tion, if it is passed as it stands, we could simply have the recorder moving in and saying, "This is a pound district," and ranchers would wake up some morning and find that all their cattle were impounded. It seems very strange to have removed those kinds of protections and that kind of information from this bill, with nothing put in its place. I wonder if the minister can tell me what....

HON. MR. HEWITT: I would refer the member to the regulations under subsection 19(2)(c) respecting the establishment, disestablishment and variations in the boundaries of a pound district by the recorder. Regulations would be put into place which really take care of the method which is used at the present time. Those regulations would guide the recorder and would allow for people to appeal and to apply, etc.

MRS. WALLACE: I assume the minister is assuring the House that the same, or very similar, items that are in the present bill will be put into regulations. But again, Mr. Chairman, this is the same thing that we object to time after time on this side of the House. Things that are in legislation are lifted out and taken over into cabinet under regulation behind closed doors, subject to change from week to week with no real knowledge of what's going to happen, no assurance that it is in fact an established procedure, because those regulations can be changed at the whim of a cabinet minister. We object very strenuously to this, and we have made our point on other occasions regarding this. I'm very tempted to call for a division on this section because of that point. But I think we have established very firmly and very clearly that that is where we stand. This is one more example of how this is being done, and we do object to that attitude on the part of this government.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Just briefly, the principle dealing with the establishment of pound districts is basically in the bill, and will be, of course, in the act once it's passed. As for the regulations that are set up, I can understand the member's comments about wanting to come to the floor of the House on all items; but we also have to look at the service to the public. In having regulations there we have that flexibility, rather than waiting a year to come back to the House should there be a change required to benefit the farm community. Having it in regulations allows us to react more quickly to the needs of the farm community, and that's the reason I support it being in the regulations.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

On section 8.

MRS. WALLACE: I hope I'm on the right section, because the thing I want to talk about has been dropped from the act — that is, what happens to a person who has had animals impounded. In this particular section it sets out all the things that the pound-keeper shall do — 8(c) says: "...and the keeper shall pay the balance, if any, to the owner of the livestock sold." Let's suppose those animals are impounded improperly. The old legislation made provision as to what action an owner of stock which was improperly impounded could take. That's completely dropped from this, and I haven't been able to find it in the regulations. Does that mean that any owner whose stock is impounded improperly, or who suspects that his stock is impounded improperly, only has recourse to the courts under this new legislation?

HON. MR. HEWITT: In regard to the improper impounding of animals, the individual concerned can go to the keeper and express his point of view that they were improperly impounded. He can also go to the recorder, who is the person who deals with the regulations. If there is a concern and an appeal is made to the recorder, according to the regulations, then he can get relief that way. Or, if he has to, he can of course, in the final step, refer to the courts.

MRS. WALLACE: Would the minister be good enough to give me the section in the act or the regulations that refers to this?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Section 19(2)(h), "respecting the sale or destruction of impounded livestock and the disposition of proceeds unclaimed by the owner," and (f), "respecting the powers and duties of keepers and the recorder...." Those particular regulations would deal with the opportunity for the person to state his case if he felt there was improper impoundment.

MRS. WALLACE: Will the minister assure the House unequivocally that those regulations, when they are drafted, will specifically include a reference to the means whereby a person who has livestock improperly impounded can take action rather than having to go directly to the courts?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes. The last thing I would want would be to have animals impounded improperly, and I would not want somebody who had that problem to only have a defence in court. The regulations will indicate to them that there is a method they can take prior to court action.

Sections 8 to 22 inclusive approved.

On the title.

MRS. WALLACE: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper, to amend the title by inserting the following words: after the word "livestock" insert the words "pound district, bull control areas and artificial insemination centres." Then the title would read that this would be the Livestock, Pound District, Bull Control Areas and Artificial Insemination Centres Act.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I just want to refer to the previous acts that this act consolidates. The Animals Act, which dealt with artificial insemination — they couldn't tell from that title — the Livestock Act, dealing with pound keepers and bull districts, etc., and the Livestock Production Act are three acts which we are consolidating.

If the member refers to the Contents on the first page of the act, the index there shows all those various things that she is concerned about. I think the Livestock Act identifies the act properly, and I could not support the amendment.

MRS. WALLACE: Just because the acts weren't properly identified previously — the old ones that we're getting rid of — that's no excuse to do it all over again. It really is very

[ Page 4147 ]

broad terminology. When we do have livestock public sales acts, livestock brand acts, and other livestock acts which identify what they cover, to take these three unrelated items and throw them into one act called the Livestock Act just isn't a parallel with the other acts that this minister has under his control. I very much regret that he is not able to support this amendment, because it would make it much easier for the farm community to identify where the legislation which affects them lies, That's a difficult thing to establish when you're out in the hustings, far removed from these chambers. It's very difficult to establish just what piece of legislation gives you the authority or puts the control on you. I regret that the minister does not see fit to accept this amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Title approved.

HON. MR. HEWITT: 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 50, Livestock Act, reported complete without amendments, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 48.

MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING AND
VALIDATING AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

The House in committee on Bill 48; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On section 4.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 4 as amended approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 48, Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act, 1980, reported complete with amendment.

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

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

Leave granted.

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

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

Leave granted.

Bill 48, Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act, 1980, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 57, Mr. Speaker.

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD ACT

The House in committee on Bill 57; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved,

On section 3.

MRS. WALLACE: Subsection 3(2) says: "A person appointed under this section need not be a public officer." Could the minister explain just what the intent of that particular statement is?

HON. MR. HEWITT: In some cases we call on individuals to act on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture. To give you an example, in the previous act we dealt with a keeper. For impounding of livestock a rancher in a certain area who has a corral may be appointed keeper and not be a public officer.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

On section 5.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, at this time I would move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. I think that we have to establish once and for all what interpretation that side of the House puts on the word "acquire," and my amendments are exactly the same as those introduced at the request of the then official opposition when the land bill was introduced. The wording is, "by adding after 'acquire' the words 'except by expropriation on such terms and conditions as may be negotiated'," and that is for both section 5(l) and section 5(2), where the word "acquire" appears — there are two amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I think it will be very interesting to note whether or not the members of this House who were so vehement about our bill that talked about "acquiring land" still take that stand, or if now that they are government, they are prepared to exclude the word "expropriation" from the wording in this bill. Mr. Chairman, I move this amendment.

On the amendment.

[ Page 4148 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I did explain this in second reading, but one of the other ministry acts that are available to the members, of course, is the Ministry of Transportation and Highways Act, which says: "To carry out his duties, powers and functions, he may acquire or dispose of land." And I point to the bill itself that we're dealing with. In section 5 bill 57 says: "For purposes relating to agriculture and food, the minister may acquire, administer, dispose of...land. " There are other pieces of legislation in place, if I can refer to them. The Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Act says: "The minister may, to carry out his duties, functions and powers related to energy, acquire and dispose of land." The Ministry of Forests Act says: "To carry out his duties, powers and functions, the minister may, on behalf of the Crown, acquire land."

Then, Mr. Chairman, I just want to refer back to the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, because there is a specific section 1n that piece of legislation which deals with and gives the power of expropriation to the Minister of Transportation and Highways, so in one section he has the right to acquire and dispose of land, but also he does have a specific section which gives him the power to expropriate land. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I refer the members, and possibly the Ministry of Environment critic for the opposition — and I appreciate the discussion we had in second reading — to the fact that the members over there just approved without debate the Ministry of Environment bill which said under section 5 that "the minister may acquire and dispose of property." So I feel that this particular section deals with the acquisition of land, and it doesn't follow that expropriation powers are there.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, we don't necessarily disagree with what the minister has said, but when it comes to agricultural land, members of that government who sat in this House in 1973 expressed very vehemently their belief that in a bill dealing with agricultural land, the word "acquire" included expropriation. That's why this amendment is on the order paper today, Mr. Chairman; we want to find out whether or not they still believe that.

MR. COCKE: Just speaking for a moment on the amendment, Mr. Chairman, I listened very carefully during the debate in 1974, and virtually every member that was then here — unfortunately the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), for his edification, wasn't here then — spoke vociferously with respect to this whole question. What we want is some consistency from this gang of thugs.

HON. MR. FRASER: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, would you ask that member to withdraw those insulting remarks.

MR. COCKE: I withdraw the remarks, Mr. Chairman, but I only wish that you and the Minister of Agriculture had been here then. I've never seen such a disgraceful spectacle in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are on an amendment in committee.

MR. COCKE: That's right. It's the same amendment that was put forward at that time and, incidentally, accepted by the government of the day — only because this group became almost unmanageable around this issue.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Vehement, or venomous, or whatever you want to call it. Venom is full of snake oil, and I think you would probably know something about that.

In any event, Mr. Chairman, I very much support this amendment, just for the sake of consistency.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I was the person who was then the minister who accepted such an amendment from the opposition of the day and heard the present Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) speak in contradiction to the opinion proffered by the real property division of the bar association of British Columbia, who said that "or otherwise acquire" does not include the right to expropriate. To see this bunch today refuse an amendment can mean but one thing — that this government does intend to use these powers for expropriation. I want the minister to get up and tell this House if the minister intends to acquire land by expropriation.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, as my colleague from Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) has pointed out, the wording of this is identical — precisely the same in every aspect — to that put forward by the Socreds on the same issue seven years ago. If anyone thought the Socreds were hypocrites....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, please....

MR. BARBER: I'm speaking hypothetically. If anyone thought the Socreds were hypocrites, they might expect the Socreds to deny this amendment today, but we all know the Socreds are sincere and not hypocritical, and we all know that they meant then what they said then, which was that specific powers of expropriation should be excluded from the language of the statute. If they were hypocrites they might oppose our amendment today, because it's their amendment seven years later. It is their amendment restated; it is their own amendment in their own words dealing with the same issue. If anyone thought they are hypocrites, today is the day to be set straight and to realize that the Socreds are not hypocrites, that they were actually sincere then and are equally sincere now on the same case for the same reasons, and that they will therefore have to accept their own amendment that we have put forward this year, seven years after the first amendment.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I think the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) was looking for a response to the question he raised, and my answer is no, it is not my intention as Minister of Agriculture to expropriate land. I would also comment that although I wasn't here in 1973 when the debate was taking place, there was a considerable amount of debate on the impact of Bill 42, I think it was at that time, and some of the amendments that were put forward were accepted by the government because of the reaction out in the farm community to the attempt to control of people on the land. I think the first member for Victoria

[ Page 4149 ]

(Mr. Barber), who also was not here at the time, would recall the reaction from the farm community.

I would just refer again to the number of acts that have acquisition rights there and to the one act that specifically has a section on expropriation, Just to repeat my answer to the member for Nelson-Creston, it is not my intention to expropriate land.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 17

NAYS — 26

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

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, my impression was that a member could not vote twice on the same issue, negative and positive. I saw the House Leader, the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), vote "aye" and "nay."

MR. NICOLSON: Further on the point of order, Mr. Chairman, Erskine May is very clear that where a member does not vote, where he remains in his seat, it is counted as an affirmative vote. I should think that if a member were to vote twice it is automatically recorded as an affirmative vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. members. The vote having been recorded and stated so, the matter is closed.

Sections 5 to 13 inclusive approved.

Schedules 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. HEWITT: 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 57, Ministry of Agriculture and Food Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill PR403, Mr. Speaker,

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
CULTUS LAKE PARK ACT

The House in committee on Bill PR403; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 8 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill PR403, An Act to Amend The Cultus Lake Park Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill PR404.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION ACT

The House in committee on Bill PR404; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

MR. DAVIS: 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 PR404, An Act to Amend the Royal Canadian Legion Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call Committee on Bill 60.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, the House Leader should ask leave. We've gone through order of business for Friday — standing order 25, page 7.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Leave, leave, leave.

Leave granted.

[ Page 4150 ]

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1980

The House in committee on Bill 60; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

On section 1.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: On behalf of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) I move the amendment to section 1 standing in her name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

MRS. WALLACE: I have just a brief question on this. This section amends section 8 of the Land Commission Act, which is entitled "agricultural land." Inasmuch as section 10 is entitled "land reserves," I'm wondering why we're adding a section here which relates to the establishment of agricultural land reserves. There's a sentence here that does it.

HON. MR. HEWITT: We're talking about section 3 under this bill here; you mentioned section 10 under the act.

MRS. WALLACE: What we're talking about is section 3 of Bill 60 which amends section 8 of the Agricultural Land Commission act. Section 8 of the Agricultural Land Commission act is entitled "agricultural land," while section 10 is entitled "land reserves." I'm wondering why we're adding this sentence relative to land reserves under the section entitled "agricultural land." What is the thinking there?

HON. MR. HEWITT: With regard to section 8, the revised act that we have gave power to the commission to designate land as agricultural land, but it failed to add in the same subsection that the subject land is then an agricultural land reserve. That was in the old act, and as a result the sentence had to be added to rectify the omission in the revised act.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

MRS. WALLACE: This is the section that amends section 10, which deals with land reserves. What it is doing is removing the sentence which deals with giving some responsibility to municipal and regional governments. This is shades of the expropriation clause, because this was a section that was added to the bill at the insistence of the opposition when the Agricultural Land Commission bill was first introduced in 1973. I'm wondering why it is now deemed necessary to remove this section. Section 10 reads: "The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may approve a land reserve plan as submitted by the commission with or without such alterations or variations as he may consider advisable to carry out the intent of this act." Then it goes on to say: "On approval, the commission shall, for municipal and regional plans, and may, for commission plans, designate the agricultural land shown in the plan as an agricultural land reserve." Why is this government now taking the stand that it not be mandatory to declare land an agricultural land reserve if a municipal or regional government submits a plan that so requests?

It seems very strange that this section, which really gave some clout to local governments, is now being removed from the bill. It is simply leaving it up to the commission entirely. It is a complete reversal, again, of the stand that that government took when they insisted that that section be added. It makes one wonder, you know, if this is just Big Daddy government at work. Or is it that they are getting some interference from some of the more progressive regional and municipal governments that have come up with some commitment to the agricultural land reserve, and they want to be able to ride roughshod over that commitment? Is that what they're wanting to do?

I'm almost paraphrasing the words of the members for Okanagan North (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) when she spoke in the Agricultural Land Commission debate in 1973. She said that was what the then government was trying to do. Now here we are having this clause which was inserted at the request of people like the member for Okanagan North, who fought very long and forcibly on the floor of this Legislature for their contention that we were riding roughshod over local governments. Here we have this minister now coming in and taking that very section out of the act. I'm just completely confused by what this government's trying to do. They think they can take one side when they are in opposition, and they take another stance when they are government.

MR. BARBER: Are they hypocrites?

MRS. WALLACE: No, I wouldn't say they were hypocrites, Mr. Member. It can't be that. I wouldn't say that, because the Chairman would call me to order if I said that.

Here we are again in a most amazing situation, where we have one bill, and now another bill, taking away this very thing that they asked to have put in. Of course, it's obvious they didn't trust us to administer it in this form without that particular clause in there. Once they're in government, they want to do away with it and ride roughshod over the local governments. This can be the only possible explanation for this particular amendment. I would urge the minister to withdraw this section. It's just a slap at local government. We don't really need to have this kind of centralized control in the hands of this government.

It has been working reasonably well. There were a lot of difficulties at first, but it is working reasonably well now, and it should stay the way it is. Local governments should have the right to participate in these decisions. If local government decides that they want to institute an agricultural land reserve plan, then it should be mandatory that the commission goes along with that. If that land is classed as agricultural land, then it should be in a reserve.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The revised act obligated the commission to designate approved municipal and regional plans as agricultural land reserve. But the old act, prior to the revisions, did not include that obligation. What we're doing

[ Page 4151 ]

is finding an error in the revised statute and changing that word "shall" back to "may" — the same as it was in the old act prior to revision. It was an error in the revised statutes, and that's why the section 4 in this Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1980, has been put in. Nothing's changed, Madam Member; it is just an omission in the revised statute.

MRS. WALLACE: There's no mention of municipal or regional government in your new amendment. You take it out completely. Now that's not just a change of a word from"shall " to "may." There's no mention at all. It's gone. So it's more than just an incorrect word.

Sections 4 to 8 inclusive approved.

On section 9.

MR. LEVI: Who can I direct a question to, Mr. Chairman?

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Oh, are you handling this section? Listen, you Cariboo chip-monkey, keep quiet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't know if that's unparliamentary or not.

MR. LEVI: Oh, that's parliamentary. Alec knows that's parliamentary.

Can I ask the minister, Mr. Chairman...? Are you leaving, Alec?

HON. MR. FRASER: Is it to do with Finance or the railroad?

MR. LEVI: It's really to do with finance, so it's really the minister. Is he coming in? Oh, there he is.

In the first two reports of the auditor-general, she recommended that changes be made in respect to how the deficit of the BCR is handled. She actually went as far as to say that because the BCR will never be in a position to pay off the debt, the government should now assume its guarantor role, and actually show it as a deficit on its own books.

What the minister appears to be doing here is providing $70 million which presumably will just pay for the interest on the $700 million. I'd like to ask the minister: what about the general recommendation, which has been made twice by the auditor-general, that something very specific be done with this debt? As the minister knows, the Crown corporations committee had lengthy hearings with the people from BCR; we were always running into the continuing problem that BCR is not going to be able to do anything in an independent fashion because of this incredible debt. All we're getting here is just paying off the interest. It's really, I suppose, the same as extending the subsidy. What we do now is subsidize them. We are now going to subsidize them to the extent of another $70 million. But that doesn't tackle the basic problem in terms of what they are going to do with the large debt. They are not going to be viable unless there is something that that the government is prepared to do.

I understand, from asking questions of the president of the railroad, that they made a number of submissions to the government recommending how they might make some moves to get out of this very difficult predicament they're in. I wonder if the minister would comment on this. All they're doing right now is paying off the interest.

HON. MR. CURTIS: To the hon. member, this will be seen as a first step. I don't know that the British Columbia Railway company has made several submissions. Certainly in my short time as Minister of Finance one major submission has been made; it was more of a briefing than an actual submission.

It is correct that the auditor-general has commented on the BCR and, particularly, has offered some views with respect to the financial viability of the company in meeting its annual debt-servicing costs. In addition, the royal commission that studied and reported on the railway also gave considerable attention to the question. In the budget address on March 11 of this year I indicated that the government was concerning itself with this. I don't think the undertaking was made that legislation would be introduced in this session. But certainly legislation will come before members of this House at an early date — I can't be more specific than that — in order that we can provide for the province's ongoing commitment to the debt of the British Columbia Railway. In the meantime, it is a step for this year — a step with which I'm sure the member would agree.

MR. LEVI: I just have one other question. The minister said this is a first step. All right, the first step is really making money available for debt servicing.

Just in reference to what the auditor-general said — and I think the royal commission also — if the railroad is going anywhere at all in terms of any kind of development, it somehow has to be able to get out from under this particular $700 million debt. That really means that the guarantor, which is the government of British Columbia, now has to assume that debt. That was the recommendation of the auditor-general. Perhaps the minister would like to share some ideas on what other options there are. Frankly, I don't see that there are other options. It's got to the stage where the company is bankrupt, and in that case. of course, the guarantor has to step in to cover the situation.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Thank you to the member and to members of the committee. I think it would also be appropriate to observe that, at the time of the awarding of a triple A by Moody's and by Standard and Poor, organizations, companies and Crown corporations such as the British Columbia Railway came under considerable scrutiny. So a number of agencies or individuals in government and outside of government are examining the BCR; the auditor-general is one of them. There aren't man), options, but there is more than one. Today I can be of no further assistance to the member than to say that we are now earnestly examining those options, and ultimately the proposal upon which we decide will be brought to the floor of this House.

Sections 9 to 11 inclusive approved.

On section 12.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I've discussed this subject before in this House on numerous occasions. It really bothers me that this little section which is hidden away in this miscellaneous

[ Page 4152 ]

bill once again chips away at the power of legislative authority and places certain powers in the hands of cabinet. This government seems to have developed a pattern of doing this quietly and hidden away in various bills — in other words, taking authority away from the Legislature to perform duties that we were elected for, and putting these powers into the hands of cabinet.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: It's a very serious matter, Mr. Member, and I'm really concerned about it. It certainly goes against my principles and the very basic principles of the parliamentary system. I think that every time a government chips away at the cornerstone of parliamentary democracy in this fashion it must be opposed. I have no intention of calling a division on this matter — we did that yesterday on the same issue and on other occasions in this House — but I just did want it on record. It's no big item but, as I say, in my view it's chipping away at the very cornerstone of what democracy is all about. At least in a voice vote, I'm going to vote against this section, Mr. Chairman.

Sections 12 and 13 approved.

On section 14.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'd like to have just a brief explanation from the minister on section 14, dealing with increasing the powers of the weigh-masters, and this kind of thing. Basically what this section of the act says is that these people will have all the powers and duties conferred on them, and the immunities of a constable and all the powers associated thereto. I agree that these people are doing a good job in their own field, but what we have here is a situation where people are not necessarily trained to deal with certain situations that may arise. I wonder if perhaps the minister could give us a brief explanation on this section.

HON. MR. FRASER: My interpretation of it is that these constables are mostly on duty on freeways and major structures in the lower mainland. It's my understanding they do get some training through the police prior to going to work. They're confined to those areas. The intention is to confine them to those areas.

Sections 14 and 15 approved.

On section 16.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, the Corporation Capital Tax Act has always been a subject of a lot of debate between the sides of this House. When the previous government introduced this, they got hammered by the opposition for putting it in. Now that it's in, the government doesn't seem to want to let it go. This particular section now increases its revenues. Is the minister able to tell us roughly what he expects to gain from that amount of money, which was paper, now classified as cash on deposit? What is it going to add to his revenue? I think it is about $50 million a year at the moment, or a little bit more. How much more is he going to get on this? Is it a large outstanding amount that we've not been getting?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, within this fiscal year the amount would be in the neighbourhood of $1 million to $2 million. That's quite a spread, but it's of that magnitude.

MR. LEVI: I'll accept the spread from the minister. What's a million here or there!

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, I didn't say that.

MR. LEVI: You didn't say that, eh? Neither did I. But boy, I sure got that one tagged to me.

Sections 16 to 23 inclusive approved.

On section 24.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, section 24 is an innocent looking section. It's a section that allows the minister to go into a denticare program. I discussed this question with the minister and indicated that we've had our debate to some extent on this issue. I did note this morning, however, that B.C. Is launching a major blitz on this whole program. It's in the morning Province. I suggest very strongly that tub-thumping over an important medical issue is one thing. And certainly getting people registered for a plan which, incidentally, I criticized by virtue of the fact that I believe that the College of Dental Surgeons has pretty well called the shots on the issue.... There are less expensive and far more adequate ways of handling the program. The minister knows what my proposition is.

The other day I picked up some obscure little paper from a community up north. On the front page of that paper, I note the picture of the minister beside a nice innocent little child sitting in a dental chair. And the minister had a piggybank with $700 written across it. It was shades of Belly-flop Butler as far as I was concerned. I really think that that kind of hype over this kind of program is uncalled for. I know the government is desperately reaching out trying to find some area where they can be well thought of, It's desperation, no question. No doubt we'll be debating the advent of this plan for some time. But I will say this to the minister: it's a lot better than the one that was originally proposed, and the one that the department had given a great deal of credibility to in the first place. At least this has the flexibility where one can move with the plan in the future. From that standpoint I'm delighted, but I believe it's going to be very expensive for what we get. I hope that it doesn't resolve itself into just a major hype across the province to try to give the government some credibility. The credibility they could best earn would be to straighten out some of the other areas. I'm not talking about this ministry; I'm talking about some of the other areas of government.

Sections 24 to 57 inclusive approved.

On section 58.

MR. BARBER: Section 58 is, of course, an amendment which provides, under the Urban Transit Authority, for the more appropriate designation of a transit tax. As the government knows, this amendment was argued for by us two months ago, and we're glad to see it here. The New Democratic Party is pleased to support the amendment that we ourselves argued in favour of before it was introduced. It will

[ Page 4153 ]

remove the anomalous and unfair situation wherein, as for instance in the city of Victoria, Eaton's with one meter only for its entire building, pays one transit tax, and a motel on the Gorge Road with 13 separate meters pays 13 times as much. This is an attempt to overcome that unfairness, and we congratulate the government for doing so. That's a good thing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, just for the record, could you move the amendment standing under your name.

MR. BARBER: To begin with I was congratulating the government for 58 as it is. The first thing to do is to congratulate them for section 58 as it is, and the second thing is to ask them to accept the amendment standing in my name on the order paper — where it's been for some time — which would, in the proposed section 12(5), line 2, by deleting the word "bylaw" and substituting the following, then read: "bylaw, or alternatively the bylaw may establish variations in the rate of levy applied to an area of a municipality corresponding pro rata to the relative level of transit service provided that area."

The ability here is one which would be granted, I think, in particular here in the Capital Regional District, where it's become a major issue — not just on the Gulf Islands, but also in the Port Renfrew and outlying Sooke areas, where clearly, for all practical purposes, transit is not going to be provided for some time, and where at the moment the regional district does not have the flexibility to recommend, nor the law to allow, a pro-rated transit tax based on the electrical surcharge or on some other of the four formulas allowed in the original legislation. I think that the transit authority here in the capital region would find such flexibility a welcome and prudent thing, and would overcome in advance the next arguments against unfairness that we've seen put forward concerning the Hydro surcharge related to the number of meters that a building happened to have.

The purpose of our amendment is to allow somewhat greater flexibility in a most desirable way so that the same anomalies cannot be created which we saw inadvertently created by the original bill and which are now being amended by the main body of section 58 of this statute. It is in that spirit that we put forward this amendment, which has been on the order paper for some time, and which I hope the government will accept.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The thought certainly has merit, and we've considered this in the ministry, particularly as it applies to the gasoline levy in the Greater Vancouver Regional District where a number of people — gas station operators particularly — have been making representation to government for such, or similar, change. I don't really knock the suggestion or the idea, but it cannot be done. We found during our research that we as a provincial Legislature cannot delegate this power, according to section 92 of the BNA Act. It would be allowing municipalities to legislate if they could develop a power surcharge or a gasoline tax that might be varied according to zones. So on that count it doesn't pass, and I assure the member we've considered this in a number of ways and we've had a number of meetings — with the GVRD especially and their solicitors — regarding this.

Secondly, if we could do it, there is some problem with the wording here, in that it would possibly create a discriminatory process of taxation. Finally, it's rather impractical especially for Hydro — to try and sort out different rates for different homes and businesses in any given area. But aside from the impracticality, it cannot be done for constitutional reasons.

MR. BARBER: The proposal would not necessarily require that Hydro determine which homes among different kinds of homes or buildings among different kinds of buildings would be exempt. The proposal — "prorated" — is to take into account geographical factors. I'm well aware of the case in Surrey-Langley — the poor service station operator just across the border has really been hurt; his business has been hurt in a really unfair way and hopefully some exemption can be found.

The principle here is to allow flexibility, Now certainly municipalities have flexibility already. One thinks, for instance, of the authority that municipalities have — not contrary to the BNA Act — to create special taxation districts downtown, wherein businesses only pay a certain tax in order to put forward, for their own benefit, certain municipal improvements — for example, widen sidewalks. I think of the Yates Street mall, which was a special tax in downtown Victoria related to a geographical area; I think, for instance, of the Chinatown development going on now in my city; I think, for instance, of a special business tax which will be put forward to help subsidize the losses of the Victoria convention centre. These are all zone taxes. They're related through the device of the business licence, which is how they're calculated. but they are in principle no different from the outcome of the amendment we put forward, which would be related through the device of geography rather than business licences. Of course it's discriminatory in a preferential way — sure, you bet it is — just as the current special taxes that downtown businessmen often pay are also discriminatory in what for them, in the long run, is a preferential way, because they think it's worth the investment.

