[ Page 5915 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Supply Act (No –– 2) 1981 (Bill 25). Hon. Mr. Curtis.

Introduction and first reading –– 5916

Supply Act (No –– 2) 1981 (Bill 25). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 5916

Mr. Howard –– 5916

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 5917

Supply Act (No –– 2) 1981 (Bill 25). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

On the preamble –– 5917

Mr. Cocke

Report and third reading –– 5917

Power Engineers and Boiler and Pressure Vessel Safety Act (Bill 17). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 5918

Ms. Sanford –– 5918

Mr. Cocke –– 5920

Mr. King –– 5920

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 5921

Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 13). Report stage.

Division on third reading –– 5922

Electrical Energy Inspection Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 18). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 5922

Ms. Sanford –– 5923

Mr. Cocke –– 5923

Mr. King –– 5924

Mr. Nicolson –– 5924

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 5924

The House met at 10 a.m.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, visiting the Legislature today, as they do every year, are students from Fraser Valley Christian High School. I wonder if the House would welcome those students today, together with their teacher Mr. Veen Baas, on behalf of myself and the first member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm).

MR. BRUMMET: In the precinct today, and periodically some of them will be in the galleries, are 23 representatives from the oilfield industry in northeastern British Columbia. They are mainly contractors who are here to convey some of their concerns to the government regarding the slowdown in the oil and gas industry and the hopes that something can be done to tide them over. I'd like the members to acknowledge that they're here.

Orders of the Day

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

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move that from and out of the consolidated revenue fund there may be paid and applied, in such manner and at such times as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may determine, a sum not exceeding in the whole $1,184 million towards defraying the several charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982, not otherwise provided for and being substantially one-sixth of the total amount of the votes of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982, as laid before the Legislative Assembly of the province of British Columbia at the present session.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of resolution from the Committee of Supply on June 2, 1981, be now taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

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

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the committee sit again?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Later today, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Just before we put the motion, perhaps could we take a brief recess? Members may wish to see the bill, and if we could have a two-minute recess the Clerks could distribute the bill. It will take just a moment for the bill to arrive. Perhaps we could proceed, and the moment it's prepared we'll have it distributed.

The minister has moved that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair.

Motion approved.

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

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move that from and out of the consolidated revenue fund there may be paid and applied, in such manner and at such times as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may determine, a sum not exceeding in the whole $1,184 million towards defraying the several charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982, not otherwise provided for and being substantially one-sixth of the total amount of the votes of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982, as laid before the Legislative Assembly of the province of British Columbia at the present session.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of resolution from the Committee of Ways and Means on June 2, 1981, be now taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The resolution says that "...from and out of the consolidated revenue fund there may be paid and applied, in such manner and at such times as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may determine, a sum not exceeding in the whole $1,184 million towards defraying the several charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982, not otherwise provided for and being substantially one-sixth of the total amount of the votes of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982, as laid before the Legislative Assembly of the province of British Columbia at the present session."

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the committee sit again?

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

[ Page 5916 ]

SUPPLY ACT (NO. 2) 1981

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I present Bill 25, intituled Supply Act (No. 2) 1981.

I understand the bill has been distributed.

MR. SPEAKER: The bill has been distributed and is in the hands of all members.

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

Motion approved.

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

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Motion approved.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker — it may not be a very crucial matter — I want to submit to you that the bill, specifically section 1 thereof, does not reflect, in its entirety, insofar as the words are concerned, the resolution that the committee dealt with. There's a disparity between the words used in the resolution and the words contained in the bill. It seems to me that that should be examined to make sure that everything is in concert. If I could specifically refer to the resolutions reported in the Committee of Ways and Means and in this committee with respect to the bill, I come down to the point where the bill, in section 1, on line 4, says: "the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may determine the sum not exceeding $1,184,000,000 towards.... When Your Honour read that resolution, you read as follows: "Council may determine a sum not exceeding in the whole $1,184,000,000 towards...." It may be a moot point, but it seems to me that the bill should reflect precisely what the committee determined. This should be the case. If the words "in the whole" were in the resolution, then they should be in the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. From what I can gather from the member's remarks, there is no dispute as to the number of dollars, but simply a matter of including the words "in the whole." Am I correct in that?

MR. HOWARD: Further to that too, Your Honour, the other is just simply a transposition of phrases. Proceeding down to line 6, you read: "the several charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982, not otherwise provided for...." The bill has the "not otherwise provided for" phrase and "for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982" transposed so that one comes before the other. It is simply a grammatical question. I still think the bill should reflect what the resolution said in its precise form.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I've just compared the motion with a similar motion made in other procedures of interim supply. The words "in the whole" have been quite consistent with the motion being made. Does the minister have an opinion?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I've listened carefully to the remarks of the member for Skeena. It is a point which I think my ministry would want to address. We want to be completely accurate in this regard. I would seek advice later as to the appropriateness of the words "in the whole" appearing in the bill. However, the resolutions — I don't offer this as a rebuttal — are identical to those resolutions which have been used in this House over a good number of years of practice. We will certainly examine it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is primarily concerned that the amounts stated are similar and that the applicable dates are similar. If there are slight variations in the wording which could perhaps be described as chiefly semantics, I see nothing inconsistent between the two. I would recommend that we proceed.