I don't think that there are in fact sound constitutional and practical arguments against it. If the government has alternative language, we'd be happy to accept it. If the government has an alternative proposal, we'd be happy to support it. But one way or another, we predict the government will be coming back here a year from now to put into law some more flexible option to allow transit authorities on a geographical or zonal basis to prorate the levies for transit. They will have to do so because of the increasing criticism at local government level from those who say: "We live 40 miles out of town;we've got no bus; we're not going to get a bus for 40 years. Why should we pay for the buses if we never use them?" Now because of that political criticism — and the minister knows it at least as well as I do and probably a lot better: we get the same letters, he and I — the government, I suspect, will have to come back — if not an hour from now, certainly a year from now — and ask for something or other very similar to the amendment we put forward. It's just a matter of flexibility, and it's a matter of the reality as well of the application of the transit tax.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, the act now before us certainly provides the option for a regional district to exempt an area from the hydro surcharge. We already have that authority for the gasoline levy, and frankly, that is what the Greater Vancouver Regional District has

[ Page 4154 ]

done. They've requested that the boundaries be drawn back some to exempt those three boundary stations which were giving considerable difficulty and where a very unfair situation existed. So that was provided for. Now the act provides for the exemption of an area from the hydro surcharge, and the CRD can request that of government and we could provide the necessary letters patent.

However, you cannot compare that with the establishment of zones with different levies for the establishment of a specified area within a municipality to provide a particular service unique to the area. There is really no comparison there, and we've checked the constitutionality of it several times.

Amendment negatived.

On section 58.

MR. MITCHELL: What I'd like to bring to the attention of the minister is that under this section he has detailed the types of places that are classed as residence. Also 12(8) now says, "Where a person is liable for more than one account for the supply of electricity on the same parcel of land..." then it can be exempt. What I found — and I've had a lot of inquiries from various officials throughout my area — is that in many cases in farms and in rural homes they have pumps or power supplies located off the main parcel of property, but they are part of the residential home as they supply water to that home. They are in all cases for the residence, but they will have to pay, or they have been paying the commercial rate up until now. I was wondering if the minister has given any thought to including all power supplies for the residents. In some cases they are off the main land; they are near lakes or creeks.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The member is quite correct. The purpose of this amendment, as a matter of fact, is to overcome the inequity and the problems which existed with the legislation regarding those who had more than one meter. Previously the charge was made on a per customer or per meter basis and we, in fact, did have many situations where the dwelling had a meter, plus the swimming pool in the back had a meter. We also had farms where the farmhouse had a meter, and a barn some distance off had another meter.

We now have a definition for residential dwelling units, and the definition, as the member will note, is very all encompassing. It provides for almost every situation of...we'd like to think for every situation of a residential type. They will be charged a flat sum, so if there were two or three meters it wouldn't matter. There is one charge per residential unit.

However, we certainly realize there may be the real oddball exception on some island, or in some far corner someplace, which perhaps would not be provided for in the definition. We've thus given a further option to the regional district, or the municipality, as we call it, to exempt that situation.

MR. MITCHELL: Like the member for Victoria, I would like to state that I support the intent of the amendments. They've gone a long way to rectify a horrible mistake that was made. But there are these personal residential supplies which are off the property, and they are supplying the property because of pumps. They're not some oddball cases. In a lot of farms and in a lot of areas where they are supplying irrigation or even the domestic water supply, they are part of the resident supply. But the meter is actually located off the property and it is being charged at a commercial rate. If there were only some amendment to have it charged at the residential rate, and not at the commercial rate that it is now....

Sections 58 and 59 approved,

On section 60.

MR. BARBER: Again, this is a section which we support in principle, because it now establishes a new principle that was not present in the old act. It is a principle which would allow, as the notes provided by legislative counsel read: "That it become discretionary whether or not the board" — this refers to the local transit services board or to the UTA itself — "establish a transit commission in every transit service area." Formerly, the language read "shall" and it now reads "may" and it gives thereby, in that discretionary inflexible way, a more important local option of choice. That's a good thing.

I have a further amendment which relates to a specific problem of choice and, again, it's been on the order paper for some time. I hope the government will accept it. My amendment to section 60 in proposed 18(2) line 1, would read as follows: by inserting prior to the word "section" a new section as follows: "section 1(d), but shall not include any designated islands under the Islands Trust Act, unless a bylaw adopted by the Islands Trust requests inclusion of any designated islands in a transit service area. "

The principle of this is really extremely important in the Capital Regional District and, as the minister knows full well, has been highly contentious.

If the government accepts it, the effect of our amendment would be to allow the locally chosen body, which is probably better able than any other in the greater Victoria area, to determine whether or not to establish transit services on the Gulf Islands. Specifically, of course, I refer to the Islands Trust itself.

With the exception of Bowen Island, which is, of course, within the GVRD, the islands of Salt Spring, Galiano, Mayne, North and South Pender and Saturna are those where this particularly applies. It is a matter of record that the member for Saanich and the Islands (Hon. Mr. Curtis) has said that he proposes to have those islands excluded from the transit levy and the transit services area. I'm sorry he's not in his seat right now, but I know I quote him fairly because it's been in the papers many times. It is precisely because the member for Saanich and the Islands shares our point of view on this that we put forward the amendment, and I'm sure he'll support it.

In regard to the question of the transit levy, I'd like to read for the record — very briefly — a letter dated June 10 of this year from Tony Roberts, the manager of the Islands Trust, directed to Dennis Young, the executive director of the CRD.

The letter reads:

"The Islands Trust has requested that I forward to you resolutions of opposition to the gasoline hydro surcharge which have been passed by the following Trust committees: Galiano Island, Mayne Island,

[ Page 4155 ]

North Pender Island, Salt Spring Island, Saturna Island, South Pender Island.

"It is requested that these resolutions be distributed to your directors for the meeting of June 11. It is appreciated that this comes as somewhat short notice, and the enclosure of 20 copies may therefore be of some assistance.

Yours truly,

Tony Roberts''

I'll just read one of the resolutions; they are identical.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm sure that the proposition the member is putting forward is one that is worthy of consideration in debate. However, on a point of order, I must point out that we are dealing with an amendment to section 18(2) of the Urban Transit Authority Act. The amendment which is proposed by the first member for Victoria is a proposed amendment to section 18(1), and therefore it is not before this House for consideration.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair so rules, hon. member, that the amendment therefore is out of order on that basis.

MR. BARBER: In regard to your comment, Mr. Chairman, what I clearly stated.... Perhaps it wasn't heard. May I read it again, or do you have the language at hand?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you are attempting in 18(2) to amend 18(1).

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, just because he's the Attorney-General doesn't mean he has the last word on the matter. You can amend any section in committee that's opened up by the legislation: not subsections — any section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yet, hon. member, you cannot move an amendment beyond the scope of the section, which clearly is the case in this matter.

MR. LAUK: Not if you open up the section — that's the scope.

MR. BARBER: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I established at the beginning that the principle of the amendment put forward by the government is to allow discretionary power and to change the word "shall" to the word "may." It is on the basis of this principle that we hold that our amendment is in order. What we are now saying is: the principle which says that local transit service areas "may..." must specifically be further complemented by the amendment we've put forward now to specify that in the case of the Islands Trust that body shall have the power to determine by bylaw whether or not to be included in a transit service area. It's the government's own principle, which we accept and support and which I named at the outset. On the basis of that, what we've done in section 18, in the clearest possible language, is take the government at its word that it wishes flexibility, and we have named, for the particular caution of flexibility, the Islands Trust area, where there's a major fight and where the member for Saanich and the Islands has himself said that he wants the islands to be able to be excluded. With all respect, Mr. Chairman, our amendment is in order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I have indicated that the amendment is not in order, and I have outlined the reasons why. Clearly, if the amendment were adopted it would render invalid the previous section. On that basis the Chair must indicate that the motion is out of order.

MR. BARBER: How does it render it invalid? Have you got the UTA Act there, Walter?

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order with respect to this matter, and looking at what we did yesterday in considering Bill 61, the Attorney-General gave notice of a number of amendments to Bill 61 which did not amend any section in Bill 61 — completely outside the sections. Take section 82, for instance, of Bill 61. It sought to deal with section 9(2)(i) of the Seed Potato Act. But the Attorney-General proposed — and it was accepted — an amendment to establish a brand new change — being section 82.1 — to the Small Claim Act. That was perfectly acceptable, yet it didn't amend anything in the bill.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: Precisely. I'm submitting that this is what should prevail here.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: On a point of order, the member for Skeena has made my point. Section 60 of Bill 60 purports to amend section 18(2) of the Urban Transit Authority Act; that's what we're dealing with. My point is that the member cannot in the consideration of this particular section amend some other section of the Urban Transit Authority Act. If he wishes, he has the opportunity to amend Bill 60 by an additional section; but it cannot be properly considered when we're dealing with the amendment to section 18(2) of this act. If he wants to add another section to the bill, as I did yesterday, I'm not objecting to that. The difficulty is, Mr. Chairman.... The reason I raised a point of order is not to discourage the debate which the member wishes to propose to this House; it is only that as a matter of order he cannot, when dealing with a second subsection to section 18, contemplate an amendment to a previous subsection.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Your amendment is out of order, that's all.

MR. HOWARD: So was yours yesterday.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't have to give instructions to the member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, hon. members. I think that if we just pause for a very brief moment we might be able to resolve something in this matter.

MR. BARBER: Are you suggesting an alternative wording you would accept? That's fine with me.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You've got to get yourself into a new section of this bill, Charles.

MR. BARBER: Would you accept it as rewritten in order to move it as a new section.

[ Page 4156 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's not what he accepts; it's what I accept.

MR. BARBER: If you'll accept it, that's fine with us. We feel it's in order; you don't, but if you'll accept it in another way, that's fine with us.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, to summarize this, it's not the motion per se that's out of order; it's the section reference that makes it out of order.

MR. BARBER: I appreciate your helpfulness, and that of the Attorney-General on speaking on a point of order. I heard the Attorney-General say — please correct me if I did not do so properly — that if this were put forward as, in effect, a new section then he would find it in order. Do I take it that the Chair would as well?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It would be for the Chair to find in order or not. I've indicated that the section itself is in order but the numbering is not.

MR. BARBER: With respect, Mr. Chairman, we read it differently when we prepared this. However, if the Chair's advice is that in order to make it in order I renumber it, I would appreciate the courtesy of the Chair telling me what number I should insert, at which point I would be pleased to correct it, although I wasn't aware the correction was required. Then if it's in order, we'd be pleased to debate it with, I hope, the support of the government. Is that fair?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Possibly you might carry on the debate until we resolve this particular matter.

MR. BARBER: Speaking to the principle of the amended section 60, let me just continue, if I may, reading the resolutions put forward by the Islands Trust, which are germane no matter how it's debated.

Mr. Chairman, I'm advised that if we pass 60 it is then acceptable to move 60.1.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right. Now you've got it.

MR. BARBER: I appreciate the advice, and we're pleased to allow 60 on that basis.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: As I said when I rose on a point of order, I wasn't trying to stop the member from raising the issue in debate. As the member may know, when these sections are passed they go through the Clerks' office, legislative council, and the Queen's Printer, and we have great difficulty in making sure that the bills are printed on report. They aren't proper unless they come in this way. As a point of order, I wasn't arguing against your principle.

Section 60 approved.

MR. BARBER: I'd like to go on record as appreciating the courtesy of the Chair, the Clerk and the Attorney-General in helping us do this.

I would like to move section 60.1 that section 18(1) shall be amended by adding after section 18(1)(c) the following: "Section (1)(d): But shall not include any designated islands under the Islands Trust Act unless a bylaw adopted by the Islands Trust requests the inclusion of any designated islands in a transit service area." I so move.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order, and debate having already taken place, the member continues.

On the amendment.

MR. BARBER: I'd like to read, if I may, the resolution which is identical to that of six passed by islands in the trust. By way of example:

"It was moved and seconded that the South Pender Island trust committee go on record as opposing the imposition by regional government of urban required taxation on the rural areas under their jurisdiction such as represented by the gasoline and or Hydro surcharge being imposed on the southern Gulf Islands by the capital regional district."

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Again I should point out that identical resolutions have now been passed by the Galiano Island trust committee, the Mayne Island trust committee, the North Pender Island trust committee, the Saltspring Island trust committee, the Saturna Island trust committee, and the South Pender Island trust committee, these, of course, being the principal populated islands in the Islands Trust area. The reasons for it are really quite clear. Each of the Islands Trust local island committees within the CRD have formally adopted resolutions opposing transit levies on their islands. In addition hundreds of individuals have now signed petitions and written letters opposing the same. In further addition the Saltspring Island Chamber of Commerce and the Saltspring Island Transportation Committee, which is an elected group that deals with B.C. Ferries and the highways department on the question of transportation to the islands generally, have strongly opposed inclusion of the islands in the transit service area. The reason they do is quite simple and straightforward. The islands have two characteristics which distinguish them in critical ways from the rest of the capital regional district. Geographically they are clearly cut off by a water barrier, and they are the only area with a special statute, to wit the Islands Trust Act, which is designed to control growth in order to preserve the present quality of life and relatively low density of population on the islands. Each of these distinguishing features militates against the likelihood of a transit service ever becoming a really practical proposition for any of the islands — likely including Saltspring as well, which is the largest, of course. It therefore seems unfair to them — and to us and, I gather to the member for Saanich and the Islands, who's been on public record saying the same — to tax the islands for service that they do not receive now and will likely never receive, simply because they are islands. Buses don't float — even Volkswagen buses.

The islands are excluded from a number of other CRDwide programs. The community planning of the Gulf Islands is now under the jurisdiction of the elected Islands Trust. So in a number of ways, as well the case currently exists that the islands are exempt from several of the ordinary activities and programs of the Capital Regional District. And that's how it should be. We don't oppose that. The islands are special, rare

[ Page 4157 ]

and circumstantial. Unique factors apply to them, and they have to be governed in a unique way. We don't oppose that at all.

Therefore it seems to us only logical, rational and fair that the Islands Trust itself determine whether or not there is justification for including any of the islands in a transit service area. It is on that simple principle that we propose the amendment, which we hope the government will accept.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Firstly, I think I should clear up a misconception that appears to exist with so many people that the Islands Trust was established to control growth. Nowhere does it say that the Islands Trust was established to control growth. The Islands Trust was established to ensure we have the appropriate type of land use so as to best preserve the islands and their characteristics for all British Columbians. It's not a matter of controlling growth.

However, I, like the first member for Victoria and others, I'm sure, have received considerable mail on this question as to whether the islands should be included or not. It depends on where your letter was posted as to what the letter contains or says. Certainly any of those which I have received from the islands obviously have requested an exemption in total from any surcharge or gasoline charge.

On the other hand, naturally I have received letters from other areas, mainland Vancouver Island, mainland British Columbia, which say: "We pay for ferries; we don't use them, perhaps. So why don't they pay for buses, even though they don't use them?" The argument cuts both ways, naturally. I appreciate the concern expressed by the islanders. I've certainly been very sympathetic to their requests. But we cannot take this authority away from the Capital Regional District, which is now legislatively, and in every way, the municipality responsible for transit.

We cannot here and now amend the Islands Trust Act to also give them authorities other than where provided them legislatively. The Islands Trust Act was established by another government to deal with zoning permits, subdivision and planning-related matters. It had nothing to do with the taxation of the public for a specific use. So we cannot now in any way designate the Islands Trust to pass a bylaw to do what we, in legislation, authorized the Capital Regional District to do.

After this amendment passes, the Capital Regional District can, by resolution, request that we exempt any one or all of the islands from any of those charges, but it'll be them. not some other body which now does not have the legislative authority to take on a taxation function.

MR. BARBER: Unfortunately, the Capital Regional District has recently moved that it will not exempt the Gulf Islands.

HON. MR. CURTIS: That was just last week.

MR. BARBER: That's right, it was just last week. You bet.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: And they did not have the authority. They won't have the authority until after this passes.

MR. BARBER: The Minister of Municipal Affairs says they won't have the authority until this passes. That's correct, and that's why we support this section as the government proposes it. What we ask is simply that the government extend the principle to a unique circumstance where unique factors prevail that cannot be found in any other area of the province.

The minister raises the question that we all pay for roads, but not everyone uses the roads. We all pay for ferries, but not everyone uses the ferries. We all pay for universities. and not everyone goes to university. Of course, I take that for granted. There's no dispute there. But we don't all live on the Gulf Islands, and we don't all have an opportunity and an obligation to protect and to preserve the rare environmental qualities and way of life of the islands. One of the issues which touches islanders is transit. I think the islanders themselves are nearly unanimously opposed to the imposition of a transit tax for a bus service they do not have and likely will never have, and in fact may well not want, in order thereby to diminish further urbanization of the islands themselves.

I would like to point out that if our amendment fails there is then no protection in law at all, because it will have been denied by Social Credit for the islanders to exercise their own choice in this special circumstance. That would be a shameful thing. I hope the government reconsiders and accepts our amendment.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 19

NAYS 26

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

Sections 60 to 65 inclusive approved.

On section 66.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I move a new section 65, I standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Section 65.1 approved.

[ Page 4158 ]

Sections 66 to 73 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

Bill 60, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1980, reported complete with amendments.

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

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

Leave granted.

Bill 60, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1980 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 56, Mr. Speaker.

HOLIDAY SHOPPING REGULATION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 56; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, on section 3, I note that the government have opted for a change in their original proposition, which would have created chaos through the province. Still, with section 3 allowing a municipality to opt out, they are going to provide some areas with a good deal of embarrassment and a good deal of trouble.

I can imagine a municipality such as Richmond, which for a long time had major merchants open on Sunday, forcing the surrounding areas into a similar situation just by virtue of this particular section.

Mr. Chairman, they are making it a little more difficult but there is basically no change. It's still a copout. Still, the government is not prepared to act even-handedly across the province, dumping the final responsibility on the municipality in such a way as to say, "it's their fault, not ours."

MR. LEGGATT: This provision which allows local option in fact allows the province, and particularly the lower mainland, to be totally open on Sunday. This is the chink in the armour that in fact leaves this bill inadequate in principle; this government simply hasn't had the courage to regulate Sunday shopping province-wide, as the province of Ontario has. Mr. Chairman, that makes this bill totally inadequate for us; that makes this bill a bill that we can never support, because it's quite clear that the commercial interests in certain of those municipalities will whipsaw the other municipalities into shape in nothing flat.

In my community I have several large shopping centres, and in the city of Port Coquitlam they have a regulated Sunday. It will be a matter of time when we throw our total riding fully open, on the simple ground that the small merchants won't sit there and suffer at the hands of the big merchants which are open right across the border. The popular will will have some sympathy for those small merchants, and the result will be an open Sunday. So what you've done with this bill is simply opened Sunday right across the province, and particularly right around the lower mainland.

Make no mistake, Mr. Chairman, this hole in the bill is the hole that all the large merchants have been looking for — and they've got it. I am sad to say that this government hasn't examined other provinces. It hasn't examined, for example, the province of Ontario, which has a regulated Sunday province-wide, which has caused very little problem in that particular jurisdiction.

Mr. Chairman, I certainly oppose this section and for those reasons we will be opposing the bill.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I'm surprised to hear the member for Coquitlam-Moody make those statements. With respect to the Ontario legislation, there is a provision for local option and it has been used. I think the member must also recognize that the Retail Merchants Association, which is representative of the small business community in this province, and the Retail Council of Canada, which is representative of the large retailers in this province, have both expressed their views as being against the passage of any such bylaws, and to suggest that municipal governments would be pressured by them is to fail to recognize what they have said both in writing and in their visits to these buildings.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Section 3 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 25

NAYS — 20

[ Page 4159 ]

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

Sections 4 to 13 inclusive approved.

Schedule A approved.

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 56, Holiday Shopping Regulation Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 17, Mr. Speaker.

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

The House in committee on Bill 17; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 12 inclusive approved.

On section 13.

MR. SKELLY: I sent over earlier a copy of a proposed amendment to the hon. Minister of Forests and I apologize for not handing it to him earlier, because I was a little unprepared on this bill.

What we are concerned about in this new section 1s that the minister may be able to subdivide tree-farm licences and switch them around between companies. Also, we're concerned about the fact that it may be possible under this section to allow a company to dodge its cutting obligations by combining areas that have been undercut with areas that have been overcut, and to dodge its liability for penalty stumpage and that type of thing.

In the case of areas where TFLs need to be combined for example, the B.C. Forest Products ones on Vancouver Island, where there have been large deletions as a result of the creation of Pacific Rim National Park.... We see the need for that, but in our opinion that area should be treated as a brand-new tree-farm licence and it should go to public hearing. The public should be given full opportunity to examine the new licence, the cutting rights, and just what is going to be happening in central Vancouver Island as a result of the creation of that new forest management licence.

So I would hope that the minister, having examined the amendment, will give his approval to it.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I only received this proposed amendment a short time ago. As the member fully understands, the Forest Act is quite a complex act, and changes in one section can make unintended changes to other sections. So it would take some time for me, my staff and the legislative counsel to fully go into all the implications that such a change might have on the act itself.

However, the intent to avoid cut control by manipulating tree-farm licences is certainly an administrative thing that we'll keep well in mind. If perhaps the member would like to discuss with me between now and the next session the necessity of having such an amendment in the act, I'd be very happy to consider that for next year. As far as the part about having public hearings for the change of tree-farm licences, there is no intent to change the ownership of them and there's no possibility of changing the ownership of them under the amendments to this section. It's for administrative convenience. I would not accept going to public hearings on that type of change. because you're not really creating a new tree-farm licence. you're just breaking one down into several. The public hearings on new tree-farm licences will, of course, continue. But as far as any attempt to get out of cut control by changing the shapes and sizes of tree-farm licences.... As I say, it's administrative, and I'd be very happy to discuss the possibility of an amendment for next year.

MR. SKELLY: I thank the minister for his assurance that that will be done and that our concerns will be looked at if tree-farm licences are going to be changed around under this section. What I was referring to in the requirement of public hearings is specifically to do with the B.C. Forest Products licences, which I understand will be combined as a result of the large deletions for the creation of phase 3 of Pacific Rim National Park. It appears to us that with new Crown land being turned over to this company in the Cowichan Valley and a large area of land being deleted, this actually constitutes a new tree-farm licence. The public should have an opportunity to examine the proposal by way of public hearing before that new tree-farm licence is created. This is one of the specific instances where a public hearing would be appropriate.

Amendment negatived.

Section 13 approved.

Sections 14 to 30 inclusive approved.

On section 31.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 31 as amended approved.

On section 32.

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

Amendment approved.

[ Page 4160 ]

Section 32 as amended approved.

Sections 33 to 44 inclusive approved.

On section 45.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper, which includes the addition of section 45.1. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, section 45 has been dealt with, and has been amended. The minister proposes to add a new section 45.1.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That should be a separate motion.

On section 45.1.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I move the addition of section 45.1 to section 45.

Section 45.1 approved.

Section 45 as amended approved.

Sections 46 to 66 inclusive approved.

On section 67.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 67 as amended approved.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the addition of section 68.

Section 68 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 17, Forest Amendment Act, 1980, reported complete with amendments.

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

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

Bill 17, Forest Amendment Act, 1980, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 46, Mr. Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA PLACE ACT

The House in committee on Bill 46; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

On section 6.

MR. LAUK: Does the minister have any amendments to section 6?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No.

MR. LAUK: Nowhere in the Commonwealth is there a section like this. It says: "The Crown in right of the Province may, on terms the Lieutenant Governor in Council" — the cabinet — "approves, guarantee the payment of principal and interest of the notes, bonds, debentures or other securities issued by the company."

Subsection (3) is the most offensive, and that is the one that I don't see anywhere in the British Commonwealth. It defeats the very purpose of parliamentary democracy and is totally consistent with the attitude of some people with alien philosophies who attack that parliamentary democratic principle throughout the course of the legislation introduced to this Legislature. Subsection (3) states: "Money required to be paid in respect of a guarantee under this section shall (a) in the absence of an appropriation, or (b) where money appropriated is insufficient, be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund without any appropriation other than this section." I suggest, Mr. Chairman, it's ultra vires; I suggest it's not constitutional. It's an offence even going back to Magna Carta. I don't know of any parliament that's given a blank cheque to a Crown corporation of appointed people on the board.

It's a very sad situation when the minister's first effort at legislative draftsmanship should end up with such a botch-up as this act. The expropriation sections and the appropriation sections are offensive to the very fundamental and basic democratic sensibilities in the British parliamentary system.

Section 6 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 24

[ Page 4161 ]

NAYS — 20

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

MR. LAUK: Being the member for Vancouver Centre, I would ask that my name be placed in the Journals of the House as requesting the recording.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's not actually done, hon. member, but the recording is ordered.

On section 7.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 7 as amended approved.

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 46, British Columbia Place Act, reported complete with amendment.

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

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

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

Leave granted.

Bill 46, British Columbia Place Act, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 45, Mr. Speaker.

FAMILY AND CHILD SERVICE ACT

The House in committee on Bill 45; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

On section 1.

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

On the amendment.

MR. LEVI: There are many things missing from the bill, but one of the things that is certainly missing is: who within the department is going to concern themselves with what happens to children?

One of the serious problems that existed previously with respect to the job that was done by the superintendent of child welfare was that the superintendent in fact was an administrator. He had to run a whole section of the ministry and was involved in all of the bureaucratic administration that the head of a section has to do. If in fact the minister is serious about the intent of this bill which is directing itself to children, what is needed is somebody who devotes all his time — away from the bureaucracy. Inside the ministry if necessary, but certainly away from the bureaucracy — and concerns himself or herself with the ongoing problems that children have, so that he or she can — again, as I said, outside the bureaucratic administration — say on the matter of advice to the minister: "This is what's happening out there with respect to children." That function cannot be done by the superintendent of child welfare.

First of all, it should be understood that the superintendent of child welfare in respect of this province has actually been the deputy minister of the department. The role of deputy minister is onerous enough without also having to be the superintendent of child welfare.

We don't know, for instance, in respect to this act, what the minister has in mind for a superintendent of child welfare. All we know is that this section deals with administrative functions as well. I'm moving this amendment so that we can have somebody separate and distinct.

We now have in this province an ombudsman who concerns himself with those things that basically affect adults. We should have somebody who concerns himself — or herself, depending on who is appointed — with children. That would be very much in keeping with what the minister wants to do. I don't want to get into a second reading debate on this thing, but there is nothing really in the legislation that the minister can't do now. All of it is possible. The minister, because of the previous legislation. can do any kind of thing — can be as flexible as possible. She couldn't set up an ombudsman for children, but that's why I've moved this amendment. We want somebody separate and distinct whose total function, really, is to sit aside from the bureaucracy and to view what is going on in terms of children — the kind of thing that exists today where the minister had to go out and ~et somebody from the community, a former deputy chief of police, to look at the problems of child prostitution. If you have somebody who is concerned about children on a full-time basis — an ombudsman for children — you're not going to have to wait until you get articles in the newspaper saying that there's a very serious situation with child prostitution down on Davie Street.

That's the kind of monitoring that an ombudsperson would do. He would know what is going on in the field, and would have an opportunity to move around the province and talk to the staff. and to say: "What are the ongoing problems? What are the new problems that we're noting in respect to children?" That's not done. It's very difficult to have that thing filter up from the line to the deputy minister and to the

[ Page 4162 ]

minister. But if you have somebody who is separate and apart, has a roving commission to do that very valuable work, then it makes a lot of sense in respect to the attempts the minister is doing in the general part of the bill.

But without that ombudsperson they're never really going to know, because the bureaucracy is busy. We're going to have to rely on the press, I suppose, which is always the way we tend to get problems called to the attention of government; occasionally we get letters. Basically, that's a role that is worthwhile. I urge the minister to give consideration to this, because that's where the minister and the deputy minister can say: "We do have somebody out there who is outside of the bureaucracy and who is not tied up with the day-to-day running of the department, and who can devote himself to that function." That's a worthwhile function.

I don't want to go past the business of when I was doing the minister's job. I was very concerned about the fact that the superintendent of child welfare was doing what he was doing, and not really devoting himself to the function of looking at children. I didn't want to make the changes at the time, because we were waiting for the Berger commission. But we are making changes now. One of the things that is missing.... We are that concerned about children that I'm putting it to the minister, Mr. Chairman: who is going to look after that concern? It can't be the deputy minister, who is too busy all the time. It can't be people in the bureaucracy who are going to be doing all sorts of functions — their day-to-day functions don't allow them to set themselves aside from the bureaucracy to look at this. It needs a separate position and an expensive position: a roving commission. You say to that ombudsperson: "Your function is to go out.... What are we doing with children? Are we doing the right things? What should we be doing? What kind of problems can we expect down the road?" It's not to have to react to complaints from the community, although we have to certainly acknowledge that there are some.

I think the Davie Street question, Mr. Chairman, is really the essence of what I'm talking about. It put pressure off the press and the criticisms and the discussions about prostitution law, and the minister finally had to appoint somebody. That doesn't deal with the problem at all, because it's not an easy problem to deal with anyhow. But that's not the only problem related to children. There are other problems that are bound to come up, and the ministry really needs to be in an anticipatory role — have some idea of what's coming down the road. Now the person who can tell them that is the ombudsperson, and that's why I would urge the minister. Even if she's not going to vote for it, I'd like to hear her comments about it, because it's something that governments must give consideration to in terms of children.

One of the sad parts about governments is — and perhaps even with this government and with the government before — that we did not decide that one ministry should have the responsibility for children. They're chopped up all over the place: Attorney-General's ministry, Education, some parts of Health and Human Resources. That's the step that has to be taken. It's possible that, with the use of the ombudsperson — having seen what goes on out there — they'll be able to say to the minister that it is important that there be one ministry for children, and if the ministry needs to have services, they purchase those services from other ministries. But sooner or later we're going to have one minister responsible for children, not four or five — we're going to cut out this business of cutting up children. So I would like to urge the ministers to agree with this amendment to provide an ombudsperson for children; it would be a great step in terms of child welfare. We could lead the way in this province; we don't have it anywhere else, and we could lead the way.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to respond to the member, because I know that he's sincere in his regards for the children that come into our care.

First of all, let me just say that the act does make provision for the superintendent, and it does not have to be the deputy minister to whom he made reference; it happens to be at this moment, but it does not have to be. It gives us the flexibility to make the appointment to a sole person. Let me say that we do not wish to produce an ombudsman who would take away or preempt the role of the very many ombudsmen in the province of British Columbia, the parents of the children. The point that we would like to make in this whole act is that we're trying to address the fact and also direct the concerns about the parents who feel that they don't want their parental responsibility taken away and preempted by the state. You suggest in your amendment that an ombudsman or ombudsperson should be appointed, that there is in effect an ombudsman for the first time in this province appointed for everyone in the province, so a duplication for children, I think, is not necessary, because the superintendent of child welfare, in effect, does act as that.

In addition, may I just mention the interministerial commitments that we have made. We do not do as you say — chop up children and have them treated in isolation from other ministries. We started some years ago a hope for an interministerial exchange. That's very much happening in this province today. It's at the local level; it's at the Victoria level — the deputy minister level; it's at the ministerial level, and it is very much being addressed in an interministerial way.

I would think that the accountability in total must be with the minister, not any appointed official. That's the job all ministers have throughout each of the ministries in our government.

I do believe, Mr. Chairman, the amendment is out of order because it does give a commitment for an expenditure of funds, but I do feel that you would want to know my thoughts on the comments. I appreciate the comments by the member, but the amendment would not be suitable to the government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment on section 1 is simply an interpretation amendment. The amendment coming to section 3 is out of order. But we still haven't dealt with the amendment to section 1. Shall the amendment pass?

MS. BROWN: I'm on my feet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, the hon. member for Burnaby Edmonds on the amendment.

MS. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I know I'm a bit inconspicuous, but nonetheless....

Just to respond very quickly to the minister, what this bill deals with is specifically children who are being taken away from their parents, or children whose parents have failed in some way to discharge their responsibilities to them, or children whose parents are fighting over them. So, although I certainly agree that the greatest ombudsperson that a child

[ Page 4163 ]

can have is either a parent or both parents, what we are dealing with specifically in this legislation is children who do not have that ombudsperson, because the parents are precisely the people who are missing as a result of this legislation. So I think that the amendment calling for a guardian which was put forward by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi), specifically for the reasons of this act, makes good sense, because the parents just aren't there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, at this point, since the amendment to section 1 hinges on the amendment to section 3, and section 3 is out of order because of standing order 67, I cannot accept any more debate on this amendment.

MR. LEVI: We have to proceed in some kind of order. At the moment we're dealing with the interpretation section. I don't want you to anticipate what we're going to deal with in section 3. We're not dealing in block form here. With respect, Mr. Chairman, I think your observation is not correct.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I would caution you against lecturing the Chair.

MR. LEVI: I think that what we have to do is to deal in order, and at the moment we're dealing with the interpretation section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, and with that said can I call the question, hon. member?

MR. LEVI: No, I'd like to say something else. I had to make sure I could get the floor.

I am not in any way persuaded by the minister when she says that because they have an interministerial committee somehow children are not chopped up. I know that's always been the case in practice. That's the unfortunate part; interministerial committees do not solve the problem I talked about. They don't, because you have to know the field as I and my colleague know it — it goes on all the time. You should have one ministry and purchase service. You don't sit down and develop policy that way. That's not the way it should be done.

However, just going to the ombudsperson.... We're not talking about somebody that's separate from the ministry — what I'm saying is someone separate from the bureaucracy. That's possible; you can have that. It's not in any way pre-empting anybody's function; it's certainly not preempting the minister's function within the ministry. The minister obviously has the responsibility.

As my colleague from Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) said, who is going to speak for those children that are being chopped up between the parents? That's the thing. It's tough enough for the line workers to have that involvement; it's tough enough for somebody from the Attorney-General's department because they're in the unified family court having a go at them. That's two ministries already, and then if one of them's got a psychiatric problem we're into the Health department because of mental health.

Who stands apart and is able to look after the interests of the kid? A ministerial person can't do that — they're battling other ministries — but an ombudsperson can take a look at it and say: "Look, I'm here to protect the interests of that child. Never mind how you want to squabble about the child. I'm here for that particular function and you have to listen to me, because I'm trying to speak in the interests...." I'm not convinced in any way that the child advocacy program is functioning the way it should function. Nevertheless we're not just dealing with individual cases of children; we want to deal with the assistance that that individual could render in terms of the problems that are down the road. Somebody has to be looking at that, and unfortunately we don't do that. That's the function of that. I'm not in any way convinced, from what the minister said, that she has a real understanding of what actually takes place in the field.

Amendment negatived.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, this is supposed to be a Family and Child Service Act. Yet in outlining the principles, the section says that the act deals specifically with the well-being of a child and that that shall be the paramount consideration. As I mentioned earlier, the promotion of the family and the protection of the integrity of the family was covered in the draft legislation which was discarded when this was tabled before the House. The draft legislation talked about promoting the well-being of children by supporting individuals, families and communities in their endeavour to overcome difficulties which are detrimental to their best interest; to promote and strengthen the welfare of the family by the amelioration of conditions that are disruptive of family relationships; to assist parents in the discharge of parental responsibilities; and to encourage and assist the community and its agencies to cooperate and co-ordinate their activities to serve the well-being of the community, its families and the children. Now that's very long-winded, and I accept that.

That's the reason why I now move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper, which says quite simply that the section will read: "In the administration and interpretation of this act the safety and well-being of a child and the preservation of the family, shall be the paramount consideration."

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, this would not be acceptable. Also, it's out of order. But before your ruling on it let me just say that this is an instrument for the court. It's not a philosophical paper or document. It gives direction to the court when it comes to that point in time when children have to go before the court, or the parents or those standing for the child go before the court. The well-being of children is paramount in this bill. It is very definite; the paramountcy is underlined in more than one action in this bill. It is accepted in this province and this nation. I would suggest that in most parts of the world the well-being of the child is of prime importance. If we accept that point of view and we say that the judge will accept that point of view in every court in this land then we can't turn around and give direction to the judge that the paramountcy and safety and well-being of the child should be maintained and then say.... At the same time you're giving conflicting statements to the judge. You're giving to the court conflicting statements. They can't do both in some cases, unfortunately. Those are the sad and tragic cases. But again, it's only the sad and tragic cases that get to the point in time of the court.

[ Page 4164 ]

If you've read the bill, the other cases where the child can stay within the context of the family.... It's protected. We work with agreements with parents, and we work right along. If you'll notice in the act, it gives that transition from the child who can be treated within the home of the natural parent, who can be given services within the home or taken away from the home for a little while, given services and then services to the family and to the child and bring them together. But what we're addressing in this act as well are those tragic cases. You get to the court, and you can't give the court a conflicting statement that you are trying to give us in the rewording in your amendment, that you must look after the child and address yourself to the importance and the paramountcy of the well-being and the protection of that child, and then at the same time say you must assist the parents. Because they are in absolute conflict when it gets to that point. But the whole act does give, as the member is trying to say in a different way.... For the first time in this province it addresses itself to making sure that the family and child — the child in the context of the family — is addressed when possible. When it isn't, you can't give them a conflicting statement. It is out of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the Chair finds the amendment out of order, because it does impart a new principle to the bill, a principle that has been passed in second reading. Therefore the Chair cannot accept the amendment to section 2.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether you read the press release which went out with this piece of legislation or not, but it stated quite clearly that the strengthening and preserving the family was precisely what this act was supposed to do.

The minister is telling us that to instruct the courts that the preservation of the family and the protection of children is what this act is supposed to do is a contradiction. It is absolutely unreal that one should see the preservation of the family as contradicting protecting the rights of children. It doesn't make any sense at all to me. It's precisely because the legislation doesn't do that that there is such growing opposition to it. It's precisely because the legislation is more committed to the disintegration and the destruction of the family that there is so much growing opposition to the legislation. Now there are a large number of groups, including SPARC and the B.C. Association of Social Workers and the B.C. foster parents, who are opposed to this legislation. As I mentioned earlier, the word "family" appears in the title, and it never shows up anywhere again. Nobody in this province who cares a hoot about children wants to support legislation that sees the preservation of the family as contradictory to the rights of children. It doesn't make any sense.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

MS. BROWN: Again, in the same light of the bill having absolutely nothing in it positive in terms of commitment to the family, I have drafted what I would like to have accepted as new sections 3 to 6, which deal specifically with that.

"Subject to the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, the minister may do such things as he or she considers advisable to promote the growth and development of community services and resources designed to support families in the proper care of their children and to prevent circumstances that lead to family breakdown.

"2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), the minister may, subject to the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, where the minister considers it advisable:

"(a) provide consultative services to assist in the coordination of existing community and other services and in the development of new services;

"(b) provide funds by way of loans, grants or otherwise to assist in the research, development and maintenance of new community services and in the expansion and improvement of existing services;

"(c) conduct research with a view to ascertaining more effective methods of providing community and other services aimed at promoting, supporting and maintaining family life or carrying out the purposes of this act.

"4) The minister may, in order to enable a parent to maintain a child in his home, and in order to prevent the child from becoming a child in need of protection, assist the parent by providing such welfare services as the minister considers necessary and advisable.

"5) The minister may make such payments as he" — or she — "considers necessary to or for the benefit of a parent, child or other person whose special services or money are considered by the minister essential to enable the parent to care for the child."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, at this point the Chair has to find those motions out of order on the grounds that they impose obligations on the Crown, and further that standing order 67 rules out of order matters in the hands of a private member which involve the expenditure of public funds.

MS. BROWN: I haven't moved them yet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You can't speak to them if they're not moved, and they are under your name on the order paper, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: I was merely reading. Maybe the Chair can instruct me further in my attempt to make the bill really address itself to its title, which is the family and children. I am suggesting that the bill needs to be expanded to include the family; based on that, I have placed these amendments, which the Chair has ruled out of order, on the order paper.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, those are the rules of the House and of the committee. There is very little I can do about it. One cannot, as a private member, impose an impost or an obligation on the Crown. Also, the Journals will indicate that there was abundant discussion of the principle of this bill during second reading.

MS. BROWN: I'm not discussing the principle; I'm trying to amend the bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In this fashion it is out of order, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: Fair enough — unless the minister would like to respond.

[ Page 4165 ]

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

On section 5.

MS. BROWN: Again, Mr. Chairman, in an attempt to do something with the bill, which a growing number of people are asking the minister to withdraw because it's so inadequate, I would like to deal with a recommendation which I am going to move as an amendment after I've dealt with it. I would like to suggest that there be a new section 6 following the end of section 5, dealing with the temporary transfer of guardianship. On the order paper is an amendment which says that the superintendent and the parent....

Mr. Chairman, all I keep trying to do in these amendments is give the family a role; that's all I'm trying to do. I am totally opposed to a piece of legislation dealing with children which behaves as though families don't exist. This bill is an insult to the family; it's totally ignoring it; it's totally depreciating what it does. By moving these amendments I'm simply trying to bring to the minister's attention that parents do have a role and that that role should be taken into account. As it is on the order paper, Mr. Chairman, it reads: "The superintendent and the parent may enter into an agreement providing for the temporary transfer of guardianship from the parent to the superintendent after a judge has given approval in a court hearing at which the child has been legally represented." [See appendix, ]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: That amendment is not acceptable to the government. Firstly, it does provide for dollars to be spent, and therefore is out of order according to our rules. Secondly, the bill itself does provide for the very argument that the member brings up. There is a whole section dealing with agreements between parents and the representative of the child and the superintendent and the families. I think what the member is trying to do is misconstrue another part of the act as not addressing it, but it does. Besides, it is out of order. We don't accept the amendment.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

On section 7.

MS. BROWN: I am going to draw your attention to an amendment on the order paper. I haven't moved it; I'm just drawing it to your attention. section 7(3) deals with the duty of the individual to report instances of child abuse. I'm going to start off by saying that compared to the way in which child abuse was dealt with in the draft legislation presented to the minister, this whole section 1s totally inadequate. It has not dealt with the seriousness of child abuse in the way it should be dealt with.

For section 7(3) I have suggested that the present text should be deleted and the substituted section should read: "No action ties against a person making a report in good faith concerning suspected child abuse or neglect." I think this is a more reasonable way of dealing with that particular section. If it's at all possible for the minister to go back to the draft legislation, I hope she will also take into account that section dealing with child abuse and amend this entire section. That would also be appreciated.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I think the act as presented to the House says it better than the member has suggested. The act says: "No action lies against a person making a report under this section unless he makes it maliciously or without reasonable grounds for his belief." It's to be found in section 7(3). I think our act says it better in all of that duty-to-report section. When I originally introduced the bill. I think I recall saying that we tried to make it clear and in simple terms that could be understood by all people in the province. I think we've achieved that. I think this part says it better.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a couple of recommendations. after which I will move the amendments standing under my name on the order paper.

The first thing I would like to recommend is that in section 8 as it now stands, after the word "circumstances" in the second sentence, the word "promptly" be added. That sentence would then read: "Where the superintendent has received a report that a child is in need of protection, he shall investigate the circumstances promptly." The reason for that is that the act says "investigate," but it doesn't place any time limit on the investigation. As a direct result of the shortage of staff or the very large caseloads, there have been experiences where that investigation has not been carried out promptly, and the results have been deleterious as far as the children are concerned. I don't believe that the word "'promptly" is an impost on the Crown. I doubt that there is any money involved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: Thank you. It's such a surprise to get an amendment that's in order.

The other thing I'm suggesting, Mr. Chairman, is that that section be renumbered, that section 8 becomes section 8(1), that the word "promptly" be added to it, and that there be a new subsection (2). This is to deal with the necessity of a medical or psychological examination. It should read as follows: "Where the superintendent considers that a child is in need of a medical or psychological examination, and the parent unreasonably refuses to permit the examination, the superintendent may apply ex parte to a judge for an order authorizing any necessary examination." I move that amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

On the amendment.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to just explain a couple of things to the member on why we can't accept the amendment. First of all, there is no way that "promptly" can be interpreted; it's too broad a term. But can I say on this business of following up or of pursuing a case after report that the 12 hours you suggest and so on is a matter of policy and should be a matter of policy rather than put in an act, as you were suggesting.

I'll give you an example. We have a very large province, and thanks to the Zenith line — the Helpline for children — very many of these cases come to our attention a lot earlier

[ Page 4166 ]

than they did before. Therefore that in itself — just the very action of putting in the Helpline for children — has given us the awareness immediately. Our ministry has an obligation — and that is policy — that they must immediately follow up all calls, whether they come through the Zenith line or any other way, and they do. Now if we put in a "promptly" or a "12 hours" or whatever, and a social worker is on his or her way to a remote part of the province and the 12-hour limit or the interpretation of "promptly" is inhibited perhaps by a breakdown of that car — and maybe the automobile is the only way he or she can reach that family in that area — you're putting that imposition on through legislation. That would preclude, after the 12 hours, the capability of that child being apprehended and taken into the safety of the superintendent of child welfare for help to be given to the child.

We don't want to be hamstrung by that. We want to have the capability of acting as quickly as possible. It is our policy that we do so, and that we continue to do so. We don't want it written into the act and we won't accept the amendment.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, "promptly" is merely an indication of urgency. I certainly do not support the idea of 12 hours or 24 hours or whatever, because I certainly agree that it is a very large province and that sometimes social workers' cars break down, as everybody else's cars break down. I think that simply adding the word "promptly," or if the minister prefers, "as quickly as possible," may be policy, but we should have it written into the act so that it can be interpreted as such by the worker. It enhances the legislation. It certainly does not imply a criticism, I don't think, and it does not hurt in any event. It simply states that as far as the minister and this Legislature is concerned, when a report comes in we would like it to be investigated promptly or as quickly as possible, if the minister prefers to use those words. Not having any kind of indication as to the urgency of the situation written into the act is, I think, a mistake.

Amendment negatived.

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

MS. BROWN: This is a very important section. I think that, in speaking on the bill itself, there was some misunderstanding on the part of the minister when I said that included in this legislation is the possibility of a parent losing custody of a child even without a hearing. I was referring to the combination of section 9(1), which says, "Where the superintendent considers that a child is in need of protection he may, without warrant, apprehend that child," and section 10(1), which says, "Where a child is apprehended, the superintendent has, subject to section 15, the right to custody of the child until...." Now if one accepts these two sections, what that means is that parents can lose custody of their child without there ever being a court hearing. That is the reason, Mr. Chairman, why I am opposed to this particular section and have placed on the order paper an amendment which would give the parents some right.

It would also put some responsibility on the part of the superintendent to first of all contact the parent and try to work out some kind of an arrangement or agreement with the parent, and then, if that fails, the superintendent should proceed to apprehend. Now I recognize that sometimes parents are unavailable, unable, unwilling, cannot be found or whatever, and that the superintendent has to work very quickly. But I think the onus should be on the superintendent to recognize the existence of a parent and make contact with that parent first of all before apprehension should take place.

Once again, I think that this section 9(1) is behaving as though parents don't exist; it certainly is behaving as though parents have no rights. Even parents who neglect or parents who fail in some way to discharge their responsibilities to their children are, I think, entitled to at least some kind of contact with the superintendent or the person whom the superintendent has designated his or her authority to, before apprehension takes place.

Simply, Mr. Chairman, in the amendment which I am moving, I am suggesting that where the superintendent considers that a child is in need of protection, and the parent of the child is unable or unwilling to enter into an agreement under section 4 or 5, he shall bring the matter before a court for a hearing. Subsection (2): "the court shall hear and consider all evidence it considers relevant and where the court considers that the child is a child in need of protection, then the superintendent may apprehend the child."

I think, Mr. Chairman, that if the government is willing to accept that amendment to section 9(1), then section 10(1) is fine; it does not need to be amended. But as long as we have section 9(1), which gives the superintendent power to move in without a warrant and apprehend a child without any contact with the parent whatsoever, then section 10(1), which then gives the superintendent the power to have the right to custody of the child after the child is apprehended, is giving the superintendent awesome powers, and is not good enough.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'm sorry that the member is thoroughly confused. Frankly, since 1901 the Protection of Children Act has been in this province, and this act replaces it. The power to apprehend if a child is in danger has always been implicit. What you are saying in this debate on the amendment is that there has to be a hearing before one can apprehend a child. If you would just refer to the procedure following apprehension in the act, which is number 11(1), you will see that because the child is in danger, the child is taken and then within seven days after that time the superintendent is compelled to bring the case before the court. So the court is obligated to set a hearing at that time.

If we take the member's amendment, it would mean that we could have a child being abused in the time that the authority is being given by the court. The child could be dead. We will not accept this amendment, Mr. Chairman.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, since 1901 the way in which the act has been conducted has been wrong. That's precisely, I thought, why amendments were introduced. The act which has been in existence since 1901 is not satisfactory.

According to the way in which this act has been rewritten, what actually happens is that a child who is in danger can be apprehended without the parents being notified in some instances. And there have been some instances where parents simply did not even know that their child was apprehended for a while and didn't know where the child was. Then after seven days there is a court hearing, at which time the judge simply sets a date, and according to this act, the date has to be within a period of 45 days. This means, Mr. Chairman, that it's possible that a parent doesn't get to see a

[ Page 4167 ]

child for at least 45 days. If, in fact, the commitment is to the reintegration of the family — and obviously it isn't in this piece of legislation — then the superintendent should have a responsibility to try to work out some kind of agreement with the parents first.

If after the superintendent, or the social worker to whom the superintendent has delegated his authority, meet with the parents and satisfy themselves that this child is in clear and imminent danger, and needs to be apprehended, fair enough. Then apprehension should take place, and the whole court procedure go on.

But the way in which it has been happening since 1901.... As someone who has been involved as a social worker in the apprehension of children, there are a lot of children who don't get apprehended who should be apprehended, because social workers.... We don't approve of this way of treating parents. Moving an amendment which says that first of all the social worker has to have some contact with the parent and say, "Listen, you are abusing or neglecting this child, or you have abandoned this child, therefore this child is going to be apprehended," is simply an act of recognizing that a parent is a parent. Even an unfit parent is a parent and should be entitled to some kind of recognition in this case.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 9 and 10 approved.

On section 11.

MS. BROWN: Again we're dealing with apprehensions. Subsection 1 says: "Where a child is apprehended, the superintendent shall, not later than 7 days after the apprehension and whether or not the child is still in his custody, present a written report to the court." I would like to suggest that we delete the present text and substitute instead: "Where a child is apprehended, the superintendent or a person designated by him shall within 7 days of the apprehension bring the child before the court and swear out a complaint in writing that the child is in need of protection or is in immediate and physical danger."

Quite frankly, I don't know why I keep putting up a fight for the family, but anyway this is simply one more attempt to get the law to at least reflect some kind of recognition of the role of parents, even those parents who neglect their children, and that simply presenting a written statement to the court is not good enough. That child should be brought into court, and at that time the social worker should swear out a complaint in writing and state to the courts the reason why that child is being apprehended. The minister has in her possession — exactly the same way that I have — all kinds of letters and briefs from single parents, mothers as well as fathers, talking about the way in which they are treated once their kids have been apprehended for one reason or another. Seven days after that child is apprehended that child should be presented in court. A written statement is not good enough. At that time the social worker should have to state quite clearly why that child is being apprehended.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

On the amendment.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: There is under this act the written report to the court, and I'd like to address that particularly. We did not think that in every instance the child should be brought into court. There are some times when the child should not be. This act gives the judge total responsibility to bring the child into court. In some cases it may not be either desirable or necessary to have a baby stay in court for some hours. It should be up to the judge to make that decision, and this act gives him full capability to do so. It also make sure that there'll be a written report, and you'll note that under presentation of a report is implied in the bill. We are not accepting the amendment as put forward by the hon. member.

Amendment negatived.

Section 11 approved.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, maybe you can give me some advice on this. Missing from this legislation is a section which I would like to insert. Is it going to be possible to do that here or not? It has to do with the lay panels which were introduced to deal with the care of Indian children. May I?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You would have to make an amendment in written form and send it to the Chair so the Chair could make a decision and rule on it, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I think standing in my name on the order paper is, or should be, a new section 12 dealing with panels. As you know, there were a number of pilot projects dealing with panels. That particular section made it possible for the Indian community to have some input....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Attorney-General on a point of order.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, you've just called for the vote on section 11; you haven't called section 12 yet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: section 11 passed.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Have you called section 12? The minister has an amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister has an amendment to section 12.

MS. BROWN: I know, but I haven't reached section 12.

On a point of order. Mr. Chairman, I stood to ask your advice. The question I was putting to you was that I wanted to substitute a new section 12, which would be dealt with instead of the existing section 12. This would be a new section 12, not the existing section 12. I suggested to the Chairman that standing in my name on the order paper is a new section 12. I was merely asking whether it would be possible for me to speak on this new section 12 dealing with the lay panels which makes it possible for the Indian community to have some input into decisions affecting their children. Or whether I would have to wait until after section

[ Page 4168 ]

12 itself had been called — the old section 12 — and was being debated.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, without prejudicing your case on your amendment on the order paper, I will call section 12 first, and the amendment of the hon. minister.

On section 12.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I move the amendment standing on the order paper in my name. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

On section 12 as amended.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I also had an amendment on the old section 12(4) where I wanted something added after the word "relates." In other words: "when a notice is served on a person under this section he or his agent have a right to be heard at a hearing to which the notice relates, and to be represented by legal counsel." I had that amendment as well.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, in reviewing the amendment, the amendment must be found out of order on the same basis, that it does impose an obligation on the Crown and an expenditure by the Crown.

MS. BROWN: Sure. I certainly accept your ruling, Mr. Chairman, that it does impose a cost on the Crown. But nonetheless, I had hoped that the government would have recognized the importance of legal counsel and would have been willing to accept the amendment, or even to introduce it as their own.

I'm wondering now whether it's a good time for me to move the other amendment standing in my name on the order paper, which deals with the reintroduction of the lay panels, Mr. Chairman. They are sections 12 through to 19. Really, all they do is to take the old lay panels which were removed from the original act, and reintroduce them into this act. The Indian community are asking not that the panels be eliminated, but in fact that they be expanded. Certainly the B.C. Native Court Workers and Counselling Association, the Gitksan-Carrier Tribal Council, the Kamloops Native Court Workers, the United Native Nations Society, the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council, the Alliance of Indian Bands, the North Coast Tribal Council, the Cariboo Tribal Council, the B.C. Native Women's Society, Lakes District Tribal Council, and the Spallumcheen band, have all submitted telegrams, which I'm quite happy to table in the House, asking that first of all the bill be lifted until they've had a chance to meet with the Attorney-General as well as with the Minister of Human Resources to discuss the disappearance of the lay panels.

In the meantime I would like to introduce this amendment and ask the government if it would be willing to accept it or not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Again, I must find that, as the hon. member is familiar, when one part of an amendment is found to be out of order, then the whole amendment is in fact out of order. I so rule on the amendments submitted by the member.

The question, therefore, hon members is: shall section 12 as amended pass?

Section 12 as amended approved.

Section 13 approved.

On section 14.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman.... Oh, sorry.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister has an amendment. Would the member yield for the minister?

MS. BROWN: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, there are a large number of amendments. It is very difficult for one to keep up with the calling of the sections when there are people on the other side of the House yelling "aye, aye, aye" as one goes along. I think, simply as a matter of courtesy and recognizing that I have something like 20 or more amendments on the order paper, that at least time should be allowed for each section to be dealt with.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must again point out that the amendments have been ruled out of order.

MS. BROWN: It wasn't ruled out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I ruled the amendments out of order, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: Sorry, Mr. Chairman. I was referring to section 13, but before I could move the amendment on the order paper under section 13, you had whipped on to another section because of all the "ayes" which were going on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I possibly didn't make it clear to the hon. member, but in finding part of the amendment out of order I have ruled all of the amendments by the member out of order; that would include section 13 and goes right on, hon. member, up to section 19. All amendments have been ruled out of order. I will quote from Beauchesne, page 153, section 428: "When an amendment is irregular in one particular, the whole of it is not admissible and must be ruled out of order." So, hon. member, the amendments submitted on the order paper by the hon. member have now been ruled out of order in totality by the Chair.

MS. BROWN: I'd like to speak on section 13.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now the hon. member is asking to go back to section 13. Again, hon. member, having passed section 13, I must now ask leave.

Leave granted.

On section 13.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, section 13 deals with children. It speaks specifically about the court ordering "the superintendent to retain or retake custody of the child for a

[ Page 4169 ]

period the court considers appropriate, not exceeding 12 months." What I would like to suggest, Mr. Chairman, is that, now that the act has raised the age to 19, it doesn't make any sense to have one time period to deal with everyone from an infant right through a 91-year-old. In fact, the experiences of children below the age of 5, for example, are quite different to those of older children; the act should have taken that into account. Really, what it should have done was to break it down by saying: "...not exceeding six months for children from, say, six months to five years of age." Then for children over five years of age it would have been possible to say: "...to a period of 12 months." That should have been taken into account.

Again, the draft legislation which I want to draw to the minister's attention recognized this difference between children under the age of 5 and children over the age of 5, whether dealing with temporary custody or any other form of custody. It took into account the fact that, for children five years of age and younger, the impact of any kind of separation from parents or the impact of being placed in a foster home or in any form of custodial care would be quite different than for children between 5 and 19, which is covered in the act.

I would like to ask the minister why this was not taken into account. To have just one blanket time-frame for all children from infancy up to the age of 19 certainly doesn't seem to recognize the fact that children mature at different ages, and that children's experiences are different depending on their maturity.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Again, the member addresses policy as opposed to practice. Let me just say that we have implied a time in this act. As it reads now, section 13 says "not exceeding," which means up to 12 months. To put time limits on the treatment is, in our view.... Considering the court process that we have, and the time of the court, in most cases the shortest time possible is used. But if we have to go back to the court for a court hearing, that in itself is a delay. If a case can be completed within seven, six or three months, it will be; that is our policy. But if we have to go back after six months, when needing only one more month with that child — to go back and get another hearing just to get another month — the time constraints on the court are such that it is just not practical.

Again, I say that it just can't be acceptable, and I think that the member would well know that in policy.... You're arguing a policy thing, which.... This gives us the flexibility, and I think that's what we need in the act. I really don't find that amendment or that suggestion acceptable.

Section 13 approved.

On section 14.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 14 as amended approved.

Sections 15 and 16 approved.

On section 17.

MS. BROWN: I want to make a couple of comments. I know that the amendments are ruled out of order, but maybe the minister can explain to me some of the decisions.

Under subsection (3), why didn't this section have a new subsection which would have given the courts the authority when, after listening to all of the information and deciding that the enforcement of all or part of this section was contrary to the best interests of the child, give the courts the authority to waive, with respect to any person? In other words, where the courts consider that enforcement of all or part of this section was contrary to the best interest of the child, why does the court not have the authority to order that an application of all or part of this subsection be waived with respect to other sections? That's the first thing I'd like.

Also, again on behalf of parents, subsection (1) says: "A person who has custody of a child under an order of agreement under this Act shall (a) allow the superintendent...." Why did it not also include "parent" and read: "...allow the superintendent and the parent" or "or the parent to visit the child and inspect the place where the child lives"? Why was that right not allowed to parents as well as to the superintendent or the superintendent's designate?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, section 2 covers the first point under principles, and section 4 covers the second point, where the capability of the parents' visiting and so on is all taken into consideration. So that's already covered in other sections of the act.

Section 17 approved.

On section 18.

MS. BROWN: What I would like to see in terms of the public investigation section, which is section 18, is that this be done by an independent person not affiliated with the ministry. As it now stands, it says that when it is found that the placement of the child is in a place which is not in the best interest of the child, there should be a public investigation and this person should report to the minister or to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. What I'm suggesting is that instead of that, the person who does the investigation should be independent, and certainly the reporting should be. This section should have read: "The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council shall appoint three persons independent of the Ministry of Human Resources to inquire into and report on the conditions experienced by the child and make recommendations for improvement in the programs and living arrangements." Sections 12, 15 and 16 of the Inquiry Act should apply.

There could be a conflict of interest in terms of social workers investigating premises where they have themselves placed the child. Maybe what we need is an independent group or an independent person to be responsible for that kind of investigation. From time to time we hear stories of foster homes that are not quite up to snuff, or group homes that are not quite satisfactory, yet children are being placed in them by social workers. So it doesn't make sense then to ask the same social workers to conduct an investigation on those homes. An independent investigation would have made more sense.

[ Page 4170 ]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: In response to that, the flexibility is very much implied in that act. The Inquiry Act does give a capability of having another person do it. If there is any suggestion that the member knows of any areas that are not suitable, I would like her to let me know about them, but that's apart from the act. A little aside, if you may, Mr. Chairman, but the act itself covers and has the flexibility that the member seems to wish, and I believe it's implied there.

Section 18 approved.

On section 19.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, very briefly I would just like to once again touch on the fact that nowhere in the act is legal counsel guaranteed for the children themselves who may be involved. I'm wondering why at this point the minister did not introduce a section which would say that a child may have legal representation at any stage in proceedings before the court in any matter affecting the guardianship, custody or status of that particular child. Nowhere in the act does a child have status, and that probably is the reason there is no commitment to ensuring that the child has legal representation. It seems to me that somewhere in terms of the procedures before the courts and the power of the court, the child should not only be heard but legal counsel should be afforded the child to ensure that the child is heard in the most competent manner possible. The only way to do this before the courts is to have legal counsel.

The other thing is, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there should have been an amendment that said: "Where in a proceeding a referred child does not have legal representation, the court shall, as soon as practicable in the proceedings, determine whether legal representation is desirable to protect the interest of the child." If at that time or at any later stage in the proceedings the court determines that legal representation is desirable, then the court should be able to direct that the child be provided immediately with legal representation. Now I recognize that you ruled that amendment out of order as well because it does represent an impost on the Crown, and one cannot do that. Maybe the minister could explain why there is not a guarantee of legal representation for the child anywhere in this act.

Mr. Speaker, I raised the question of legal representation and I'm just wondering whether the minister would explain what kind of legal protection the child has on its own behalf, if there is no guarantee that it has legal counsel before the courts.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I think the member knows that that commitment is fulfilled in many ways: through the courts, through the judge, through the superintendent of children and through capabilities in other legislation which gives legal aid in this province through all kinds of capabilities throughout the province. It does not have to be written in and duplicated in this act.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, it's precisely because I know it's not fulfilled that I'm raising it. Now that the act covers young people up to the age of 19, we do have a number of young people coming into the courts for one reason or another who do not have legal counsel, either through the superintendent of child welfare providing such legal counsel or through legal aid. That's the reason why I suggested that it should be enshrined in the legislation, Mr. Chairman, that the government has a commitment to ensuring that none of these young people appear before the courts without competent legal counsel. I would have gone even further and said not just legal counsel but competent Legal counsel. It's not covered, Mr. Chairman.

Sections 19 to 33 inclusive approved.

On the title.

MS. BROWN: Well, Mr. Chairman, as I pointed out earlier, the title is misleading and misrepresentative. This legislation has nothing to do with family and and children's service; it's an amendment to the Protection of Children Act, and that's what its title should be. I moved such an amendment and the Chairman ruled it out of order, but I would like the record to show that Bill 45 is merely an amendment to the Protection of Children Act and does not in any way represent an act dealing with services either to children or to their families.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I do want to just respond to that and have it on the record. All throughout the debate on this act the member has said there is no mention of the family. The term parent is used throughout the bill, and it is pretty hard to be a parent without having a family. It is also, Mr. Chairman, implied throughout the bill that the services to families and children are paramount throughout the bill, and I might say for the first time in this province.

Title approved.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 45, Family and Child Service Act, reported complete with amendments.

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

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 45, Family and Child Service Act, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 36.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS ACT

The House in committee on Bill 36; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

[ Page 4171 ]

On section 1.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Sections 2 to 6 inclusive approved.

On section 7.

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

On the amendment.

MS. SANFORD: I'm wondering why the minister has made the particular change where he now makes it up to the employer to choose whether or not he shall make these particular deductions. Before, he had: "the employer shall make the deductions when requested" and now it says, "may." Could the minister explain the rationale for that particular amendment?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I thank the hon. member for the question. The reason is this: in some cases it would appear that an employee may place a considerable burden upon the employer with respect to acknowledging assignments in a number of areas. I thought the best way of handling it would be through some form of cooperation between the employer and the employee. I will be very candid with you: it's just not to burden the employer with numerous assignments for the purpose of paying an employee's accounts.

Amendment approved.

On section 7 as amended.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper.

I'm sure the minister will want to thank us for this particular amendment, because the initial drafting of the legislation left out any reference whatsoever to board and lodging. It was not until the situation was brought to the attention of his officials that he himself brought in some reference to board and lodging in his own amendments to section 105.

This section is to ensure that people who are required to have room and board as part of their condition of employment, or who have to rely on transportation as part of the condition of employment, such as the farmworkers in the Fraser Valley who are now being picked up by farm labour contractors, are in fact paying a reasonable rate for that room and board or transportation. I would hope that the minister will accept this amendment because the amendment where board and lodging is referred to by the minister himself does not include the word "transportation." I think that is an omission on the part of the minister in drawing up this particular Bill 36.

We have situations in the Fraser Valley particularly, Mr. Chairman, where employees are forced to pay unreasonable rates for transportation in order to get to and from work. These people are not aware of their rights; in fact they have no rights under the present statute. But these people should not be put in a position, once this bill has been passed, where they can in fact have large portions of their wages taken away through the costs of transportation provided to them by a contractor of some type. I feel that the omission the minister has made in his own amendment — that of leaving out the transportation — is really an oversight on his part. I'm assuming that he will be accepting this amendment because of it.

The other thing with respect to this amendment relates to board and lodging as such. At this stage I'm not sure whether the minister could include some provision to ensure that some kind of standard is set for board and lodging for employees who, as part of their work, are required to live at the place where they work. We saw in the last day or two a lot of publicity on the situation in the Fraser Valley. Employees were living in very substandard conditions. Here we're talking about the rate that is paid. Surely the minister must, either in this legislation, in another piece of legislation, or at least in carrying out the recommendation of the inquest, conduct some sort of investigation into the conditions under which employees live and make the necessary amendments, either here in this statute or under something else, such as the Factory Act. I move the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I was hoping the minister would give us a reason for not accepting this particular word "transportation." I'm sure it was an oversight on their part.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the amendment has failed.

Section 7 as amended approved.

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

On section 10.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 10 as amended approved.

Section 11 approved.

On section 12.

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

On the amendment.

MS. SANFORD: Reference was made to this during second reading of the bill. In winding up second reading, the

[ Page 4172 ]

minister indicated that there was in fact provision for the director of the new employment standards board to issue orders where some contravention of this statute had been carried out. The minister may not recall. I think he's looking to see what his amendment is all about.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, I'm aware of it.

MS. SANFORD: You may recall, Mr. Chairman, that during second reading we were concerned about this proposed amendment, because it seemed to eliminate from the director's authority the right to issue an order where various provisions had been contravened. For instance, if an employer did not comply with the section that relates to maternity protection, the director or the board was then not empowered to issue an order.

I know the minister went back and had some consultation over lunch that day and was able to give us an explanation at that time. I have since checked out that explanation, and I'm wondering why the minister is moving this amendment today. If, in fact, the minister is satisfied that the director will be able to issue orders wherever these particular provisions, such as maternity leave, are violated, why wasn't that seen in the first place? Was it sloppy drafting? I suspect it was.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the maternity provision, if you would make reference to section 56 and read it in conjunction with section 13(5), as I suggested at the time — in order to avoid the duplication of going through one hearing and then another hearing. In fact, the resolution and the acknowledgement of section 56, read in conjunction with that, required the deletion of reference to certain other sections. What I'm concerned about is that when I look to section 27 as being the section immediately before us, the concern here....

MS. SANFORD: Section 27?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'm referring to section 27. Isn't that the section we're on, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. minister, we're on the amendment to section 12.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I thought they made reference to the other one. Pardon me. I apologize, Mr. Chairman — and to the member.

My explanation with respect to section 56, when read in conjunction with section 13(5), applies, so that we avoid a duplication. The member is quite correct in the issue that she has raised. Consequently, those deletions.... I assure you that some of these things came to our attention after the bill had been introduced.

MR. SANFORD: I am pleased to accept the minister's explanation that it was just sloppy drafting.

Amendment approved.

Section 12 as amended approved.

Sections 13 to 26 inclusive approved.

On section 27.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

Amendment approved.

Section 27 as amended approved.

Sections 28 and 29 approved.

On section 30.

MS. SANFORD: I would like to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MS. SANFORD: This amendment is a very simple one. It simply ensures that overtime wage provisions shall apply to live-in domestics. There has been some confusion around this as a result of the press conference the minister held when this bill was first introduced. I know the impression was left with a number of people that after he brings in his regulations live-in domestics would in fact not qualify for the overtime provisions. I would just like the assurance of the minister that overtime provisions will apply to live-in domestics, that it's not a problem in terms of administering the act, and that the minister will therefore accept this to assure everybody out there that live-in domestics will be covered in the same way.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I'm afraid the member has misunderstood what I've said. I made it clear at the time that the provisions with respect to overtime and hours of work would exempt live-in domestics.

MS. SANFORD: Exempt them?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Again, I shall repeat what I said. At the press conference I made it clear that regulations would exempt live-in domestics from overtime and hours of work. The regulations are going to be structured so as to assure that the minimum wage and those other benefits under the act will apply. I appreciate that the hon. member is taking exception to that point. I can really say nothing else but that I want to be very clear and open with you on it.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, it makes absolutely no sense to exempt domestics from overtime or hours-of-work provisions. It is absolute nonsense. There is absolutely no reason why a person who is a live-in domestic cannot keep track of her hours the same as any other worker in this province. Why is it that domestics who happen to be live-ins have to live under a different set of rules than other workers in this province, who have minimal standards under which they have to work? I have worked on various jobs where the hours had to be split. Sometimes there would be a rest period in the afternoon for even two or three hours, and it was required that you come back and work sometimes until 8 or 9 in the evening. It was very easy to keep track of those hours worked. Why can a live-in domestic not keep track of the hours she works and then qualify for overtime and hours-of work-provisions the same as any other employee in this province?

The minister has given us absolutely no rationale as to

[ Page 4173 ]

why he wishes to exempt them from those provisions. He has given us no reason why a domestic cannot keep track of the hours she works. Why should she not qualify for overtime provisions?

AN HON. MEMBER: Or he.

MS. SANFORD: Or he — you're right. And you may need a job after the next election.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MS. SANFORD: It is absolute nonsense for the minister to say it is difficult to keep track of your hours of work if you are a live-in. I wonder if the minister could give a rationale for his particular thinking with respect to the exemption of domestics from overtime provisions when they are live-in or from the hours of work.

MR. MUSSALLEM: The hon. member for Comox has to be admired for her tenacity. But here we see again the socialist atmosphere against the democratic way of life.

MS. SANFORD: What!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member relate this to the amendment.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Remember that a domestic has to be accepted into a family. She misses that point. That is the reason a domestic cannot keep time. You are accepted into the family as part of the family, and the principle that you have your time recorded doesn't work in the family scene. As part of the family, a domestic.... That's the point at issue.

Interjection.

MR. MUSSALLEM: There can be that. But a domestic does not work that way. A domestic is part of the family, and as part of the family takes part in family life, and that's the way it should be.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I don't know if the member from Dewdney has heard or not, but slavery has been abolished. It actually has!

AN HON. MEMBER: Not for him.

MS. BROWN: Obviously, he has no understanding of what's involved in being a domestic, because for all intents and purposes he's never been one.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, but he owns several.

MS. BROWN: Although he may own several, as the member said.

But there are two things that we should look at here, and one which the minister doesn't take into account, of course, is the extended definition of domestic under this act, now that it covers people working in long-term care who also live in group homes; employees of the Ministry of Human Resources and the Ministry of Health — homemakers, a number of whom live in the homes too. The minister is saying that they're not covered by hours of work and that they are not covered by overtime. So that specific group of domestics the minister has to give some explanation for.

The other argument....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Sorry, the Minister of Municipal Affairs is saying something. What are you saying?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Does your nanny keep a time sheet?

MS. BROWN: I haven't got a nanny. Does your nanny keep a time sheet?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, back to the amendment.

MS. BROWN: The minister asked me if my nanny kept a time sheet, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to let the record show that I haven't got a nanny. I take care of myself.

But in any event, Mr. Chairman, one knows that a person who works in the home.... There are 24 hours in a day. It's quite simple to say: of the 24 hours you work 10 hours, or you work 8 hours, or you work 7 hours. It is quite easy for an employer to sit down with his household help who live in, and say X number of hours I am expecting you to be on the job — the rest of the time you're on your own. The refusal to accept that is a refusal to recognize that the job which these women do in the home — most of whom, incidentally, are immigrants, so it's very easy to exploit them, because what happens in fact is that if they are not content with the slave labour which is imposed on them, they are told, as the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) told me, to go back where they came from.... That's precisely the problem that we're dealing with.

This is a very cruel hoax. The minister, first of all, says that they are covered by the legislation, and then we are told that regulation is going to exempt this coverage. Overtime is a very vital part of being a domestic. That's very crucial. Whether the minister wants to say the 40-hour week does not apply to domestics, or the thirty-seven-and-a-half-hour week, or that overtime does not come into effect until after a domestic has put in 100 hours a week, or whatever, there should be some cognizance taken of the fact that people who do work and live in the home as domestics can work overtime and should be paid for whatever time is done that is considered to be overtime.

It is not good enough for the minister to say that because they are domestics it's okay, that they should live as indentured slaves. If they're not covered by hours of work, and they're not covered by overtime, then they are indentured. Let's get that fact straight.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment pass?

MS. BROWN: Division! Let's find out who the slaveholders are in this House. You're totally disgraceful!

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

[ Page 4174 ]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

NAYS — 26

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

Section 30 approved.

On section 31.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 31 as amended approved.

On section 32.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment on this section, which would make working conditions a little more humane for those who are required to work under these minimal conditions. What I'm asking here is that instead of requiring an employee to work five consecutive hours without any kind of lunch break or food break, the wording be changed to four hours. It seems to me that four hours is a far more reasonable period of time that you can expect an employee to be under continuous working conditions without any kind of break whatsoever. I think five hours is quite acceptable if in fact there have been breaks — coffee breaks, if you wish to call them that — of at least ten minutes. I am urging that the minister accept this to make the conditions of employment a little more humane for those who work under minimal standards.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. The member speaking can hardly be heard. That's not fair at all to the member speaking.

MS. SANFORD: I'm just hoping that the minister will accept this amendment which does improve conditions slightly for those working under the basic minimal standards provided by this province.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 32 to 34 inclusive approved.

On section 35.

MS. SANFORD: Here again, Mr. Chairman, I'm only attempting to improve the working conditions of employees in this province by ensuring that they have a full two days off. I think that it is accepted now in North America that two days per week free from employment is a pretty minimal standard. Instead of putting 48 hours, the minister has chosen to leave it at 32 consecutive hours where an employee must have time off in any given week. I would urge the minister to accept this amendment which increases the time off that employees have from 32 hours in any given week to 48 hours, so that people can enjoy a full two days as you and I do, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I have one brief comment, Mr. Chairman. The problem is that the realities of the workplace often are that we find people who, by preference, wish to work four, five or six hours per day, extended over a period of six days. This matter was canvassed, I can assure you. Consequently, with all respect, I can't accept the amendment, Madam Member.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 35 to 39 inclusive approved.

On section 40.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 40 as amended approved.

Section 41 approved.

On section 42.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, again I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. This one I think is the section of all sections that the minister should have included. It relates to the problems of modern technology, mass layoffs and plant closures without notification. As I pointed out in second reading, the minister has not even recognized that that problem exists in 1980. As a result, I am including in this amendment some notification where there are mass layoffs, provision for a committee to be established so that people can be retrained and find suitable alternate employment.

When the minister wound up second reading of this particular bill, the minister said that there were already enough provisions, that he had a ministry that helped people relocate, and that they cooperated with the federal government. Mr. Chairman, that simply is not good enough.

[ Page 4175 ]

In the case of Ocean Falls — and he mentioned Ocean Falls — people did find employment again, but that was because they had skills that were needed in other parts of the province. It was not that difficult to relocate those particular employees. But we all know that the whole apprenticeship training program has been one that's been sadly lacking. We all know that people have difficulty in finding new work if they don't have skills that are now in critical shortage in this province.

I think the minister realizes that because he didn't put any provision in for mass layoffs and plant closures, he has made a grave omission in the basic employment standards. I'm hoping the minister will accept this amendment.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I have to advise that the concern the hon. member is expressing is something we have addressed. This provision, to which reference is made and incorporated to some degree within the amendment as proposed by the member, has been tried in Ontario. Within that jurisdiction there are a number of problems with respect to mass layoffs and the notice. Apparently it is fraught with problems, and it is something I intend to explore during my term in office. I can assure you that I will. I don't think I'll have time to go into all the details, but I was sufficiently satisfied with the information which was passed along to me as a result of inquiry. It was too risky to make such a proposal and incorporate it without thoroughly exhausting all the ramifications.

I have another point with respect to the mass layoff provision. I think there is a certain amount of protection under the notice provisions of the legislation. It may not be satisfactory, but I think it's best that I make the appropriate inquiries before I introduce anything of that nature into the House. I appreciate your comments, Madam Member, and they're certainly not without merit.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, the minister talks about problems in Ontario. There's no doubt that there are problems in Ontario. We've got these thousands and thousands of workers who are without work, because they don't have these kinds of provisions. The provisions now exist under the Canada Labour Code. They exist under the statutes in Nova Scotia and also Quebec. They have provisions for mass layoffs so that people have ample notification that there is going to be a plant closure, so they can make adjustments with respect to mortgage payments and future education of their children — all the problems that result from a mass layoff, particularly in a one-industry town.

It seems to me that the very least the minister could do is to establish committees made up of the company, the employees and the government officials so that relocation can be studied and alternatives can be found, in terms of retraining or whatever else is necessary.

The existing facilities within his own ministry are not adequate for mass layoffs, Mr. Chairman. They were in the case of Ocean Falls, perhaps, because of that highly-skilled labour force that was required elsewhere. The minister indicated to us that he was quite successful in finding alternate jobs for these people, but we're in an age where we can expect to face this kind of mass layoff time and time again. It's happening in the newspaper industry and it's happening in almost any industry you can name. For the minister to have omitted these provisions in this statute is indeed backward looking. He is not looking at all to the future; he is not recognizing 1980 for what it is, and the kinds of problems that exist with plant closures and mass layoffs.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 17

NAYS — 26

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

On section 42.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I have a second amendment under section 42. This amendment relates to unfair dismissal. At the moment the employer is required to give notice when he is going to lay off an employee. In many cases, this could very well be an unfair dismissal. Maybe the employer has decided that after 20 years the employee is no longer as useful as he might be, that he would rather have younger people in, or whatever the problem might be. Because that employee is still doing an excellent job for the company, he has no right of recourse to be reinstated in his position. What you have is simply the employer giving the required notice under the legislation and saying: "I'm going to lay you off two weeks hence. You are finished." The employee has no alternative but to accept that decision of the employer, no matter how unfair it might be.

What I'm proposing under this amendment is that an arbitration procedure be established under the employment standards legislation whereby the employee, once he has gone to the employment standards board and the unfair Dismissal issue has'not been resolved, can then go to an arbitrator or an arbitration board to determine whether that was in fact an unfair dismissal.

After an employee has worked for a company for years and years, I think the least he could expect is that an arbitration hearing be held with respect to an unfair dismissal. I move that amendment.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: While I appreciate the concerns expressed — and I don't think anyone would take exception to those remarks at all — I would respectfully suggest that the right of recourse in something in this area is where it has

[ Page 4176 ]

always been in the event of an unjust dismissal — that is, with the courts. Now the protection which is here. which does not exist at the present time as far as minimum standards are concerned, is found in the provision of notice. The law will now provide that notice, and that is the protection. Really the cause is not the factor; the question is: if there is no just cause, if nothing like that does exist, notice may still be given to lay someone off. The question then becomes: is reinstatement relevant? I submit that in most circumstances it would probably not be. That's why we had one of the provisions involving notice, Mr. Chairman. After a period of three years, it's one week; it goes up to a maximum of eight weeks — approximately two months — after a period of nine years' service.

But I might also add, Mr. Chairman, that my quick review of the law cases in the area of dismissal, and particularly unjust dismissal, affords very adequate protection and compensation to any employee who has been dismissed without cause. The most interesting case I might mention involved the dismissal of a butcher who had been employed for a period of eight months. It was quite evident that there was no cause whatsoever, and he was awarded, as I recall, four months' damages.

MS. SANFORD: What about reinstatement? Was he reinstated?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No. The question really is that compelling reinstatement if someone is dismissed is a very difficult thing to consider, and I just can't accept it. I appreciate the concerns and I'd like to think that the provision with respect to notice in the new legislation and the protection added to an employee — and particularly over a long period of time, by the adding of one week per year — provides some measure of protection. But there is far greater protection found in the case law of this country. I might also add that if you compare jurisdictions across the country, you will find that the proposal is quite adequate.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I think that the minister's explanation about his reasoning for not accepting this particular proposal is very inadequate. He says: "You have access to the courts." How many employees who are working under these minimal standards are going to take the risk of paying those outrageous lawyers' fees to get them to court in the first place? It seems to me that they should have under this particular legislation the right to arbitration provided through the Employment Standards Board, that this is an alternative. They go to the board; the board cannot resolve the issue; then they should be able to go to arbitration without having to go to the expense of going to court — to say nothing of the time, delay and heartache and everything that's involved in that particular procedure.

MR. MACDONALD: I want to say I agree entirely with the member for Comox.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 42 to 48 inclusive approved.

On section 49.

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

Amendments approved.

Section 49 as amended approved.

On section 50.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I move the three amendments standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendments.

MS. SANFORD: I'm just wondering if the minister would explain why he has changed his mind with respect to requiring written permission of the Employment Standards Board or the director with respect to employing a child under the age of 15. Initially, written permission was required and that, for some reason, has been removed. I'm wondering why.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, the reason is really a matter of flexibility. One of the concerns which we had involved berry pickers and young children. It seems to me that issuing permits for this number would have been very impractical. What do you do with three or four hundred children who are suddenly going to be working, if they wish, in some particular area involving agriculture in any part of the province? It was a matter of flexibility; I can assure you of that.

Amendments approved.

Section 50 as amended approved.

Sections 51 to 56 inclusive approved.

On section 57.

MS. SANFORD: This particular amendment, standing in my name on the order paper really puts back a particular reference that was contained in the original legislation with respect to employment standards in this province. That is the section that relates to proper notification of prospective employees where there is a labour dispute taking place. This section and section 79 are in fact strike-breaking sections because employees can be directed to places of employment where there is a major labour dispute underway and not know anything about it. It's part of the old deceived-workers legislation. I can't, for the life of me, understand why the minister has not made it clear in his new legislation that an employer cannot send an employee into a workplace where there is a strike, a lockout or a major dispute going on without notifying that employee about the situation.

The minister gave some explanation about some new section in his bill. I think he gave the wrong number the day that he was winding up debate on this particular legislation, but the section that the minister referred to — at least the one I assumed he referred to — does not make provision for an employer to give notification to that prospective employee of a dispute that's taking place. I think that the section the minister referred to was 75, where the director may

[ Page 4177 ]

refuse.... I may be wrong. I can't remember the number the minister gave the other day, but maybe he has that information at his fingertips. The point is that this legislation does not provide for the employer specifically to notify that employee of a dispute. That could very well be interpreted as strike-breaking in this province, and there's no way we're going to accept this legislation without that amendment.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The purpose of the section as presently drafted and presented was to cover not only the concerns which you have specifically expressed but a number of others. I think the important thing is the intent and the message, and that is that any agency shall operate in the best interests of not only the employer but the employee. I can assure you that the object of the game was that if some employment agency was to operate in a manner which was not in the interests of the employee, the discretion therein can be found for the purposes of lifting a licence. Our concern was not only the issues raised, but there are a number of other conditions where an employment agency could conceivably place somebody'such that it would not be in that employee's interest. I would like to think that it would be interpreted in that fashion. There are certainly no motives involved whatsoever as to what the member is alluding; I can assure you of that.

MS. SANFORD: What the minister likes to think and what's in the legislation are two different things. I think it is essential that this issue be covered in this legislation. The minister, in his response to my amendment, was referring to employment agencies. That's not the section that's under discussion at the moment. I would refer the minister to section 57 of the statute. That particular section relates to the old deceived-workers statute; it does not deal with employment agencies. This refers to an employer himself deceiving a worker by not informing him of the conditions under which he is required to work with respect to any labour troubles that might be there — not employment agencies. Surely there is nothing in this section, Mr. Chairman, that indicates that an employer must inform the employee of those conditions. In other words, that employer can happily go out and hire strike-breakers without ever letting them know what kind of hornet's nest those people are walking into.

Have I clarified myself for the minister? It's not employment agencies we're talking about; we're talking about employers as defined under the old Deceived Workmen Act.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

NAYS — 26

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

Sections 57 to 74 inclusive approved.

On section 75.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, this is the section that the minister was referring to a few minutes ago: "with respect to the best interests of the employers and the employees seeking employment." This relates to employment agencies and the role that they might play in terms of sending prospective employees into areas where there are labour disputes going on.

"The best interests of the employers...." If the employment agency is taking into account the best interest of the employers, it might decide that it is not necessary to tell the prospective employees that there is a labour dispute in effect. He doesn't have to tell them that, because he is acting in the best interest of the employer — it says so right in the legislation. So the best interests of the employer might be quite different from the best interests of the employee, and the employment agency. under this section, is acting in the best interests of the employer or the employee.

Now the minister has failed in this section to ensure that there will not be strikebreaking going on through the use of employment agencies that send in employees to a strikebound plant or into a situation where there is in fact a major dispute in effect.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, it might be worthwhile to mention that it is contrary to the provisions of the Labour Code for anyone to send someone in. I would say to you that under the provisions of section 57 the conditions of employment are sufficiently broad.

MR. GABELMANN: The minister refers to the Labour Code. The Labour Code specifically refers to professional strikebreakers. What we're talking about here are employment agencies that may be sending potential employees into strikebound workplaces. Those potential employees may not be professional strikebreakers: most likely they will not be. Nowhere in this legislation or in the Labour Code does the law prohibit employment agencies from supplying workers to a strikebound workplace. That should be the law.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Why not?

Sections 75 to 78 inclusive approved.

On section 79.

[ Page 4178 ]

MS. SANFORD: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to try again. I'm moving an amendment to section 79 which will ensure that the employment agency does give the information with respect to a labour dispute in process at a prospective place of employment. The employee has the right to know that there is a strike going on at that particular plant or jobsite. If it is not in here, the minister leaves the strikebreaking process wide open, because there is nothing specifically in this employment standards legislation which would prohibit an employment agency from gathering up as many employees as it could and sending them in in order to break a strike. We're not talking about professional strikebreakers, as the member for North Island mentioned.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

There is a major loophole in this legislation, Mr. Chairman. I don't know whether the minister has thought very much about this; I suspect that he hasn't, because the section that we discussed earlier — section 75 — does not provide for it. It's only by accepting this amendment that the minister will ensure that strikebreaking does not take place through employment agencies. That's where the biggest problem lies.

The minister must think about this and must accept this amendment to ensure that the employment conditions in this province are such that we don't get involved in the kind of strikebreaking that goes on in some of the southern United States and in other places whose standard of labour legislation we cannot accept. It's basic, Mr. Chairman, and I'm afraid that if the minister does not accept this particular amendment, that is what is going to happen in the province of British Columbia.

I move the amendment.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 19

NAYS — 26

Sections 79 to 86 inclusive approved.

On section 87.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments — of which there are three under section 87(3) — standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendments approved.

Section 87 as amended approved.

On section 88.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 88 as amended approved.

MR. LAUK: When reporting to the Speaker, could you ask leave that the last division which took place be recorded in the Journals of the House?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, to do so I will have to ask leave. Shall leave be granted.

Leave granted.

MR. LAUK: Well, a point of order just for further sessions, Mr. Chairman, you don't have to have leave. You can ask leave in any session of the committee for a division to be recorded.

Sections 89 to 102 inclusive approved.

On section 103.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 103 as amended approved.

Section 104 approved.

On section 105.

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

I would like to make reference to one of the amendments, and to acknowledge the proposed amendment by the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford); the thrust of her proposal is incorporated within, with the exception of transportation.

On the amendment.

MS. SANFORD: I want to make one brief comment on this. This is yet another example of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council assuming more authority unto itself. Again we must voice our opposition to this trend which has taken place in statute after statute that we have discussed. I want to go on the record in saying that section 105 again gives more power

[ Page 4179 ]

to cabinet, taking it away from what will be the new Employment Standards Board.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. LEGGATT: I'd like the minister to give us some assurance. Under section 105, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has the power to exempt any group or class of employees — as I understand this section. How are we to guarantee the farm workers of British Columbia that at some future date the Lieutenant-Governor won't make a regulation exempting farm workers from the effect of the act? Have we any guarantee, Mr. Minister, that section 105(3)(a) won't be invoked by the Lieutenant-Governor after more political pressure comes upon the minister and his government from various farm owners? What guarantee do we have that farm workers won't be exempt?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, as a policy of government, and it's so stated, the particular classification to which you refer will be covered. All people in the province are covered. It's understood that there are some difficulties in the general area of piecework payment to farm labourers. I think that's something which has been acknowledged by all. I have to say that I feel it would be somewhat unreasonable to impose upon the director of employment standards such powers. I feel that that type of responsibility should be laid at the doorstep of elected representatives. When we're talking about the LG-in-C we're talking about cabinet and we're talking about government. I think that's where the responsibility should fall. There's really not much more I can say about that. Sure, in a few years' time.... I suppose the government of the day can do what it wants, but that's not our policy with respect to the item which you raised.

MR. LEGGATT: It becomes a matter of policy rather than a matter of review in the Legislature. What could happen in the future is that a strong organization of farm owners who felt that the price of their product was much too high and perhaps that the minimum-wage arrangements under the act are impossible for them to compete with....

Therefore a lobby comes down here, like we had several years ago under the Land Commission Act, and the government is persuaded that they should exempt farm workers. Under this regulation I think they have the power to exempt farm labourers from the provisions of this act. What I'm saying is: if you mean to include farm workers on a permanent basis within the benefits of this act, why don't you delete the power of the Lieutenant-Governor to exempt them, and give them a right under the act so that we know that to change it the whole Legislature has to sit on the issue, not just the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council at a time when perhaps the Legislature isn't in session.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, there seems to be a particular obsession with the farm worker. You know, the province consists of a lot of people working in a number of industries. As a matter of fact, there are a number of exemptions which are required, whether it be in the construction industry or in shipbuilding, fishing or manufacturing. As a matter of fact, there are a number of small problems which must be resolved. Are we to incorporate within legislation a specific class of employee as opposed to another? I don't really think it would work that way, and I think we must reserve unto ourselves some form of flexibility. It seems to me that's the best way of serving the public if that flexibility is there, because a number of these small problems come up from time to time. I don't really think the Legislature is a place to resolve a problem like whether or not there's an overtime provision in the shipbuilding industry, or whether or not there's a shift differential. I think we have to pretty well look at it in general terms.

MR. LEGGATT: I wish the minister would look at the history and why his government finally came to the conclusion to include farm labourers. Those who are well organized and powerful aren't worried, because they have clout and they're sure that politically it would be very unwise for this government to exempt them from minimum labour standards. But the farm workers aren't in that position, nor are domestics. They are the weak edge of the labour movement. They are just at the beginning of organization. Our concern is that a government, by regulation, could take away the rights that they've won and fought for for so long. We're not worried about your taking away the rights of the IWA; we know that they can look after themselves. We're saying that this union is just beginning and is having difficult problems. This recent death and coroner's inquiry in Matsqui is a good example of the kind of thing that the farm workers' union is trying to eliminate. It seems to me, Mr. Minister, you'd be giving very little to simply give them your guarantee that these standards will apply to them, and they will only be changed by the Legislature of the province of British Columbia, not by a regulation.

Amendment approved.

Section 105 as amended approved.

Sections 106 to 119 inclusive approved.

On section 120.

MS. SANFORD: This section amends the Wage (Public Construction) Act. I'm wondering why the minister bothered to put in this particular act to be amended at this time, because the act right now is completely inoperable because it has no regulations attached to it which establish a fair wage. The act is set there to establish a fair wage — right? I don't know if the minister even knows what I'm talking about. The act is there to establish a fair wage, but the wage is established by regulation. The regulation setting up that fair wage has never been brought in. In other words, that act is inoperable. It should probably have been taken out with the Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act, because it sits there with absolutely no purpose at all in this province. So why bother to amend that act as part of this employment standards legislation? Could the minister explain that?

Sections 120 to 123 inclusive approved.

On section 124.

MS. SANFORD: I have a very brief question to the minister with respect to the time frame for proclamation. I assume this may be done in sections and not all at once. Could the minister advise us how long he expects it will take him to establish the new Employment Standards Board and

[ Page 4180 ]

how long it will take him to establish the licensing and bonding system for the farm labour contractors?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: With respect to the last question, hon. member, we are in the process of doing that now — bonding and licensing requirements. Of course that has got to be done and must be in place, I would hope, by January or February at the latest, so that it comes into play for the spring, which is the critical time.

With respect to the Employment Standards Board, that is presently being reviewed, and must also be put in place as soon as possible.

MS. SANFORD: By spring too?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Definitely there's no question about that. As for the proclamation of the various sections, they will be done from time to time, but before they are I think out of abundance of caution I want to make sure that those objections which have been filed are considered and explored, and that everybody's point of view has been taken into consideration.

Section 124 approved.

On the title.

MR. HOWARD: I have a very brief comment on the title of the bill. I think the Legislature and people in this province owe a debt or should be able to express appreciation to the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) for having analyzed the bill, and for having put forward a number of very fair and very reasonable amendments — amendments designed to protect even further the position and the rights of workers in this province.

I think it should also be noted with regret and with sadness that not one of those amendments was considered worthy enough to be accepted by the minister, who obviously has no mind of his own on this matter, but does what he's told with respect to the development of this bill.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 36, Employment Standards Act, reported complete with amendments.

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

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

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

Leave granted.

Bill 36, Employment Standards Act, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, report on Bill 61.

REVISED STATUTES
CORRECTIONS ACT (No. 2), 1980

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm advised that the bill is printed, Mr. Speaker. I would also on this occasion advise the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) that the spelling error that he discovered has been noted, and under the provisions of standing order 87 of the House it shall be corrected by the Clerk.

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

MR. HOWARD: It seems to me that you should do this by leave, if you haven't already.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, not on report, hon. member. The bill is reported, and no leave is required. The question is: shall the...?

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, I was just saying that report stage of bills is in a position on the order paper prior to committee stage of bills, and I submit that it requires leave to go back on the order paper.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. It is a government bill, and as such can be called by the government, and leave is not required in this case. The question is third reading of Bill 61.

Motion approved.

Bill 61 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Committee on Bill 54, Mr. Speaker.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

The House in committee on Bill 54; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. BARBER: I have the honour to present a message from Her Honour the Messenger, Dale Mearns, who today confessed that she did in fact carry electoral boundary map changes from Dan Campbell's office to Mr. Eckardt's office. This brings me to the topic of gerrymandering, which is the subject of this section, which we oppose, which we have opposed earlier, which we will always oppose, and which we will — to say the least, as quickly as possible — change when we get back into office after the next election.

I wish to conclude our participation in this debate by reading two brief paragraphs from a scholarly article on the subject, provided to me by the Legislative Library. The article says, in part, under the heading "Elections in Author-

[ Page 4181 ]

itarian Systems and Elections in Representative Government: "

"Even with the arrival of universal suffrage, the ideal of one man, one vote was not achieved. Systems of plural voting were maintained in some countries, giving certain social groups an electoral advantage. In Great Britain, for example, university graduates and owners of businesses in constituencies other than those in which they lived continued to have an extra vote until 1948. Before World War I, both Austria and Prussia had three classes of weighted votes that effectively kept electoral power in the hands of the upper social strata."

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Look at what's happened to Britain since.

MR. BARBER: The second paragraph from the same learned article speaks as well — tellingly — about the real motives of this most reactionary section:

"Early fears about the extension of the suffrage to groups with presumed low stakes in the social order — the propertyless, the enslaved, the uneducated, the itinerant, the disinterested or the young — appear in retrospect as little more than either ill-founded prejudices, or stratagems to maintain the status quo. Devices invented to offset the effects of extending the suffrage, such as giving property owners or the highly educated more than one vote or highly restrictive residence requirements, failed in their purpose."

Mr. Chairman, the New Democratic Party prays that this bill shall also fail in its reactionary purpose.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, very briefly, after yesterday's lively debate involving the alleged Cromwellian aspects of this section, may I, for the record, quote briefly the hon. Mr. Cromwell from the Chambers's Encyclopedia: "In an age of bigotry...."

MR. BARBER: Defending Cromwell again?

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, I'm quoting from Chambers's Encyclopedia:

"In an age of bigotry he was comparatively tolerant. He was one of the greatest leaders of men in English history. He was swayed by high, even impracticable ideals and it was he, rather than Elizabeth, who laid the foundation of British greatness. Throughout his life he identified that greatness with an austere form of faith, and Cromwell's career illustrates the fact that England began and maintained its ascendancy in the world...."

Mr. Chairman, the point is that Cromwell fought in the army of the parliamentarians for the right of parliament and risked his life in the battles against Charles I over arbitrary taxation and arbitrary imprisonment. He established the predominance of parliament, and for that reason he was recognized as the father of Parliament.

MR. BARBER: This is absurd, defending Cromwell. He was a military dictator who divided England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland into military protectorates. He governed as a military dictator for 11 years. The new model army entered parliament, swept out the parliamentarians, and after he died his son took over who, fortunately, was as incompetent as the son of another leader we can think of but shall not name at this point. He is also known as "the butcher of Ireland,'' and is probably more personally responsible for the horrible problems of that unhappy country than any other man in the history in the United Kingdom. To defend Cromwell as a protector of liberty is to utterly misconstrue history and misread even the most incompetent research notes that your caucus research office might have offered you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, just before I recognize the hon. member for Nelson-Creston, I might point out that we have allowed sufficient latitude, I think, on this bill to two members who were really discussing principles and not the relevancy of section 2. So I would ask all members further in committee to contain their remarks to section 2.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, due to perhaps the hilarity of the moment, it might have escaped notice that the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) was offending standing order 40, which says: "No member shall speak disrespectfully of Her Majesty, nor of any member of the royal family...." I should think that nothing could come closer to the offence of standing order 40 than to praise Oliver Cromwell, responsible for the death of Charles I.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. MUSSALLEM: No one in this House will say that I don't have respect for the royal family.

MR. BARBER: Then why did you praise him?

MR. MUSSALLEM: Relative to history, what this man stood for was the right of the individual over the right of the King of that day.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member....

MR. MUSSALLEM: Yes, but this is the right to vote we're talking about — one man, one vote. The businessman is entitled to a vote, and that's what I stand for.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I ask the committee to come to order. We have passed section 2.

MR. LEGGATT: I just wanted to remind my colleague from Dewdney that the most famous quote of Cromwell's in the last parliament was: "For God's sake, go!" I just wanted to repeat that to this government.

HON. MR. GARDOM: In response, I think, Cromwell was also heard to say: "Illegitimis non carborundum est."

Section 3 approved.

[ Page 4182 ]

On section 4.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 4 as amended approved.

Sections 5 to 19 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 54, Municipal Amendment Act, 1980, reported complete with amendments.

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

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

Leave granted.

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

HON MR. VANDER ZALM: Now, Mr. Speaker.

Bill 54, Municipal Amendment Act, 1980, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 52, Mr. Speaker.

UTILITIES COMMISSION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 52; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. DAVIS: As I said in the House the other day, I'm concerned about the scope of the act. I would like to ask the hon. minister who has brought in Bill 52 whether the definition of petroleum products includes all kinds of petrochemicals whether made from crude oil or natural gas.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I would say yes.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I'd like the minister to answer a question about this section. When the Utilities Commission appears to be so emasculated in any of its powers — it relies on the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council or the direction of the minister — why do you have to have a special section to spell that direction out again? It's spelled out in every single other section of this legislation.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I explained the reason for this section during second reading debate. I also read to the members of the House and to the Speaker a number of similar sections in other acts. They're there not because the Utilities Commission has been emasculated, but because it does have certain powers which all utilities commissions have. When it's dealing with a utility like B.C. Hydro, which may have special direction from government to do certain things, it will be required that that same special direction be passed on to the Utilities Commission so that directions of government on things like postage stamp rates, on things like taking on the responsibility for rural electrification, and perhaps later taking on the responsibility for rural gasification, can be taken into account when establishing the rates for that utility.

Sections 3 to 7 inclusive approved.

On section 8.

MR. HOWARD: This section, along with section 9, gives the commission authority to employ people to develop staff and so on. Reading the bill and seeing the complex things that are to take place under it within the commission structure, I perceive this doing nothing more than setting up a massive bureaucracy of paper-shufflers and pencil-pushers which, the larger it grows — and it's bound to grow large; the very structure of the bill indicates that — will militate against any effectiveness that the legislation might have. We can perceive in the next few years there being dozens upon dozens of bureaucrats working in support of this particular structure, all to no great purpose.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, on the same sections, I'd like to point out that they're taken verbatim from the B.C. Energy Commission act passed by the NDP in 1974.

MR. HOWARD: I'd like to point out to the member for North Vancouver–Seymour that the desire of the government to which he used to belong is to build up bureaucracies to do things by regulation, to do things in secret by order-in-council. That was never the intention and never the activity of the NDP. That's one of the reasons the member is not now in the cabinet.

Sections 8 to 15 inclusive approved.

On section 16.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, on section 16, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

[ Page 4183 ]

On section 16 as amended.

MR. DAVIS: On section 16 I'd like to ask the minister for clarification. There's a definition of energy resource and that reads: "...means natural gas and oil, and all other forms of petroleum and hydrocarbon, in gaseous or liquid state and electricity." That obviously leaves out coal, uranium or thorium — a whole range of other possible sources of energy. Is energy, under this bill, limited to essentially oil, gas and electricity?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I think that coal, for instance, is handled in other ways in the bill. I think the member's right in saying that those things which aren't listed here are not listed — left out.

MRS. WALLACE: I would point out that the definition of energy includes every form of energy, and yet, when it comes to specifiying what you're going to do about some of the forms you seem to have ignored them completely. I raised solar energy under second reading of this bill, but there is no provision here for anything relative to alternate-energy provision. Is it then a fact that this bill commits this government to going down the road on the hard-energy course, with no time or energy spent on involving themselves in looking at some of these alternative things like wind energy or solar energy?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Come on! It's out of order. It's in the estimates that you talk about that.

MRS. WALLACE: That's what you told me when the bill came up before, and when we were on the estimates we were told by the House Leader that this would be a wideranging bill. With all due respect to the minister, I think I am in order. He includes here a definition of energy that says that energy includes every form of energy. I'm simply speaking on the definition of the word "energy" which does include solar energy, wind power and the use of wood waste. Yet while he includes that in the definition, he does nothing in the act to do anything about it. He gives no direction to this public utilities commission to take any steps in that direction, and I suggest this is nothing but a recommitment by this government to the course of hard energy,

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I would just briefly comment that this is a regulatory bill. It regulates utilities and other energy projects. It does not provide the direction for the ministry to take. I think the record of the ministry in the last six months is excellent in terms of providing leadership in those so-called soft-energy paths. There are wind-power experiments going on right now, and we've just recently concluded the awarding of 100 solar energy projects in the province — the first province in Canada to take steps on that kind of scale. We made an announcement a week or so ago about a project to provide some experimental homes with retrofitting and other things in terms of solar energy. It's through the Energy Development Agency, where we have $10 million available to us this year, that we'll take those kinds of steps, and not through the regulatory powers.

Section 16 as amended approved.

Sections 17 and 18 approved.

On section 19.

MR. LEGGATT:I'd like to ask the minister about the meaning of section 19(c), which reads as follows: "...with the concurrence of the Minister of Environment, order that the construction and operation of the regulated project is exempt from provisions of this act specified in the order." Would the minister give me an idea of what would be a typical exempt project that would not come before the public utilities commission?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I would expect that usually they would be energy-use projects that the Ministry of Environment and others in government could easily see would have no need for large hearings but might need a pollution control permit or a water permit only, and would not necessarily further concern either the environment or the social fabric of the community. We would then rely on existing acts — for instance, the Pollution Control Act and the Water Act — to allow them to proceed in the normal manner; because it might be quicker, less expensive and of more value to the community.

MR. LEGGATT: Just for clarification, I take it that in-house energy projects are not a matter for the minister's jurisdiction, or for review.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: What do you mean by "in-house"?

MR. LEGGATT: Let's say a company decides to provide its own energy, and not sell or transmit energy to other customers. That is not a regulated project?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Why not?

MR. LEGGATT: Is it over 20 mega...?

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: Okay, that gives me the answer. Thank you.

Section 19 approved.

On section 20.

MR. SKELLY: I'd like to ask the minister why the jurisdiction of the Pollution Control Board and the comptroller of water rights have been removed — in cases, for example, such as Hat Creek thermal, the Site C Dam or other hydroelectric projects. Why has their authority been removed?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Their authority won't be removed. People will still be required to get those permits which are necessary. However, as I said at second reading, it is our intention that we will be holding.... We would hope to streamline the process and have a one-desk approach, rather than a three-, four- or five-desk approach, to various kinds of projects. None of these projects can go ahead without terms of reference set not only by me but by the Minister of Environment. That ministry would presumably have, as resource people, both the water controller and the director of

[ Page 4184 ]

the pollution control branch. They would be fully involved at that stage, and further at the hearing stage as well. They would either be interveners or would provide resource material to the panel set up by the commission.

So the authorities are not being reviewed; they are being pulled into the entire process so that we can in fact give the public a full opportunity for input, but at the same time give those people who are anxious to develop energy projects in the province a one-shot attempt at all of its permits.

MR. SKELLY: When the Utilities Commission, or a part of it, recommends the granting of a pollution control permit, who does that recommendation go to? Does it go to Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and then the permit may be granted by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council? It does not go to the Pollution Control Board, who can then hold hearings on their own and determine whether a permit should be granted in that case.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That's right.

MR. SKELLY: So the approvals and the recommendations are done by the Utilities Commission, which may or may not have any expertise in the area of pollution or the allocation of water.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That's correct; they may or may not have. Probably they will have, because, as I said, we've allowed full flexibility in setting up these panels. We'll choose the panels for both their community expertise and their technical expertise.

But secondly, when the terms of reference are first of all drawn up, then those terms of reference will have to include the kinds of things that will have to be done within the hearing in order that the pollution control requirements are both heard and met, and in order that the water use requirements are both heard and met.

MR. LEGGATT: I wanted the minister to direct his attention to 20(3), where the commission is given the power to receive information or evidence that the commission considers is of a confidential character and exclude the public from the hearing while it receives that information or evidence.

Now this is a very dangerous section, because it could mean that B.C. Hydro may consider, for example, some of its technical studies — in terms of load forecasts and so on — to be of a confidential nature. You run a very deep risk here of having hearings which offend against the rules of natural justice, if you receive confidential information which is not made available to those who are intervening — for example, to public interest groups or others who have no capacity to criticize or cross-examine that particular evidence. That means, therefore, that in those instances the commission — if it acts on confidential information — is clearly violating every rule that I know of for a fair hearing.

I'm surprised that this section is needed at all by the minister or, for that matter, by the commission. There is some question as to whether those hearings could be upset by the supreme court under the rules of natural justice. The receipt of confidential information, if it's not a public hearing — and I submit there could be cases where it wasn't at a public hearing.... But I object very firmly to the idea that confidential information is received by the commission that is not made available to the interveners who are objecting to the issuance of a licence or to the actions of the Utilities Commission.

Think in terms of rate structure, for example. If there is private information given by Hydro that isn't made available to the interveners, their hands are tied behind their backs and they really have no chance to make a decent presentation before the commission in terms of either regulating rates or providing licences — all that range of things which the minister has given to the commission.

I would submit that the minister should give serious consideration to removing this question of confidential character or of excluding the public from the hearing while it receives that information. I think he should go farther to say that any confidential information must be made available to all groups making presentations before the commission. Otherwise the hearing could not possibly be fair.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, the terms of the act specify that if the project is sent to the commission it will be a public hearing. It is my understanding that there may be, for instance, a petroleum corporation before the commission for one reason or another. I'm sure that it may have sensitive commercial information dealing perhaps with an expansion of the corporation, and it may be extremely damaging and dangerous if that company's competitors are allowed to find out that information through a hearing which may have nothing to do with that.

I think that it is not unusual for a commission of this kind to have that responsibility. I think courts do it, as a matter of fact. I'm not a lawyer, but I think a court has the opportunity to do that at that kind of hearing as well.

MR. LEGGATT: Just to clarify that, the courts have the right to hear matters in camera, but counsel to participants to the proceedings are given access to those particular documents, so that they can give their position on a confidential document when it may not be appropriate that the public be present at that time. My concern, Mr. Minister, is that it should be added to this section that those interveners and participants in the deliberations should have access to that information. Otherwise it means that anyone intervening in these matters will have their hands tied behind their backs, because they won't have access to the information and therefore couldn't possibly represent their client's position fairly.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I'll take that as notice and I'll have a good look at it. However, I think there is a serious problem if it's a commercial question and if there are competitive commercial interests in here, then it could be pretty dangerous. But I'll take it as notice and have a close took at it.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, it's not mentioned here, but I was wondering how the Land Commission Act would apply to an energy project such as the Site C project. Cabinet has two options there: first of all, they can delete the land....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Its own legislation will apply.

MR. SKELLY: Its own legislation will apply. But also there is a provision under the Land Commission Act for two

[ Page 4185 ]

avenues of appeal: cabinet can take the land out on its own, or else it can go through a hearing system. Now it appears from this section of the act that you would like to have a one-desk system. So it appears that cabinet will be taking the land out of the reserve, for example, for the Site C dam. It will not be done through a Land Commission hearing, a separate hearing.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, this is hardly the subject of this bill. The Land Commission Act, because it is an extensive act and has its own requirements, will be paramount in this instance. This act will have absolutely nothing to do with the Land Commission Act.

MR. SKELLY: But, Mr. Chairman, just how cabinet is going to act in this situation is the subject of a great deal of concern throughout the province. Are they going to take it out behind the secrecy of the cabinet door or are they going to allow the Land Commission to hold a hearing?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That has nothing to do with this act.

MR. SKELLY: It should have something to do with this act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I have to ask you if it's relevant to this section.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, are we on to section 21?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, we're on section 20, hon. member.

Section 20 approved,

On section 21.

MR. LEGGATT: I'd like to ask the minister about section 21(2), which in effect gives the authority to prevent any appeal in regard to any decision taken, I'm going to read it:

"Where the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council gives a direction referred to in subsection (1)(c), the person, board, tribunal or agency that has, apart from this act, the authority or power to issue or decide to make, give or issue the approval, licence or permit or amendment shall, notwithstanding anything in the Pollution Control Act or the Water Act, make, give or issue it in accordance with the direction, and the making, giving or issuance is final and not subject to any review or appeal under those acts."

This is an awesome power that the cabinet is reserving to itself. The cabinet can, in effect, under this bill, tell the public of British Columbia that they can go to hell under the Water Act, that there is no appeal whatsoever in regard to the decision where the cabinet deems something shall proceed. It can, it seems to me, avoid the entire process by virtue of this section.

I hope I'm wrong. Perhaps the minister has a way of explaining it, but the plain meaning to me is: where the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council gives a direction, the person, board and so on and so forth must issue it, and there is no appeal whatsoever from that direction. How is this awesome power going to be exercised then? The power given to the minister certainly makes him the new Energy czar of the province. He, in fact, under this section, would become the most powerful politician in the province that we could imagine, because there is no appeal from his decision. He doesn't have to abide by any of the normal standards in the normal process. I'm trying to think — and perhaps the minister can tell me — what he's got in mind here. What kind of projects are such that they will avoid the consequences of the Pollution Act, the Water Act. and provide no appeal whatsoever when the authority is E!ranted?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Chairman, in fact what's happening here is that the cabinet is being removed to a certain degree, because the only appeal that was ever available under & Water Act was to cabinet, and that now is being given as a responsibility of the Utilities Commission, which will make its recommendation to cabinet. Cabinet will deliberate and make its decision. I'm sure that the member would be the first one, Mr. Chairman, to object if, after having done it in that manner, there was an appeal back to cabinet again. It would be rather fruitless, I would think, to be appealing to the same body that just made the decision in the first place. That's the only change that's being made in this section, Mr. Chairman.

MR. LEGGATT: Is the minister or the cabinet bound in any way by the recommendations of the B.C. Utilities Commission as it's formed under the Utilities Commission Act? Does this Utilities Commission have any power over the cabinet or the minister? He can avoid the consequences of any decision; he can prevent any appeal from that decision — am I interpreting this right?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I think the earlier sections of the bill make it quite clear — and we had a wide-ranging debate on this in second reading — that first of all, the Utilities Commission will be paramount in regulatory roles, in its regulation of utilities. When it comes to the project review process, it is very clear that it is the body which is responsible for holding the hearings, for making sure that all of the public input is given full opportunity, and then recommending to cabinet. It does not have the power to decide; cabinet will have that power.

MS. BROWN: I'd just like to ask leave of the House to make a very short introduction.

Leave granted.

MS. BROWN: The University Women's Club of Vancouver has just completed hosting the 20th triennial conference of the International Federation of University Women. One of their keynote speakers was Dr. Lucille Mair, who was, first of all, Jamaica's ambassador to Cuba, and was recently seconded to the United Nations to be the secretary general of the 1980 conference of the UN Decade for Women.

Dr. Mair is visiting us at this time because I have known her for a number of years. She was my teacher when I was quite a bit younger, and in fact taught me history. In asking the House to join me in bidding her welcome, I just want to express my regret that she was not here yesterday to participate in the debate on Cromwell.

[ Page 4186 ]

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, as the House is aware, I'm concerned about the extension of the powers of the government-appointed and government-run B.C. Petroleum Corporation.

I wonder if the minister could tell us what additional powers the petroleum corporation has under this act. I gather that the petroleum corporation will remain the sole buyer of natural gas in the province, and that under this section, I assume, it will be intervening between the transporter of gas and the major gas-using industry. The major gas-using industry, in other words, can only buy gas from the B.C. Petroleum Corporation. Are there any circumstances under which an industry can buy directly from, say, B.C. Hydro or Inland Natural Gas? In other words, is this intervention by the petroleum corporation limited to certain large projects, or is it intended that the petroleum corporation not only buy gas in the field, but be the sole marketer of gas for industrial purposes?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, the petroleum corporation's responsibilities won't change very much with this act. They have been the sole purchaser of gas in the province since the corporation was set up. It is not intended to change that at this time. I said in second reading, when the member raised the same question, that it is a policy decision and could be changed sometime in the future.

The only real change that will be made is that the corporation will be able to set certain prices paid to users of natural gas. I'm thinking, for instance, of the policy direction which was announced by the government a few weeks ago, that domestic prices would not be allowed to be charged for various kinds of feedstocks — natural gas as feedstock — if they are to be exported from the country. So part of this section will allow the B.C. Petroleum Corporation to set different prices for that gas, so that feedstock users will pay — based on a formula related to the number of jobs created in the community — a closer price to the export price, rather than the domestic price which domestic consumers in the province pay. So that's really the only change.

If there's to be a policy change sometime in the future.... Of course, I'm not able to make that change in the legislation on my own; that would be a government decision sometime down the road.

MR. DAVIS: Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. As the practice has been, B.C. Hydro, for example, or Inland Natural Gas can sell natural gas to industrial users. In fact, they have rate schedules, and they must apply the same rate to the same class of user. I'm confused as to whether B.C. Hydro will continue to have that authority, or whether the B.C. Petroleum Corporation may intervene between B.C. Hydro and the user-industry in certain cases. Is it "will always intervene," or is it that the B.C. Petroleum Corporation "may as directed by the government" — or by the minister — intervene and do the marketing and pricing to a certain category of industry?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The B.C. Petroleum Corporation will not intervene in those cases. BCPC buys its gas at the field and then sells it. If they sell it to B.C. Hydro in certain amounts, then B.C. Hydro sells it to its customers. The same is true with Inland Natural Gas and with any other utilities which may come along.

Section 21 approved.

On section 22.

MR. LEGGATT: I'd like to direct the minister to 22(1)(b). This purports to regulate the removal of energy from the province. There may be some jurisdictional problem about that; nevertheless I can understand the minister's desire to try to have some control over it. The section provides as follows: "...where the removal is exempted from this section by regulations and for this purpose the regulations may create exemptions for different circumstances, and for different classes of an energy resource and be applicable to different classes of persons." Am I reading this correctly? It almost gives the minister carte blanche in dealing with this subject. In short, there's really no role for the Utilities Commission to play in regard to this, since the minister can avoid the consequences of a hearing. He can create exemptions; he can exclude classes of persons. It seems to me this is a complete open door, and again a confirmation of the fantastic power the minister is reserving to himself under the bill.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I don't think there's such fantastic power here. The member himself has said that there may be some jurisdictional problems. I think it's recognized that we don't have any real authority in this area; it's taken by the federal government. For various kinds of our resources, and I think natural gas at this present time is probably the one we wish to attack first, and secondly, the by-products of natural gas, because they may be exported as well — we want to be able to review those in the province. We will also want to say that there may be coal or some other resource that at this time we don't want to subject to this kind of review. It's a review process only. It'll give us a handle and make us better armed to appear before the National Energy Board when these reviews come forward. Alberta, for instance, has had the same kind of review in place. Most have judged it unconstitutional, but it's been in place for about 35 or 40 years, I believe. This has been taken pretty well word for word from their act, and we hope to do the same kind of thing that Alberta does and has done for many years.

Sections 22 and 23 approved.

On section 24.

MR. LEGGATT: Section 24(1) allows the minister, on receipt of an application, to either refer it to the commission or not. What criteria is the minister going to use as to what is going to be referred or what the minister is going to take unto himself for jurisdiction? The difficulty is that I don't think the public's going to know what the guidelines are. They're not going to have any idea, when they make their application, what's going to happen to it. I think the minister owes an explanation to the House as to the kinds of projects he sees that would and would not be reviewable.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I agree with the member that there's some vagueness there. We're just moving into

[ Page 4187 ]

this area as a new area, and we want to try it out. We don't want to review everything at the present time, nor probably would we have the staff in order to review everything. I think it would be fair to say that our first concern is natural gas. We want to be able to appear before the National Energy Board having fully reviewed in British Columbia what we think the situation is rather than going down at the last minute — as has happened sometimes in the past — and being lame ducks at the NEB hearing. I apologize if it's a bit vague at this time. It could change. If constitutional talks gave British Columbia different powers, I'm sure there'd be some change in this act immediately. I apologize if it's a bit vague, but I think it's the best we can do at this time. I also say that natural gas would be the first concern.

Sections 24 to 26 inclusive approved.

On section 27.

MR. DAVIS: I'd like to hear again from the minister on this question of cogeneration. It's really the matter of an industry producing its own energy — in this case electricity — and in fact being encouraged to do so, and if it has some surplus being allowed to sell it. Section 27, however, as I read it, is very limiting indeed. This corporation which would produce electricity primarily for its own use can only do so if the sale to anyone else is wholly incidental to its own industrial purposes and is not in competition with a public utility subject to regulation. In other words, it can't sell any of its surplus if it is competing with, say, B.C. Hydro or West Kootenay, and also it is regulated if it sells more than 15 percent of its output. I can't really see how these clauses are in any way conducive to an industry producing its own energy with some part of it for sale.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: This is not a new provision; it's been in the act and in other acts for a long, long time. It's there for a couple of reasons, I guess. The one in terms of competition with a public utility is there for the purposes of the people's public utility, which is British Columbia Hydro. At this point it's government policy that someone else producing electricity would not be able, for instance, to move into a community and cream the market — produce enough electricity for the big industrial consumers, and leave the residential consumers for Hydro. That forms part of public policy at the present time. Again, if that policy is to be changed, it would be changed at some other time.

The person generating that electricity can sell to B.C. Hydro to feed into the B.C. Hydro grid, and not be subject to the regulation as a utility. But once they get into the business of selling electricity to someone else, well, I just think they should be a utility and regulated as such.

Sections 27 to 64 inclusive approved.

On sections 65 and 66.

MR. DAVIS: Sections 65 and 66, like many of these other clauses, are taken directly out of the B.C. Energy Commission Act, but 65 seems to say that a utility like B.C. Hydro should not discriminate across the province; it should have one level of rates for one particular class of service.

However, section 66 says the opposite: where there are special conditions locally and regionally, they can vary the rate. I would hope — at another time at least — that these clauses could be tidied up in such a manner so that they weren't largely, if not totally, contradictory.

Sections 65 to 159 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 52, Utilities Commission Act, reported complete with amendment,

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

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

Leave granted.

Bill 52, Utilities Commission Act, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, for the interest of the House, I'm proposing to call one motion, and then also to request leave on behalf of the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) to present the report of the public accounts committee.

I therefore call and move on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith), motion 17, which is on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I request leave for the hon. member for Nanaimo to present a report.

Leave granted.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I move the report be received as read.

Motion approved.

MR. STUPICH: I move the rules be suspended and the report adopted as read.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

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

[ Page 4188 ]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TOURISM

Vote 189: minister's office, $157,334 — approved.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Did the hon. member wish to comment, or is the vote passed?

MR. BARBER: Is it the minister's intention that these estimates not be debated and they are going to go through? If the minister proposes to speak not at all on any of the estimates for her ministry, we will do the same in order to allow them to be passed. If she proposes to talk on any aspect of them....

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I appreciate the member's comment, and it's agreed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has ruled vote 189 passed.

Vote 190: tourism, $11,321,112 — approved.

Vote 191: building occupancy charges, $691,000 — approved.

Vote 192: computer and consulting charges, $337,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS

On vote 141: minister's office, $170,000.

MR. COCKE: I have a word or two. My first word is: quit Canada-bashing. Our country is vulnerable at the present time. What we need is responsible government in British Columbia negotiating responsibly.

My second word is: I wonder whether or not the minister appreciates how people around this province feel about him.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I hope they feel well towards me, Mr. Member, and I'm sure they do.

I would like to make just one short comment to the hon. member. There were some very, very significant words and principles articulated today by all of the Premiers in our country in the material that developed at Winnipeg. I think it goes without saying that we in British Columbia feel — and I'm sure the official opposition would join me in these sentiments — that our national interests and our provincial interests each have, and must have, their rightful place in Confederation. This means that neither of those can be forgotten. I think we have to continue to emphasize the fact that the national interest must be the sum of the federal government and of ten provincial governments, and that's one of the principal reasons that these discussions are taking place. I'm hopeful that the constitutional discussions underway at the present time will develop something fruitful, and that some very positive steps will be taken in Ottawa in the early part of September.

MR. COCKE: I thank the minister. However, I have here a sheaf of reports — and I'm not going to read them — statements made by our government and representatives of our government which lead me to no other conclusion than that our government is threatening sovereignty-association kinds of directions. I recognize they're hollow, but at the same time it's the kind of thing that really sets this country on its heels. I just feel that if this minister is to do anything positive, then he has to go down and negotiate on behalf of everybody in B.C., but at the same time recognize that as a country we're so much more special than we are as a jurisdiction within that country.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm certainly not going to differ with those sentiments, particularly the ones that the hon. member last mentioned. We're approaching all of these discussions with the view that we believe there has to be a truly united Canada, and furthermore that we have in Canada today the very best place in the world to live. I think this is sometimes not too well reflected on by the people in our country.

We much agree that there has to be an effective national regulative authority, but we also very strongly believe that there has to be effective and proper regional representation and a high degree of local autonomy. It is a question of the mix. I think that we are approaching these discussions, as we have approached constitutional reform in B.C. since 1978, in a very positive manner, and I thank the hon. member for his comments.

MR. MACDONALD: I just wanted to wish the minister well in these discussions. Federal-provincial conferences are the great Canadian national pastime. They go from one province to another, then they become federal and then they become provincial. I sometimes worry that if the process of consultation and discussion and papers ever stopped, you know, it would be rather like a game of musical chairs. The music stops; we all sit down, and there would be no chairs. So keep up your discussions.

There's an element of summer theatre involved here, but the real country is going to emerge in spite of it.

Vote 141 approved.

Vote 142: administration, $1,117,076 — approved.

Vote 143: special representative's office and British Columbia House, Ottawa, $288,900 — approved.

Vote 144: agent-general's office and British Columbia House, London, $726,235 — approved.

Vote 145: building occupancy charges, $112,000 — approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Momentito, por favor. Before calling vote 211, Mr. Chairman, I would like very much on behalf of, I'm sure, all members of the Legislative Assembly to express our thanks and our gratitude to all of the attendants, the pages, and to the Hansard staff for their very courteous, pleasant and efficient assistance during these sittings.

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, to all of the wives, husbands, girlfriends, boyfriends and the children of members, and even the family dog, I think we'd like to express our gratitude to them for their tolerance and their understanding during the familial, or whatever, absence.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Don't forget the cats.

[ Page 4189 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: And don't forget the cats, as the hon. member over there says. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to call vote 211.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF UNIVERSITIES,
SCIENCE AND COMMUNICATIONS

On vote 211: minister's office; $136,479.

MR. LAUK: Well, before this session fades away, I think we should have a word or two about Mr. Science. You know, Mr. Chairman, it's an unusual thing that a man of this minister's stature and intellectual capacity, in the year 1980, has such a blind faith in science.

We've had that debate since the 19th century, and the Minister of Tinker Toys continues to press forward with his blind faith in the scientific approach to all aspects of life.

It is also interesting to note that a lot of his hare-brained schemes are receiving....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we must be parliamentary.

MR. BARBER: McGeer-brained schemes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Parliamentary language is a feature of the House.

MR. LAUK: I'll withdraw hare-brained...wonko schemes are receiving the consideration they deserve, at the hands of the experts.

I would also like to add that this minister this year has offered a great service to education everywhere in the province by leaving that portfolio, and now is only threatening the universities. We hope that next spring we will be able to deal in great detail with how this minister, having left such a legacy of disaster to the new Minister of Education, is presently underway concentrating wholly on the university system and will be able to deal with that chapter and verse early next year when the minister comes into this chamber.

I have here some notes that I want to refer in detail to the Stock Breeders Act, which I understand comes under the heading of communications. I feel that the minister should take a close look at the Stock Breeders Act in view of the use of the.... [Laughter.]

MR. BARBER: I rise briefly to keep a promise to constituents in my riding, and to inform the minister that as far as I can tell, the vast majority of the citizens of Victoria do not want, and are not prepared to pay for, a bridge or a tunnel, or any other form of fixed link, They give you the clear message that I pass on now. They don't want it. They don't need it. And they don't want you to get away with it. Leave the Island well enough alone. Leave it as it is. It is a rare and special place. That special quality would be ruined forever were the bridge, tunnel or fixed link to be built.

Fortunately, the members of cabinet seem in majority to have taken the same position, and I'm glad to see the minister not standing up to announce a bridge, tunnel or fixed link to the Island.

MS. BROWN: Every year the engineering students at UBC have what they refer to as the Lady Godiva ride. I'm sure the minister is quite aware....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I'm sorry, I didn't hear that comment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The comment would not be relevant because it wasn't addressed to the Chair.

MS. BROWN: It's not only not relevant; it's not funny either.

However, Mr. Chairman, what I'm saying is that I'm sure the minister is not going to be surprised when he understands that 1, for one, find the concept of the Lady Godiva ride to be offensive.

In addition to the Lady Godiva ride, the engineering students publish a newspaper which is referred to as the "Red Rag" which is particularly offensive — not just to women at UBC, but to women and men everywhere in terms of the way it refers to people.

I recognize that the minister is not in a position — and should not be in a position — to have to censor the kinds of publications that come out of the faculty of engineering at UBC, and I recognize also that the senate and the president of the university have stated quite clearly and categorically that they do not condone the kind of derogatory way in which the "Red Rag'' portrays women, and the blatantly disgusting pictures which that magazine carries, and some of the comments it makes.

However, I think it would not be remiss for the minister to be on record as adding his voice to that of the university president and the senate in expressing his discontent with the fact that the students in engineering at UBC, for one reason or another, find it necessary to portray women in that particularly offensive manner.

MR. HOWARD: Like the first member for Victoria, regarding a specific request from constituents of mine that I want to represent.... They asked me to tell the minister how very, very much they enjoy and appreciate the fact that he has left education — except for the higher levels. And beyond that they feel that there is nothing more that needs to be said about the minister.

Vote 211 approved.

Vote 212: ministry administration, $1,158,584 — approved.

Vote 213: universities, $269,940,116 — approved.

Vote 214: metric conversion, $385,812 — approved.

Vote 215: science and technology, $3,244,175 — approved.

Vote 216: telecommunication services branch, $16,559,217 — approved.

Vote 217: communications system development and regulation branch, $898,613 — approved.

Vote 218: building occupancy charges, $157,000 — approved.

[ Page 4190 ]

Vote 219: computer and consulting charges, $50,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES: AUDITOR GENERAL

Vote 3: auditor general, $2,472,094 — approved.

Vote 4: building occupancy charges, $274,000 — approved.

Vote 5: computer and consulting charges, $120,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES: OMBUDSMAN

Vote 6: ombudsman, $838,203 — approved.

Vote 7: building occupancy charges, $150,000 — approved.

On vote 8: computer and consulting charges, $30,000.

MR. LAUK: Just briefly, Mr. Chairman, I do hope the government appreciates the tremendous amount of work that the ombudsman has to deal with. He has difficulties with his staff and provision, and I hope that's reflected in next year's budget.

Vote 8 approved.

ESTIMATES: LEGISLATION

On vote 1: legislation, $5,685,160.

MR. HOWARD: Just very briefly, because we are approaching that point of time when apparently no other business will come before the House, I think the record should show that the hon. second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman) made no move whatever to request the House to proceed to deal with motion 21 that he gave notice of, and therefore we must conclude that it was a spurious motion in the first place.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that remark is unparliamentary. The House finds the language unparliamentary. I'm not asking you to withdraw it; I'm just commenting on it.

MR. HYNDMAN: In speaking to the matter raised by the opposition House Leader, may I first simply state that the matter to which he refers has established something very important for this House by way of precedent. We now have a ruling of this House and its Chair that members are in prima facie breach if instead of the traditional parliamentary manner, if you wish to criticize the Chair, of standing in this place and doing it by motion you prefer instead to walk into the hall behind the Speaker's back and do it that way, you are in breach.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are on vote 1.

MS. BROWN: It seems that every year I have to make the same speech on vote 1, so I'll do it again. The constituency secretaries — those women and men who toil in the constituencies on behalf of us all — deserve some better financial remuneration than they have been receiving to date.

I don't think there is any member in this House who will suggest that the constituency secretaries are not doing an excellent job, that they are not hard-working, and that in fact a large number of us would not be in a position to retain our seats if our constituency secretaries were not as efficient and competent as they are. Why we continue to exploit them is a puzzle to me, but surely the government in its infinite wisdom must by now have come to recognize that the constituency secretaries must have their salaries pegged in such a way that they get annual increments in the same way that the elected members of the Legislature have our salaries pegged, and that in fact they should be tied to public service standards.

So on behalf of the constituency secretaries of the members on both sides of the House who are being grossly underpaid as a result of the government's decision to deliberately exploit them, I am asking the government once again: would you please tie the constituency secretaries' salaries to the civil service level and build into it some kind of cost-of-living index, cost-of-living clause or annual increment so that year after year it's not necessary for the constituency secretaries and the opposition to come on our knees to the government pleading for an increase for them?

MR. GABELMANN: I just want to say that I first of all congratulate the government for having made the decision to provide in block funding moneys for constituency secretaries and for constituency offices. The plea that I would make to the government is that that block funding principle continue, and that when considering the requirements for all members in the months to come some consideration is made for the fact that quite a number of members have several communities in their constituencies which require offices and support staff in them, and to give some serious consideration to the block funding with a view to increasing it quite substantially.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: It's a subject not usually raised under this vote, but now that it has been raised I intend to discuss it briefly. I feel very strongly about this item myself. The constituency secretaries, who are not part of this Legislature and who have to sometimes work under very horrendous situations, are not covered by the benefits of secretaries of this building. I feel it should not be part of inter-party politics, and that's basically what it's become. I don't expect a commitment from the government on that side today — and the person who can make the commitment is not in the House today — but I want to go on record as supporting the concept of an increase in salaries for our constituency secretaries. I think that's about all I've got to say at this time, but I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, if something doesn't happen, we on this side of the House don't intend to let the matter drop here.

MR. MACDONALD: I just want to say that during the session I thought that of all the cabinet ministers opposite — and I'm speaking in terms of Social Credit principles, not our own principles — the one who came out unscathed and in better shape to run for the leadership is the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm).

HON. MR. WOLFE: Without wishing to prolong the discussion on this topic, I should point out that members should appreciate that constituency secretaries are not em-

[ Page 4191 ]

ployees of the government, but of the MLAs. They can pay them what they choose to pay them under the allowances provided in this vote.

MR. NICOLSON: I would hope that every member of the executive council would listen to this one anecdote which would tell you a little bit about the challenge and the job and what a constituency secretary has to face. In this past year my constituency secretary had a deranged person come into our office — threatening not myself or herself, but actually threatening with a gun to kill somebody — mad not at anyone in our office but at somebody down the hall who was not even in. But because we're not there all the time, this is the kind of front-line type of exposure that these people take, and I think it's exemplified by that particular type of thing.

I find the Provincial Secretary's comment most distasteful, and I would hope that we could treat these people with the dignity that they deserve and give them some sort of a reward — not as a gratuity, not as an indemnity, but as a fitting and decent salary for the fine service they give to the people of British Columbia.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, since the Provincial Secretary put it on record, I think we should straighten the record out. The allotment covers not just the salary of the constituency secretaries, but rental accommodation, heat, light, utilities and telephone. Nobody has any control over increases in rent, utilities and telephone. When the time comes to cut back, Mr. Chairman, the only item that can be cut back on is the salary paid to the constituency secretary. If the Provincial Secretary isn't aware of that, he's as incompetent as everyone else in this government.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, on the same subject, if one were a millionaire one would have no trouble in taking care of a constituency secretary's salary. I thought that the minister's reply was most irresponsible, when he recognizes that the one source for the funds to pay the average constituency secretary is the government.

Vote 1 approved.

Vote 2: crown corporations reporting committee, $428,000 — approved.

Schedule A approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, before sitting down, I regret that I did not bring to the attention of the House once again sentiments I know that we would all like to express: thanks to the last but far from the least, the inscrutable men in black, of infinite wisdom and inestimable help to all members — the Clerks.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report resolutions.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee rises and reports resolutions.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that by leave of the House the rules be suspended and that the reports of resolutions from the Committee of Supply on May 20 and 28, June 3, 5 and 19, July 10, 21, 23, 24 and 31 and August 1, 5, 6, 7, 12, 14, 15 and 22 be now received and taken as read.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move that the rules be suspended and the resolution from the Committee of Supply be now read a second time, taken as read and agreed to.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: 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 toward making good the supply granted to Her Majesty for the public service of the province, there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the following:

1. $5,095,058 to make good certain sums expended for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1979, and

2. $5,549,629,000 towards defraying the several charges and expenses for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981, such sum to include that authorized to be paid under section 1 of the Supply Act, No. 1, 1980, and section 1 of the Supply Act, No. 2, 1980.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the resolution.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The resolution is that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty for the public service of the province, there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the following:

1. $5,095,058 to make good certain sums expended for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1979, and

2. $5,549, 629,000 towards defraying the several charges and expenses for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981, such sum to include that authorized to be paid under section 1 of the Supply Act, No. 1, 1980, and section 1 of the Supply Act, No. 2, 1980.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the resolution be now read a second time, taken as read and agreed to.

Motion approved.

[ Page 4192 ]

SUPPLY ACT, NO. 3, 1980

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present Bill 65, intituled Supply Act, No. 3, 1980.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move that the said bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Motion approved.

The House in committee; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report to the House, recommending the introduction of Bill 65.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, copies are available and could be distributed with the permission of the Chair.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: So ordered.

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

Motion approved.

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

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that by leave of the House the rules be suspended and the bill be read a second time now.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that by leave of the House the rules be suspended and the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

SUPPLY ACT, NO. 3, 1980

The House in committee on Bill 65; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Schedules A and B approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 65, Supply Act, No. 3, 1980, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, I am informed that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is on the premises. I declare a very short recess. Possibly members could retain their seats for a very brief period.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like leave of the House to file answers to questions standing under my name on the order paper.

Leave granted.

The House took recess at 5:03 p.m.

The House resumed at 5:05 p.m.

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

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

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Forest Amendment Act, 1980

Employment Standards Act

Family and Child Service Act

British Columbia Place Act

Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act, 1980

Ministry of Finance Act Livestock Act

Utilities Commission Act

Ministry of Tourism Act

Municipal Amendment Act, 1980

Attorney-General Statutes Amendment Act, 1980

Holiday Shopping Regulation Act

Ministry of Agriculture and Food Act

Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications Act

Ministry of Environment Act

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1980

Revised Statutes Correction Act, 1980

Mineral Amendment Act, 1980

Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations Act

Horse Racing Tax Amendment Act, 1980

An Act to Amend the Cultus Lake Park Act

An Act to Amend the Royal Canadian Legion Act

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.

[ Page 4193 ]

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Supply Act, No. 3, 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 this bill.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

Hon. Mrs. Jordan tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Tourism and Small Business Development of British Columbia, 1979.

MR. RITCHIE: May I have leave to make a few very brief remarks?

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet or until Mr. Speaker may be advised by the government that it is desired to prorogue the second session of the 32nd parliament of the province of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied or has been so advised and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and as the case may be may transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time, and that in the event of Mr. Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:11 p.m.

APPENDIX

17 The Hon. T.M. Waterland to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 17) intituled Forest Amendment Act, 1980, to amend as follows:

Section 31 is deleted and the following substituted:

"31. section 84 is amended

(a) by repealing subsections (1) to (3) and substituting the following:

(1) Subject to the regulations made under subsections (4) and (5), where stumpage is payable to the Crown under an agreement entered into under this or the former Act, the rates of stumpage shall

(a) be determined by the regional manager or a forest officer authorized by him in accordance with the policies and procedures approved for the forest region by the minister, and

(b) be varied according to the agreement.

(2) The Regulation Act does not apply to the policies and procedures approved under this section.

(3) The policies and procedures for a forest region shall within 30 days after the minister approves them, be filed with the regional manager for the forest region who shall make them available for inspection by any person, and

(b) in subsection (5) by striking out 'subsections (2) to (4),' and substituting I subsections (1) and (4),'."

Section 32, line 24: By deleting "all of part of" and substituting "all or part of ".

Section 45 is amended in line 3 by deleting — 84(2) "and substituting 84(1)".

Section 45:

(a) In the proposed section 154(2)(a) by deleting "139(1)(a)", and

(b) In the proposed section 154(2)(a. 1) by adding "(a)" after "139(1)

The following section 1s added after section 45:

"45.1. Section 154 is amended by repealing subsection (3) and substituting the following:

[ Page 4194 ]

(3) The appeal board or person who decides an appeal of a determination made under section 84 shall, in deciding the appeal under subsection (5), apply the policies and procedures approved by the minister under section 84 that were in effect at the time of the initial determination."

Section 67 is deleted and the following substituted:

"Commencement

"67. Sections 31 and 45.1 of this Act shall be deemed to have come into force on July 30, 1980, and are retroactive to the extent necessary to give them effect on and after that date.

"Powers before
amendment introduced

"68. Where the minister approves the policies and procedures referred to in section 31 of this Act before July 30, 1980, his approval is effective notwithstanding that it was given before section 31 came into force."

36 The Hon. J.H. Heinrich to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 36) intituled Employment Standards Act, to amend as follows:

Section 1: By deleting "compensation" in paragraph (a) of the definition of employee" and substituting "wages".

Section 7:

(a) In subsection (2) by adding "and" at the end of paragraph (d), deleting paragraph (e) and renumbering paragraph (f) as paragraph (e).

(b) By adding the following subsection:

"(3) An employer may honour an employee's written assignment of or authorization to pay wages to meet a credit obligation."

Section 10(2): By adding "for a period of one year after the employee ceases his employment" after "Province".

Section 12(a)(ii): By deleting 56, 59, 76(2) or 91(3)," and substituting "or 76(2),".

Section 27: By adding the following subsection:

" (3) On receipt of a written application from an employer and his employees or their representative, the director may, on being satisfied that the application of subsection (2) is unsuitable in the circumstances, authorize a variation."

Section 31:

(a) In subsection (1) by deleting "from an employer and his employees or their representative".

(b) In subsection (2) by deleting "that are agreed to between the employer and his employees or their representative and".

Section 40: By adding "for a period of one year after the employee ceases his employment" after "Province".

Section 49:

(a) In paragraph (c) by deleting "an employee".

(b) In paragraph (d) by deleting "an employee" and substituting "a person".

Section 50:

(a) In subsection (2) by deleting "unless the person has first received written permission from" and substituting "without the permission of".

(b) In subsection (3) by deleting "out in the permit".

(c) In subsection (4) by deleting "out in the permit." and substituting "under subsection (3)."

[ Page 4195 ]

Section 87(3):

(a) By deleting "or" at the end of paragraph (a).

(b) In paragraph (b) by deleting "other member" and substituting "or more other members".

(c) By renumbering paragraph (b) as paragraph (c) and adding the following paragraph:

"(b) the chairman of the board or a vice chairman of the board, or''.

Section 88: By deleting section 88 and substituting the following:

"Quorum

"88. A quorum of the board or panel is a majority of its members.''

Section 103(1): By deleting "or" at the end of paragraph (c), adding "or" at the end of paragraph (d) and adding the following paragraph:

"(e) contravenes a determination of the director under section 105(3)(a),".

Section 105:

(a) In subsection (2)(b)(iii) by deleting "order;" and substituting "regulation;".

(b) By renumbering subsection (2)(b) as subsection (2)(c) and by adding the following paragraph:

"(b) exempting a person or class of persons from all or part of this Act or the regulations, and".

(c) In subsection (3) by deleting paragraph (a) and substituting the following:

"(a) determine the maximum amount that an employer may charge for room and board furnished to an employee or class of employees,".

(d) In subsection (3)(b) by deleting "subsection (2)," and substituting "subsection (2)(a) and (c) ".

(e) By deleting subsection (4) and substituting the following:

"(4) A determination, approval or authorization of the director under subsection (3) and section 31 is not a regulation as defined in the Regulation Act.''

36 Ms. Sanford to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 36) intituled Employment Standards Act, to amend as follows:

Section 7(1) is amended by adding the following subsection:

"(a) Where board or lodging or transportation is furnished by any employer to an employee, the board may investigate the matter and if, in the opinion of the board, the price charged by the employer for the board or lodging or transportation is excessive and unduly affects the wages of the employee, the board may make an order fixing a maximum price to be charged by the employer for the board or lodging or transportation furnished to that employee, or to any group of his employees or to his employees in any industry, business, trade or occupation."

Section 15(2) is amended by adding subsection (e):

"(e) a mortgage of, or debenture charging, land that was registered in a land title office before registration against that property of a certificate of judgment obtained pursuant to the filing under section 14, except with respect to money advanced under the mortgage or debenture after the certificate of judgment was registered. The amount of wages which shall take priority over such a mortgage of land will be two months wages.

By striking out section 15(3).

Section 30 is amended by adding the following subsection:

" (4) Overtime wage provisions shall apply to live-in domestics."

[ Page 4196 ]

Section 32(1) is amended by striking out the phrase "at intervals that will result in no employee working longer that five consecutive hours without an eating period" and substituting therefore "after the first four consecutive hours employment, or five consecutive hours employment where the employee is given a rest period of not less that 10 minutes within his first four consecutive hours employment."

Section 35(1) is amended by replacing the phrase — "32 consecutive hours" with — "48 consecutive hours".

Section 42 is amended by adding the following subsection:

"(5)(a) Except in the case of undertakings of a seasonal or intermittent nature, any employer, who for technological or economic reasons, plans to make a collective termination, dismissal or layoff of employees, or plans to make a complete plant closure, shall give notice thereof to the Minister within the following minimum times:

(i) two months when the number of dismissals contemplated is at least 10 and less than 100;

(ii) three months when the number of dismissals contemplated is at least 100 and less than 300;

(iii) six months when the number of dismissals contemplated is 300 or more."

"(b) Upon the request of the Minister and in consultation with him, every employer must immediately take part in the establishment of a committee on reclassification and retraining of employees. Such committee shall consist of an equal number of representatives of the employees and the certified association of the employees, of failing such association, the employees. The Minister may appoint representatives to the committee.

"(c) The employer and the certified association of the employees, or failing such association, the employees may, with the consent of the Minister and on such conditions as he determines, establish a collective fund for the purposes of reclassification, retraining and idemnification of employees. If necessary, several employers and several certified associations may establish such a collective fund jointly. "

Section 42 is amended by adding the following subsection:

"(6)(a) An employee credited with one year of uninterrupted service with one employer who believes that he has not been terminated for a just and sufficient cause may present his complaint in writing to the Board of Employment Standards within 30 days of his termination, except where a remedial procedure, other than a recourse in damages, is provided in this act, in another act or in an agreement.

"(b) Upon receiving the complaint, the board may appoint a person who shall endeavour to settle the complaint to the satisfaction of the interested parties. The board may require from the employer a statement in writing containing the reasons for terminating the employee.

"(c) Where no settlement is reached within 30 days of the filing of the complaint with the board, the employee may apply to the board to have the complaint referred to arbitration, and the board shall appoint an arbitrator to resolve the dispute.

"(d) Where the arbitrator considers that the employee has not been terminated for a just and sufficient cause, the arbitrator may order the employer to reinstate the employee; or order the employer to pay to the employee an indemnity equivalent to the wage the employee would normally have earned had employment not been terminated; or render any other decision he believes fair and reasonable, taking into account all the circumstances of the matter."

[ Page 4197 ]

Section 57 is amended by adding subsection (e):

"(e) the existence or non-existence of a strike or other trouble pending between employer and employees, at the time of or immediately prior to the engagement."

Section 79 is amended by adding section 79A:

"79A. Where a legal strike or lockout or other dispute pending between employer and employees is in progress, no person keeping or operating an employment agency shall, having knowledge of the strike or lockout or dispute, send or assist in sending any person, or cause any person to be sent, to take employment in place of an employee in the establishment or industry who is on strike or lockout or involved in such a dispute without informing the person sent of the existence of the strike or lockout or dispute. "

45 Mr. Levi to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 45) intituled Family and Child Service Act, to amend as follows:

Section "Interpretation", line following definition of "superintendent" insert the following:

"'Ombudsman-of-children' means the person responsible for seeing to the interests of children."

Renumber section 3 et seq. as section 4 et seq. and insert new section 3:

"3.(1) An Ombudsman-of-children shall be appointed under the Public Service Act.

"(2) The responsibility of the Ombudsman-of-children shall see to the interests of children.

"(3) The Ombudsman-of-children shall function separately from the administration of this Act.

"(4) The Ombudsman-of-children has the right to appear in any proceedings under this Act.

"(5) The Ombudsman-of-children may delegate any of his or her powers, duties, functions and capacities under this Act to any person or class of person, and that person or class of person shall be subject to his or her direction."

45 The Hon. Grace McCarthy to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 45) intituled Family and Child Service Act, to amend as follows:

Section 12: By deleting subsection (2) and substituting the following:

"(2) Notice of the hearing fixed under subsection (1) shall be in writing and served, at least seven clear days before the hearing,

(a) on the parents of the child and any person who had custody of the child when the child was apprehended,

(b) on the superintendent, or the person designated to act for him in the locality where the hearing will take place,

(c) if the superintendent believes the child is registered, or is entitled to be registered, as an Indian under the Indian Act (Canada), on the band manager or band social development officer of the Indian band to which the child belongs, and

(d) on other persons the court considers appropriate, and the court may direct

(e) that notice on any person referred to in paragraphs (a) to (c) be dispensed with, and

(f) how a notice shall be served, or that there shall be substituted service, and when a direction under paragraph (f) is complied with the notice shall be

[ Page 4198 ]

conclusively deemed to have been sufficiently served, but where a person consents, service of written notice on him is not necessary. "

Section 14(3)(c) is amended by deleting "birth".

45 Ms. Brown to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 45) intituled Family and Child Service Act, to amend as follows:

Title: Delete "Child Service" and insert "Childrens' Protection Act".

Section 2, line 2: After "child" insert "and the preservation of the family".

Renumber section 3 et seq., as section 6 et seq., and insert as new sections:

"3. (1) Subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, the minister may do such things as he considers advisable to promote the growth and development of community services and resources designed to support families in the proper care of their children and to prevent circumstances that lead to family breakdown.

"(2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), the minister may, subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, where the minister considers it advisable:

(a) provide consultative services to assist in the co-ordination of existing community and other services and in the development of new services;

(b) provide funds by way of loans, grants or otherwise to assist in the research, development and maintenance of new community services and in the expansion and improvement of existing services;

(c) conduct research with a view to ascertaining more effective methods of providing community and other services aimed at promoting, supporting and maintaining family life or carrying out the purposes of this Act.

"4. The minister may, in order to enable a parent to maintain a child in his home and in order to prevent the child from becoming a child in need of protection, assist the parent by providing such welfare services as the minister considers necessary and advisable.

"5. The minister may make such payments as he considers necessary to or for the benefit of a parent, child or other person where special services or moneys are considered by the minister essential to enable the parent to care for the child."

Section 6 et seq. to be renumbered as section 7 et seq. and insert new section 6:

"6. The superintendent and the parent may enter into an agreement providing for the temporary transfer of guardianship from the parent to the superintendent, after a judge has given approval in a court hearing at which the child has been legally represented."

Section 7, subsection (3): Delete the present text and substitute:

"(3) No action lies against a person making a report in good faith concerning suspected child abuse or neglect."

Section 8, line 2: After "circumstances" insert "promptly and in any event within 12 hours of receiving the complaint,".

Section 8: Renumber present section 8 as section 8(1) and add new section 8(2):

"(2) Where the superintendent considers that a child is in need of a medical or psychological examination and the parent unreasonably refuses to permit the examination, the superintendent may apply ex parte to a judge for an order authorizing any necessary examination. "

Section 9(1) and 9(2): Delete present wording and substitute:

"9. (1) Where the superintendent considers that a child is in need of protection and the parent of the child is unable or unwilling to enter into an agreement

[ Page 4199 ]

under section (4) or (5), or cannot be located, he shall bring the matter before a court for a hearing.

"(2) The court shall hear and consider all evidence it considers relevant and where the court considers that the child is a child in need of protection, the superintendent may apprehend the child."

Section 11, subsection (1): Delete present text and substitute:

"(1) Where a child is apprehended, the superintendent or a person designated by him shall, within 7 days of the apprehension, bring the child before the court and swear out a complaint in writing that the child is in need of protection or is in immediate physical danger."

Section 11, subsection (2), line 1 to 3: Strike the present text and substitute:

(2) The court shall do one of the following:".

Section 12(2)(e), line 2: After "with" insert "if the judge is persuaded by evidence that the person cannot be found or is evading service".

Section 12(4): Delete present text and substitute:

"(4) Where a notice is served on a person under this section, he has a right to be heard at the hearing to which the notice relates, and to be represented by legal counsel."

Section 12 et seq. to be renumbered section 20 et seq., and insert the following:

"12. (1) A panel consisting of a judge and 2 persons appointed under section 14, and a panel as reconstituted under this section, has the powers and duties of a court under this Act.

"(2) The court continues to have the powers and duties of a court under this Act that are not given or imposed on a panel under this Act.

"(3) A majority decision of the panel is sufficient to determine any matter within its jurisdiction; and the decision of the panel shall be given by the judge on its behalf; but no dissenting decision shall be published.

"(4) Notwithstanding subsection (3), the judge on a panel shall continue to be the sole judge of any question of law arising in a hearing before the panel, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the admissibility of evidence and the jurisdiction of the panel.

"(5) Where a panel member, other than the judge, becomes unable to hear further proceedings in a matter already commenced, or where he is successfully challenged under subsection (7), the proceedings may continue before and heard by, at their option, the remaining panel members, or by a reconstituted panel consisting of the remaining members and a replacement member appointed under section 14.

"(6) A reconstituted panel has the same power as if the proceedings had been commenced before and heard throughout by it; but where the judge on the panel is unable to hear further proceedings, the further proceedings may be continued before and heard by any other judge having jurisdiction; and that other judge, if he sees fit, may give directions with regard to the rehearing of evidence, and he shall have the same power as if the proceedings had been commenced before and heard throughout by him.

"(7) Any person referred to in section 1 (1) may, before the hearing of evidence in a proceeding, challenge a panel member on the ground of bias, and the judge shall rule on whether the challenged panel member shall continue on the panel.

"(8) Where a panel is reconstituted under subsections (5) and (6), the judge may give directions he considers appropriate for a summary of, or the rehearing of, evidence already introduced.

[ Page 4200 ]

"13(1) Where a roster of names has been prepared and approved under section 15, a panel shall be constituted and hear any matter within its jurisdiction on the request in writing of

(a) the child;

(b) a parent of the child;

(c) the superintendent;

(d) a family advocate appointed under the Family Relations Act; or

(e) the presiding judge.

"(2) A request made under subsection (1), made by a person referred to in subsection (1)(a) to (d), must be made to the clerk of the court at least 7 clear days prior to the date fixed for the hearing.

"(3) Unless otherwise directed by the presiding judge, the clerk of the court shall give the persons referred to in subsection (1), including both parents of the child, at least 2 days notice in writing prior to the date set for the hearing, that a panel has been requested. I

"14. (1) The panel members for a particular hearing, other than the judge, shall be appointed by the clerk of the court from a roster of names prepared and approved under section 15.

"(2) The clerk shall, in selecting panel members to be appointed under subsection (1) begin his selection with the first name on the roster following the last name on the roster of those members most recently appointed to a panel, and proceed sequentially through the roster until he has appointed 2 persons who are able to serve on the panel.

"15. (1) A person who is

(a) a resident of a district determined by the Attorney General; and

(b) registered under the Election Act as a voter in the list of voters for any electoral district, may submit his name in writing to the clerk of the court indicating his willingness to have his name included in a roster for the purposes of section 14 for the district under paragraph (a) in which he is resident.

"(2) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may, notwithstanding subsection (1) and section 14, by order, prescribe an alternative procedure for selecting and appointing panel members or preparing of a roster of names.

"(3) A roster of names prepared under this section shall not be used by the clerk of the court for selection of names for a panel unless the roster has first been approved in writing by the Attorney General.

"16. (1) A panel member shall be sworn by the judge prior to the hearing to perform his duties in good faith and to the best of his ability and not to disclose to any person any matter that has come to his attention as a panel member.

"(2) No panel member shall disclose to any person the position taken by any particular member or the division of opinion among the members, on any matter before the panel.

"(3) No panel member is liable for any loss or damage suffered by any person by reason of anything in good faith done or not done in the exercise or purported exercise of any power or performance of any duty under this Act.

"17. Each panel member, other than the judge, whether sworn as a panel member or not, shall be reimbursed for reasonable travelling and other out of pocket expenses necessarily incurred by him in performing his duties as a panel member.

"18. (1) An employer of a panel member shall allow the member time off from work to perform his duties under this Act.

"(2) A person who is absent from his employment by reason of the performance of his duties under this Act is, for all purposes respecting retention of

[ Page 4201 ]

employment, seniority rights and superannuation benefits, deemed to have continued in his employment during the period of his absence.

"(3) For the purpose of subsections (1) and (2), the clerk of the court shall prepare and deliver to any panel member requesting one, a certificate attesting to the fact of the member's appointment, attendance and service on a panel.

"19. On the joint requisition of the Attorney General and the Minister of Human Resources, the Minister of Finance shall pay out of the consolidated revenue fund, or out of the revenue surplus appropriation account of the consolidated revenue fund, or partly from the consolidated revenue fund and partly from the revenue surplus appropriation account of the consolidated revenue fund, sums which may be authorized by an Act of the Legislature for those purposes."

Section 13(1)(c), line 3: Strike all after "time" and substitute "the court may make an order for maintenance against one or both parents, in an amount that takes into account ability to pay, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs of maintaining the child at home."

Section 13(1)(c), line 3: Afttr "exceeding" delete "12" and insert — 6 months in the case of children over 5 years, and 3 months in the case of children under 5 years".

Section 13(2), line 3: After "exceeding" delete "6 months" and insert "12 months, subject to review and possible reduction after 6 months."

Section 13(3), delete present text and substitute:

"(3) An order under subsection (1)(c) shall only be made after the court has considered a plan for eventual family reunification presented by the social worker in close collaboration with the parents of the child, and such order may include provision for a parent to have access to the child."

Section 13(7), delete present text and substitute:

"(7) Where the superintendent considers it likely that the conditions that led to the taking of the child into custody will be remedied so that the child may be returned to the parent apparently entitled to custody, the superintendent may, subject to the giving of notices in the same way as under section 12(2), apply to the court for extensions of an order made under subsection (1)(c) of this section for periods not exceeding 6 months if the child is over 5 years, and 3 months if the child is under 5 years on the date the application is made.

"(8) No order shall be made under subsection (1)(c) which would extend a temporary custody order beyond 2 years in care, without convening a hearing to determine whether the child should be committed to the permanent custody of the superintendent.

"(9) No temporary custody order shall be extended beyond 2 years unless the court considers that there are exceptional reasons."

Section 17, new subsection 17(3):

"(3) Where the court considers that enforcement of all or part of this section is contrary to the best interests of the child, the court may order that the application of all or part of subsection (1) be waived with respect to any person."

Section 17(1): In (a), (b), and (c), after "superintendent" insert "and the parent".

Section 18, lines 6 to 9: Delete present text and substitute:

"Lieutenant Governor in Council shall appoint three persons independent of the Ministry of Human Resources to inquire into and report to the Legislature on the conditions experienced by the child and make recommendations for improvements in programs and living arrangements, and sections 12, 15 and 16 of the Inquiry Act apply."

[ Page 4202 ]

Renumber section 19 et seq. as section 20 et seq., and insert new section 19:

"19. (1) In this section, 'court' means a provincial court (family division), the Unified Family Court, a county or the Supreme Court.

"(2) A child may have legal representation at any stage in proceedings before a court in British Columbia in any matter affecting the guardianship, custody or status of the child.

"(3) Wherein a proceeding referred to in subsection (2) a child does not have legal representation, the court shall, as soon as practicable in the proceedings, determine whether legal representation is desirable to protect the interests of the child and if at that time or at any later stage in the proceedings the court determines that legal representation is desirable that court shall direct that legal representation be provided for the child."

46 The Hon. C.S. Rogers to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 46) intituled British Columbia Place Act, to amend as follows:

Section 7: By adding at the end of subsection (1): "within the area of the City of Vancouver bounded as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the southeasterly limit of Burrard Bridge and the Harbour Headline on the north side of False Creek, then northeasterly along the bridge and Burrard Street to Drake Street, then southeasterly along Drake Street to Homer Street, then northerly along Homer Street to Smithe Street, then southeasterly along Smithe Street to Cambie Street, then northeasterly along Cambie Street to Pender Street, then easterly along Pender Street to Main Street, then southerly along Main Street to First Avenue, then westerly along First Avenue to the intersection of the easterly limit of Ontario Street, then along the northerly extension of Ontario Street to the intersection of the Harbour Headline, then easterly, northerly and westerly along the Harbour Headline to the point of commencement".

48 The Hon. W.N. Vander Zalm to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 48) intituled Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act, 1980, to amend as follows:

Section 4:

(a) in the proposed section 236 by deleting "as of December 30, 1967" and substituting "dated December 30, 1967", and

(b) in the proposed section 237(2) by adding ", or any renewal of it," after "lease".

50 Mrs. Wallace to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 50) intituled Livestock Act, to amend as follows:

Title: By inserting following the word "Livestock" the words "Pound Districts, Bull Control Areas and Artificial Insemination Centres".

52 The Hon. R. H. McClelland to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 52) intituled Utilities Commission Act, to amend as follows:

Section 16: By adding the following to the definition of "regulated project": "but 'regulated project' does not include

(j) a project that is complete or in operation before this Act comes into force, or

(k) a project in respect of which, before this Act comes into force, site preparation or the fabrication, construction, installation or supply of buildings, equipment, machinery or other facilities has begun."

54 The Hon. W. N. Vander Zalm to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No.54) intituled Municipal Amendment Act, 1980, to amend as follows:

[ Page 4203 ]

By deleting section 4 and substituting the following:

"4. section 38 is amended

(a) in subsection (1) by striking out 'owns' and substituting 'is the owner or tenant in occupation of',

(b) in subsection (3) by adding ', lease land or own and lease land' after 'own land', and

(c) in subsection (4) by adding 'or a lessee' after 'owner'."

57 Mrs. Wallace to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 57) intituled Ministry of Agriculture and Food Act, to amend as follows:

Section 5 (1), line 2: By adding after "acquire" the words "except by expropriation, on such terms and conditions as may be negotiated".

Section 5 (2) (a), line 1: By adding after "acquire" the words "except by expropriation, on such terms and conditions as may be negotiated".

60 The Hon. Grace McCarthy to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 60) intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1980, to amend as follows:

Section 1, lines 3 and 4: By deleting "Where the written consent to the adoption of a child is given and where the consent is not revoked under subsection (7)," and substituting "Where a child is voluntarily surrendered to the superintendent for an adoption consented to under this section, subject to subsection 7,".

60 Mr. Barber to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 60) intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1980, to amend as follows:

Section 58: In the proposed section 12(5), line 2, by deleting "bylaw." and substituting "bylaw, or alternatively the bylaw may establish variations in the rate of levy applied to an area of a municipality corresponding pro rata to the relative level of transit service provided that area."

Section 60: In the proposed section 18(2), line 1, by inserting prior to "Section" a new section as follows:

"Section (1)(d) But shall not include any designated islands under the Islands Trust Act unless a bylaw adopted by the Islands Trust requests inclusion of any designated islands in a transit service area."

60 The Hon. W.N. Vander Zalm to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 60) intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1980, to amend as follows:

New section 65. 1:

65. 1. section 57 is amended by adding 'or that he, for reasons of conscience, is unable to vote on polling-day' after 'hospital on polling-day'.

25 Mr. Howard asked the Hon. the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development the following question:

Since the inception of the Canada-British Columbia Subsidiary Agreement on Travel Industry Development what is the name and address of each person who has received funds pursuant to the said agreement, the amount of such funds made available to each such person, and the location of any premises for which funds were so made available?

The Hon. D.M. Phillips replied as follows:

[ Page 4204 ]

"As of July 31, 1980 those who have received funds are:

"In addition to those listed, several other persons have received funding approvals under the Canada-British Columbia Subsidiary Agreement on Travel Industry Development, but as this is a jointly funded and administered Federal-Provincial program, names of such persons, locations and the amounts approved for such persons to date is not public information until there has been a joint announcement of same by both levels of Government.

"In addition to those cases which have been announced to date, 131 approvals totalling $21,333,652 are currently in process."

29 Mr. Howard asked the Hon. the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development the following questions:

[ Page 4205 ]

1. Did the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development make a grant to the Canada West Foundation in the fiscal year 1978/79 and, if so, what was the amount of the grant?

2. Does the Government have a representative on the said foundation?

3. Has the foundation conducted any analysis of the potential development of water resources in British Columbia and, if so, has a report thereon been made?

4. What recommendations are made in any such report?

The Hon. D.M. Phillips replied as follows:

"1. In fiscal year 1978/79, the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development (then Economic Development) provided a grant of $30,000 to the Canada West Foundation.

"2. The Government has two representatives on the Foundation: M. Smith, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations, and D. Emerson, Director, Policy Planning and Evaluation Division, Ministry of Finance.

"3. The Foundation is currently engaged in a study to assess the problems and prospects for developing the water resources of the four western Provinces.

"4. The report is not completed."

34 Mr. Leggatt asked the Hon. the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development the following questions:

With respect to the Federal Government's decision to purchase 137 McDonnell Douglas F-18A fighter planes-

1. What were the promised industrial benefits to British Columbia in the General Dynamics F-16 package?

2. What were the promised industrial benefits to British Columbia in the original McDonnell Douglas F-18A package?

3. What are the promised industrial benefits to British Columbia in the amended McDonnell Douglas F- I 8A package accepted by the Federal government after major benefits were diverted to Quebec?

4. Are there any net losses to British Columbia resulting from (a) the decision to accept the McDonnell Douglas package rather than the General Dynamics package and (b) the changes to the McDonnell Douglas package after benefits were diverted to Quebec?

The Hon. D.M. Phillips replied as follows:

"1. General Dynamics, with Pratt and Whitney as their major subcontractor, advised the Ministry they had identified the following projects as holding possible potential in British Columbia: CF-16 nozzle fairings, CF-16 external fuel tanks, electronic components, numerical control machining centre, aerospace forging facility, composite structure fabrication centre, copper smelter. It should be noted, however, that General Dynamics also offered these projects to other provinces as well with the exception of the copper smelter. Therefore no specific commitment was given exclusively to British Columbia.

"2. McDonnell Douglas were not specific in identifying projects for placement in British Columbia if the F- I 8A was chosen. They had indicated that they would place manufacture of the nose section of the F- I 8A with a local company, they would support a new machining centre and an aerospace forging facility and had carried out through their subcontractor, General Electric, a feasibility study for a new blade and vane facility, with consideration being given to placing it in British Columbia. This facility has now been committed to Quebec.

"3. McDonnell Douglas have not finalized the content of their industrial benefits program with respect to British Columbia. Active negotiations are under

[ Page 4206 ]

way to add to proposals discussed during contract negotiations. My Ministry's Offset Specialist is in constant contact with McDonnell Douglas and all of its subcontractors to press for maximum benefits for British Columbia.

"4. There is no assessable loss to British Columbia in the choice of the F-18A. The benefits offered by General Dynamics were only tentative and, as earlier stated, were offered to other provinces as well as British Columbia. With the exception of the copper smelter, it has come to our attention that all of the items identified by General Dynamics for potential placement in British Columbia had in the last days of negotiations been offered to Quebec. My Ministry is now examining the potential for a copper smelter independent of the aircraft order, and is presently engaged in a feasibility study to determine viability."

36 Mr. Leggatt asked the Hon. the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development the following questions:

1. What steps has the Provincial Government taken to encourage British Columbia companies to apply for industrial benefits under the $3 billion McDonnell Douglas Canadian fighter airplane Industrial Benefits Program?

2. Has the Provincial Government been monitoring the number of applications from British Columbia companies for industrial benefits under this program?

3. How many British Columbia companies have made application for industrial benefits under this program?

The Hon. D.M. Phillips replied as follows:

"1. For some months prior to the order being placed, McDonnell Douglas Canada technical personnel had been working with British Columbia machine shops to ensure that the required quality standards for aerospace work could be met. The Ministry encouraged visits from McDonnell Douglas Canada, McDonnell Douglas St. Louis and all of their subcontractors to meet with British Columbia companies. One hundred and eleven British Columbia companies were invited by the Ministry to a seminar in Vancouver. The Industrial Benefits Program proposals were explained to the companies by McDonnell Douglas, followed by private meetings with all of their subcontractors who were in attendance. Two seminars were held subsequently in Vancouver to explain to British Columbia companies the quality standard requirements of aerospace (total of 61 companies attended). Since the placing of the N.F.A. order, Ministry personnel have been working with McDonnell Douglas in order to maximize British Columbia industry participation in the benefits coming out of the program. Two groups of British Columbia businessmen, representing 13 companies, have visited McDonnell Douglas Canada plant in Malton, Ont., under our trade mission program, to acquaint themselves with work and services that are available.

"2. The Ministry has actively monitored the number of companies applying wherever possible. McDonnell Douglas have run several advertisements in British Columbia press requesting that interested companies apply to them directly in St. Louis. It is not possible for the Ministry at this time to know exactly how many or what the interests are of the companies that have responded. However, McDonnell Douglas have agreed to supply a list of these companies to the Ministry as soon as the advertising program and the replies coming from it have been completed. The Ministry has identified several major projects that would be feasible for the Province and has presented these to McDonnell Douglas and their subcontractors. Negotiations on these projects began prior to the N. F. A. order and are continuing. Implementation may involve joint ventures in existing British Columbia companies.

[ Page 4207 ]

"3. The Ministry has acted as the liaison between 57 companies and McDonnell Douglas and it is our understanding that negotiations are proceeding on several business projects. As stated previously, we do not know how many companies in total have responded to the McDonnell Douglas advertisements."

74 Mr. Hall asked the Hon. the Minister of Tourism the following questions:

1. Within the Ministry of Tourism and effective the following dates, December 31, 1979; January 31, 1980; February 29, 1980; March 31, 1980; April 30, 1980; and May 31, 1980, who were the persons holding the undermentioned offices or positions, what salaries were they paid, what were their duties, and to whom did they report: (a) Deputy Minister; (b) Associate Deputy Minister (s), if any; (c) Executive Assistant; (d) Administrative Assistant; (e) Minister's Secretary; (f) Executive Director, Marketing and Promotion; (g) Director of Market Development; (h) Manager, Editors and Exhibits; (i) Manager, Winter Development; (j) Manager, Conventions; (k) Director, Office Administration; (1) Acting Director, Industry Development; (m) Manager, Tourist Accommodations; (n) Director of Travel Information Services; (o) Director of Training Services; (p) Director of Hospitality Program; (q) Research Manager; and (r) Director of Special Services?

2. At each of December 31, 1979; January 31, 1980; February 29, 1980; March 31, 1980; April 30, 1980; and May 31, 1980, were there any other administrative positions at or above the level of Administrative Officer I and, if so, what were the positions?

3. For each position listed in reply to No. 2, who was the person holding the position, what salary was he or she paid, what were his or her duties, and to whom did he or she report?

The Hon. P.J. Jordan replied as follows:

" 1. (a) Deputy Minister: Dr. J.D. Rae, appointed May 27 1980, OIC 1178; salary $50,000 per annum, May salary $757.45; duties, provides executive direction for the Ministry; reports directly to the Minister. (b) Associate Deputy Minister: there is no Associate Deputy Minister. There is an Assistant Deputy Minister, J. Plul, appointed May 27, 1980, OIC 1179; salary of $3,152 per month, May salary $3, 152; duties, to develop, recommend and carry out ministerial policy and strategies, both short-term (the annual marketing plan) and long-range; to oversee the development and placement of ads in television, newspapers and radio in accordance with current promotional themes; to anticipate and to keep the industry and travelling public aware of changing market conditions and advantages; reports directly to the Deputy Minister and the Minister. (c) Executive Assistant: G. Ley, appointed March 3, 1980, OIC 441; salary $19,500 per annum; and Miss B. Morrison appointed March 24, 1980, OIC 651, salary $25,800 per annum, March salary $1,075, terminated May 15, 1980; duties, to prepare speeches, press releases, letters and written reports; to undertake research and special projects; reports directly to the Minister. (d) Administrative Assistant: None. (e) Minister's Secretary: F. Mailhot, appointed March 24, 1980, OIC 652; salary $1,500 per month, March salary $428.57, April and may received $1,500 per month; D McCubbin, employed January 11, 1980, to February 22, 1980, no salary involved, received normal salary as a member of caucus staff through Legislation vote; duties, as secretary to the Minister of Tourism, to take and transcribe letters and reports; to answer correspondence independently; to organize office procedures and filing system; to supervise secretarial staff; to receive visitors; arrange appointments and answer inquiries for information; reports directly to the Minister. (f) Executive Director, Marketing and Promotion: Until Mr. Plul's appointment as Assistant Deputy Minister he was the Executive Director,

[ Page 4208 ]

Marketing and Promotion; salary of $3,152 per month; duties, to market British Columbia throughout the world as a bargain vacation destination by means of advertising promotional themes and attractions and special events; reports directly to the Deputy Minister and the Minister. (g) Director of Market Development: J. Plul, in his capacity of Executive Director, Marketing and Promotion, also serves as Director of Market Development; duties, accountable for designing and implementing a marketing plan for the Ministry which will promote British Columbia as a travel destination; reports directly to the Deputy Minister and the Minister. (h) Manager, Editors and Exhibits: B.A. Lee, salary of $1,882 per month for the period December 1, 1979, to May 31, 1980; duties, include escorting various travel trade related groups on familiarization tours of British Columbia; liaison with the Canadian Government Office of Tourism in respect to familiarization trips, writers and seminar presentations; attending a number of dinners and luncheons for visiting groups and to put on presentations to these groups; to list, catalogue and appraise trave editors, photographers, newsmen and trade publications for future articles; to encourage, co-ordinate, escort and assist visiting travel and trave trade editors to obtain maximum printing on British Columbia in as many publications as possible; to administrate budget, and estimate funding for the Editors and Exhibits section; to select best possible outlets for British Columbia travel shows, exhibitions and fairs in all world market areas; to complete contracts with show management on behalf of the Ministry; to plan and design new display booths for all Ministry displays; to co-ordinate and sell private sectors to be a part of our exhibits and to supervise all personnel in the booth operation; direct responsibility for all displays and equipment; and to be responsible for shipping all equipment and ensure prompt and safe delivery through Customs, including brochures and give-away material; reports directly to the Director of Travel Sales. (i) Manager, Winter Development: J.E. Carswell, salary December 31, 1979, to May 31, 1980, $1,622 per month; duties, to be responsible for all winter travel development and promotion for the Ministry of Tourism; to liaise between the Government and sectors of the travel industry as it relates to off-season promotion, particularly skiing; to co-ordinate a wide variety of promotions and programs in relationship to off-season promotions; to deal with ski resort operators on various aspects of industry promotions; to make presentations to and co-ordinate with travel agents on all aspects of winter promotion; to travel extensively through out North America to promote and develop all aspects of winter development; responsible for the design and development of the provincial ski brochure; and participation in other programs undertaken by the Market Development Section; reports directly to Director of Travel Sales. (j) Manager, Conventions: D. Holmes, salary $2,019 per month for the period December 1, 1979, to May 31, 1980; duties, to be responsible for ensuring that British Columbia acquires a growing share of international and domestic conventions and sales meetings; to seek out, identify, contact and attempt to persuade group meeting executives from many countries to hold their conferences or conventions in British Columbia; to make presentations to groups from such organizations as the American Society of Association Executives and the senior officers of large corporations in order to stimulate convention business; to be responsible for activity that would increase the pre- and post-travel of delegates; to escort familiarization tours for association executives and decision makers in order to stimulate interest in British Columbia as a convention or conference destination; and to assist the Director of Market Development as required with other related duties; reports directly to Director of Travel Sales. (k) Director, Office Administration: There is no Director of Office Administration, there is an Office Manager, R. Schuring, salary for the period December 1, 1979, to March 31, 1980, was $1,723 per month, salary for the period

[ Page 4209 ]

April 1, 1980, to May 31, 1980, was $1,825 per month; duties, to provide support services for the Ministry in conjunction with the Comptroller and Personnel Director's offices; reports directly to the Assistant Deputy Minister. (l) Acting Director, Industry Development: W. D. Taylor, Director of Operations, salary $2,522 per month for the period December 1, 1979, to May 31, 1980; duties, to spearhead present and future development of British Columbia's in-province visitor services facilitating the optimum satisfaction and flow of travelers within the Province; to be responsible for the development and improvement of in-province visitors' services including travel counselling, counselling and hospitality courses, regional field offices; to organize and direct effective tourist accommodation and registration programs that stimulate improvement and up-grading various visitor services including assisting industry; to develop and organize systems of prompt servicing and distribution of all travel literature produced by the Ministry; to provide management and co-ordination of travel industry attractions and special services including ongoing tourist generators; and to represent the Ministry and provide ongoing interministerial and interprovincial liaison; reported directly to the Executive Director, who became the Assistant Deputy Minister. (m) Manager, Tourism Accommodations: F.S. Colthorp, salary $1,882 per month for the period December 1, 1979, to May 31, 1980; duties, to supervise and train regional accommodation counsellors who are involved with inspecting accommodation establishments throughout the Province; checking and editing information received from the private sector for inclusion in the British Columbia Tourist Directory; and replying to correspondence related to the directory listings or other accommodation establishments; reports directly to the Director of Industry Development. (n) Director of Travel Information Service: None. (o) Director of Training Services: None. (p) Director of Hospitality Program: None; the Director of Training Services and Director of Hospitality Program were managed by an Acting Manager, Training and Hospitality, Ms. P. Milino, salary for December 1, 1979, to May 31, 1980, was $1,622 per month; duties, to develop and supervise the Ministry's hospitality programs and travel counselling courses and to teach them to interested individuals and organizations throughout the Province; reports directly to the Director of Industry Development. (q) Research Manager: D. White, Acting Research Manager, salary for the period December 1, 1979, to May 31, 1980, was $2,011 per month; duties, to prepare, organize and/or co-ordinate all tourism oriented research and planning within the Ministry; reports to the Assistant Deputy Minister. (r) Director of Special Services: B.H. Atkins, salary, December 1, 1979, to May 31, 1980, was $2,908 per month; duties, to be responsible for supplying creative leadership and highly diversified support services to the Marketing and Industry Development Sections; responsibilities will include development, co-ordination and production of promotional literature including publications, brochures, maps, reports and other material; to organize and develop all photographic work of the Ministry, including necessary still and motion picture photography and production; to develop and operate the Ministry's research facility; to provide continuous monitoring of the travel industry environment, identifying travel trends, problems and opportunities; to initiate and co-ordinate support materials required for special events and attractions; and to be responsible for the publication of Beautiful British Columbia magazine and related publications, including content, design, production and distribution; reports to the Deputy Minister.

"2. Yes, (a) Business Manager, Beautiful British Columbia magazine, (b) Marketing and Promotion Manager, Beautiful British Columbia magazine, (c) three Tourist Accommodation Counsellors, (d) three London and California Sales Managers, (e) Director of Travel Sales, (f) Trade Development

[ Page 4210 ]

Officer 3 (Film Consultant), (g) Print Production Manager, (h) Assistant Editor, (i) Public Information Officer 2, (j) Public Information Officer 2, (k) Photo Arts Technician 6, (l) Photo Arts Technician 5, (m) five Photo Arts Technicians 4, and (n) two Photo Arts Technicians 3.

"3. (a) Business Manager, Beautiful British Columbia magazine: K. Gibbs, salary, December 31, 1979, to May 31, 1980, $2,019 per month; duties, responsible to the Director of Special Services for the overall management of the subscription, circulation and marketing departments; financial planning, preparation of estimates, and budget control; receiving and accounting for all revenue from the sale of Beautiful British Columbia magazine and special editions through subscriptions, distributors, agents, schools, and other representatives; all inventory, including physical plant, associated with the magazine function; planning and implementing policies pertaining to the subscription, circulation, and sales functions; management of media advertising accounts; preparation of contract specifications for the production of Beautiful British Columbia magazine, annual calendar diaries and related publications; arrange for renewal of these contracts through competitive bidding process; advising the sales promotion/marketing manager in areas where sales potential exists to increase the circulation of Beautiful British Columbia magazine and associated publications; directing the systems design and programming of data processing applications of Beautiful British Columbia magazine; preparation of advance production schedules for the editor and contract printer of Beautiful British Columbia magazine; liaison with the public and other Government departments on matters pertaining to the subscription, circulation and sales promotion functions of the magazine and special publications; co-ordinating the joint activities between the office, marketing, and warehousing functions; forecasting and implementing all personnel requirements; and provision of safe and proper working conditions, equipment and facilities for all staff members; reports directly to the Director of Special Services; (b) Marketing and Sales Promotion Manager, Beautiful British Columbia magazine: G. Mitchell, salary, December 31, 1979, to May 31, 1980, $1,723 per month; duties, responsible to the business manager to devise and implement an effective marketing program to promote sales of Beautiful British Columbia magazine and other special publications; establish contacts with distributors and retailers on a world-wide basis to publicize the magazine and expand sales; organize and co-ordinate all advertising campaigns for the magazine and the special publications; act as project co-ordinator for special promotions of the magazine if so required; advise the business manager on funding requirements for planned promotions; keep the business manager informed on the effectiveness of various promotional projects; and, if required, to periodically assist in other management functions associated with the circulation and distribution operations, including second substitution for the business manager; reports to the business manager of Beautiful British Columbia magazine. (c) Tourist Accommodation Counsellors: C. Strickland, salary, December 31, 1979, to May 31, 1980, $1,542 per month; D. Tomljenovich, salary, December 31, 1979, to May 31, 1980, $1,588 per month; and H. Stymest, salary December 31, 1979, to May 31, 1980, $1,588 per month; duties to be responsible for administration of the Government approval system of tourist accommodation; to compile and publish the British Columbia Tourist Directory; to inspect and register all approved tourist accommodation establishments and applications for approval; to handle classification of establishment; to control and issue approval signs and certificates; to enforce the British Columbia Tourist Accommodation Regulations; to service all visitor complaints in respect to tourist accommodation establishments; to solicit and compile tourist accommodation statistics; to solicit and edit all information and copy for publication in the annual British Columbia Tourist Directory; and other related

[ Page 4211 ]

duties; report directly to the Director of Industry Development. (d) London and California Sales Managers: J. Willis, salary, December 31, 1979, to May 31, 1980, $2,368 per month; R. Ludwig, salary, December 31, 1979, to May 31, 1980, $2,098 per month; and Miss M. Greene, salary, December 31, 1979, to May 31, 1980, $2,098 per month; duties, to promote British Columbia to tourists, tour operators, travel agents and associated travel organizations, such as airlines, steamship and coach operators; develop business and convention activities on a programmed basis; and maintain liaison with all media sources including consumer and trade press, radio and television outlets; reports directly to the Director of Travel Sales. (e) Director of Travel Sales: K. B. Woodward, salary, December 31, 1979, to May 31, 1980, was $2,709 per month; duties, to direct and co-ordinate the four travel field offices (San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, and London) in the promotion of travel to British Columbia in these key market areas; to direct promotional tours to the market areas aimed directly at the consumer as well as wholesale and retail agents; to assist the private sector in developing new travel packages; to liaise with carriers, tour operators, travel agencies and other municipal., provincial and federal travel offices; to implement a wide range of shoulder season programs designed to interest industry representatives and consumers in the Province's off-season potential as a travel destination; to supervise winter development programs through travel shows, familiarization tours, and tours for travel editors specializing in winter activities; to plan, co-ordinate and staff consumer travel/sport and travel trade shows in all market areas; to market British Columbia's appeal as a convention and incentive travel destination; to develop the Japanese market by encouraging longer stays and new package content; to set itineraries for study tours for travel agents, tour operators and travel editors, and to escort the groups to ensure maximum coverage of British Columbia; to produce the Travel Agent's Manual; and to monitor the tourist industry in all world market areas for new promotional methods, ideas and programs which can produce revenue through travel to British Columbia; reports to the Director of Market Development. (f) Trade Development Officer 3 (Film Consultant): Justise Green, incumbent, salary, $2,597; duties, to promote British Columbia as a location for feature film and/or television series production within Canada and abroad through generation of promotional literature and visits to major film production centres; to advise film producers on film-making facilities, services and locations within the Province; and to act as the liaison between film producers and Government officials in order to expedite film production; reports to Director, Special Services Branch. (g) Administrative Officer 1, Print Production Manager; Armand LaLiberte, incumbent, salary, $1,723; duties, to schedule and co-ordinate the production of all printed literature in the Ministry to ensure the quick and efficient movement of all publications through the requisite steps prior to printing; to co-ordinate the flow of printed materials being produced with the printing firms schedules to ensure deadlines are adhered to and a continuous supply of printed literature is produced; to be responsible for the letting of contracts to suppliers to facilitate the above; to ensure the bulk distribution of all literature to all outlets; to report to the Director on the financial status of the print production program and recommend any changes which will improve efficiency and reduce costs; and to devise, implement and, when required, revise an effective Print Production Program; reports to Director, Special Services. (h) Public Information Officer 3, Assistant Editor, (vacant), Bryan McGill, acting, salary, PIO 2 salary of $1,825 plus substitution pay from April 14, 1980, as PIO 3 at $1,941; duties, under limited direction of the Director of Special Services, to be responsible for the written content of Beautiful British Columbia magazine; to develop story ideas, write, edit and proofread as required; to write, edit and proofread other department publica-

[ Page 4212 ]

tions, as required; to act as liaison with freelance writers and photographers; to work as part of an editorial team in production of Beautiful British Columbia magazine and other ministerial publications; and other related information duties; reports to Director, Special Service Branch. (i) Public Information Officer 2: Ben Pires, incumbent, salary, $2,028.50; duties, to implement public information, educational and promotional programs; draft/edit, layout, produce the ministry's newsletter, annual report, news releases, promotional brochures on Ministry programs; write travel features and other articles for Beautiful British Columbia magazine and other travel and trade publications; monitor news clipping service for feedback to senior ministry officials to act as the Ministry's observer in public information matters; to respond to the news media's questions on Ministry's programs, projects and existing policies; to maintain contacts and cordial relations with the news media; to encourage the news media to give coverage to the Ministry's programs, projects and initiatives for greater impact when needed; to research and draft speeches for the Minister and senior ministry officials; to act as a Ministry's representative at conferences, meetings, shows and exhibits; arrange press coverage of the Minister's speeches or activities at which the Minister is officiating; to liaise with directors of information services of other Government Ministries on information, educational and promotional programs, to liaise with information personnel of Crown corporations (B.C. Development Corporation) ; to consult with senior ministry officials on public information problems and advise on public relations impact of various policy and program proposals; and other related duties; reports to Director, Special Services Branch. (j) Public Information Officer 2: Bryan McGill, incumbent, but substituting in PIO 3 position; and Gordon Mesley, auxiliary, acting, limited appointment, October 31, 1980; salary, $1,622; duties, to prepare (write and edit) material for Tourism British Columbia publications; to co-ordinate travel story release program; and to write press releases and other related publications; reports to Director, Special Services Branch. (k) Photo Arts Technician 6: Norm Keziere, incumbent, salary, $2,238; duties, as chief photographer, to supervise still and motion picture personnel and their field assignments; to be responsible for all phases of promotional travel film production by both in-house and outside agencies, from concept to international distribution; and to represent British Columbia at the Travel Film Committee of Canada; reports to Director, Special Services. (l) Photo Arts Technician 5 (Cameraman): John Anderson, incumbent, salary, $1,795; duties, to be responsible for film productions undertaken by the Special Services Branch; to supervise and train subordinate cameramen; to hire and supervise freelance technicians as required for all phases of motion picture production; to plan, script, direct, film and produce motion pictures; limited administrative duties and maintenance of stockshot library; and other related duties; reports to Photo Arts Technician 6 (Chief Photographer). (m) Photo Arts Technician 4: Maurice Borrelly, salary, $1,795; Gordon Whittaker, salary, $1,795; and Peter Tasker, salary, $1,795; duties, to be responsible for the production of all manner of still photographs to be used in Beautiful British Columbia magazine and a complete range of other departmental and government publications; required to perform a diverse number of complex and vigorous tasks involving the use of all types of still photographic equipment; involves an important public relations function including meeting and liaison with people throughout the Province in order to conduct photo assignments; includes a certain amount of office related work in connection with correspondence and inquiries relating to previous photographic work, expense and travel accounts and other related material; occasionally involves complex and extensive local and regional assignments for other Government departments and agencies; and some responsibility for co-ordination and communication with travelwriters, techni-

[ Page 4213 ]

cians, and graphic artists on actual production of magazines, stories, brochures and other printed material; Tony Owen, Graphic Designer, incumbent, salary, $1,795; duties, to be responsible for the design and graphic production of Beautiful British Columbia magazine, travel literature and other publications of Tourism British Columbia; to be responsible for colour control and resolution of production problems; to assist in the preparation of exhibit displays; and to complete other design and graphics assignments as required; and George Piercey, Colour Lab Technician, incumbent, salary, $1,795; duties, to be fully qualified in all matters pertaining to colour development, colour printing, and colour photography; and must be able to handle complicated colour equipment, including enlargers, analysers, processors, copying equipment and automatic printing equipment; all report to Director, Special Services Branch. (n) Photo Arts Technician 3: Rob Tyler, incumbent, salary, (not available); duties, as a fully qualified colour lab technician, duties include mainly colour printing under supervision; colour prints made to a special size for magazines, brochures, or other publications; and mixing chemistry for colour processing, dry mounting prints, copy and studio work, colour film processing, keeping a quality control throughout by using densitometry; reports to Photo Arts Supervisor (Photo Arts Technician 4); and Ken Staniforth, incumbent, salary, $1,689; duties, to be responsible for the production of all manner of still photographs to be used in Beautiful British Columbia magazine and a complete range of other ministerial and government publications; to be responsible for researching and developing photographic stories in the field, based upon the general outline of the Branch Director; and to perform specialized local and regional photographic work in relation to specific stories for Beautiful British Columbia magazine; reports to Director, Special Services Branch."

78 Mr. Lea asked the Hon. the Minister of Forests the following question:

Is it the position of the Ministry that the Queen Charlotte Blocks of MacMillan Bloedel's Tree-farm Licence 39 should be managed on a separate "sustained yield" basis or is it the case that the sustained yield requirement is applicable only to the entire TFL?

The Hon. T.M. Waterland replied as follows:

"The cut control provisions in the Tree-farm Licence Agreement are related to the entire licence but through the process for submission and approval of the required management and working plans, it is the intention of the Ministry of Forests to ensure that the Queen Charlotte Block of Tree-farm Licence 39 is managed on a sustainable basis."

80 Mr. Passarell asked the Hon. the Minister of Education the following questions:

With respect to Archie Gaber —-

1. Who in the Ministry of Education authorized the implementation of the recommendations made by Stan Evans?

2. Was the Minister consulted prior to the decision being taken to implement the recommendations of the Evans study?

3. Did all persons involved in authorizing the implementation of the Evans recommendations read Mr. Gaber's submission of April 11, 1980, in which it was alleged that there were over 60 errors of fact and contradictions in the Evans study?

4. Has Mr. Gaber been notified by the Minister that a further review is being conducted of his case?

5. With reference to the further review: (a) what are the terms of reference, (b) who is conducting the review, (c) when will it be complete, (d) will Mr. Gaber

[ Page 4214 ]

have an opportunity to make representations and to be represented by counsel, (e) will it be a public hearing, and (f) will it include a review of the actions of the Minister's Executive Assistant, Mr. Tucker, and the conversations with Mr. Gaber's lawyer which culminated in Mr. Gaber's withdrawal from the school board by-election held in Kamloops in May 1980?

The Hon. B.R.D. Smith replied as follows:

"1. The Minister.

"2. Yes.

"3. Officials of the Ministry of Education who considered the Evans recommendations were also aware of Mr. Gaber's allegations of error in the Evans study.

"4. Yes, his lawyers were so notified.

"5. A member of the Attorney General's staff is reviewing the file and considering what further action, if any, should be taken by the Ministry of Education in this matter. This review is not complete and will be considered by the Minister for appropriate action. Mr. Gaber may make any further submissions in writing that he wishes either directly or through a solicitor. There will be no hearing held as the review is not a formal inquiry, but a final review being afforded to Mr. Gaber. There will be no review of the actions of the Minister's Executive Assistant...those allegations were answered earlier in the Legislature."