MR. HOWARD: I have no disagreement with proceeding. I simply draw to Your Honour's attention that if you're going to do one thing at one stage, you should do it at the other. There should be precision, because it would be very easy, if one wanted to do it, to put a word in the resolution and leave it out of the bill subsequently presented. Also, this is an unusual event in which the bill is going to be proceeded with in all three readings in the same day. We waive the normal rules to do that, and members have not had the opportunity to specifically look and try to ally the resolution with the bill. Henceforth it would seem to me the government should — what's the current phrase? — get its act together.

MR. SPEAKER: I would recommend to the minister close scrutiny and careful printing of the two resolutions, and perhaps in future a little more strictness could be applied.

The motion before us is that the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

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

Motion approved.

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

MR. HOWARD: Just another brief word, if I could, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the minister could address himself to this question and satisfy my concern, and maybe others', about the contents of the bill. I think second reading is the principal point when we should look at it.

Supply Act (No. 1) contained a final clause relating to the commencement which said that the act should be deemed to have come into force on April 1; because the bill was dealt

[ Page 5917 ]

with after April 1 there was a need to have that retroactive feature.

This particular bill — I think, anyway — would come into force as of June 1. It is now June 2. So in my view, unless we have some commencement clause in the bill relating to that subject matter, we've got a blank day in there for which there is no authority to spend money, June 1. This act, if given royal assent later today, will be effective as of today, June 2. Whether that leaves a vacuum in there for one day I don't know. But it does seem that some consideration should be given to that matter as well, just so the committee or the House is doing precisely what it wants to do and doesn't disadvantage anybody for that one day.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of remarks, with respect. First of all, we have selected approximately one-sixth of the amount in the main estimates. This is a further two months' supply. The House will know that for the period beginning April 1, 1981, we undertook supply for what seemed an appropriate length of time. This is not the first time in this House that a second interim supply bill has been advanced. This one is for a further two months.

I inquired very carefully of officials in the ministry to satisfy myself that the passage of interim supply yesterday, today or tomorrow would not interfere with the normal flow of funds to those people who receive government moneys in one way or another. It would not affect those who are paid on a weekly or bi-weekly basis in the province. I was assured and satisfied that in fact this second interim supply bill could have been introduced as late as Thursday of this week without interfering with the flow.

I would look to others, but with respect to the point made by the House Leader of the official opposition, the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), it would appear to me that this supply commences when royal assent is given, which we would assume to be later today. There was no closing date with respect to the first interim supply bill; rather the exhaustion of the first interim supply would be when that amount of money which had been voted by the House had been fully used. As of this moment that is not the case. Again, the first interim supply provided money for one-sixth of the year, and I think it would not be exhausted until later this week. There is no time attached to the expiry of interim supply. I trust that satisfies the member's point. I now move that the resolution be read a second time.

Motion approved.

Bill 25, Supply Act (No. 2) 1981, read a second time.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Motion approved.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 2) 1981

The House in committee on Bill 25; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On the preamble.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I gathered from the minister's discussion in second reading that he thought it was rather unusual that interim supply from March to June was insufficient. I wonder why the minister would make such a remark. I note the preamble talks about the length and so on of supply. A two-month supply.... As I recall, we only came into session during the month of March. In a province where we have a multi-billion-dollar budget, it would seem strange to me that the anticipation would not have been for anything more than two months in which to go through the estimates. Maybe I misunderstood the minister. It's a small point, and I would just like to hear what the minister has to say.

HON. MR. CURTIS: If I indicated to the House in second reading that that was an unusual amount, then I would apologize to the House. I thought I said that a second interim supply bill is not unusual. So that we don't debate precisely what I did or did not say, this is not the first time that a second interim supply bill has been introduced in this House. In the first instance, two months seemed to me to be an appropriate amount. As again here, two months is an appropriate amount. I know that interim supply has ranged over a number of months, but I felt in the period towards the end of the last fiscal year that two months' supply would be appropriate from the Ministry of Finance's point of view. Certainly this is not the first time that we have had a second interim supply bill before us.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the minister has clarified it. I was wondering what he was discussing when he was talking about the appropriateness; now I understand he feels that this would be an appropriate amount, and it may happen a number of times. I rather felt, when he used the word "appropriate" in the first place, that he meant that we would be all through with the estimates and therefore.... I sat here in total dismay — you know, what have I done?

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 25, Supply Act (No. 2) 1981, reported complete without amendment.

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

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

Leave granted.

Bill 25, Supply Act (No. 2) 1981, read a third time and passed.

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

[ Page 5918 ]

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 17, Mr. Speaker.

POWER ENGINEERS AND BOILER
AND PRESSURE VESSEL SAFETY ACT

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of this bill I would like to make a few general comments about it. This has been going on for some time. If I seem a little bit incoherent, it's because I've been up all night with a dispute we were having in the lower mainland.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, I didn't, not today; it was unfortunate. We had the Scotch, but there were no cornflakes.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, if I can continue, this has been proceeding for a number of years, and it's as the result of an association of people who are involved in this particular area of endeavour. There was an advisory committee consisting of something like 34 people who were particularly interested, whether they came from industry or the trade union. All of those industries and trade unions who are particularly concerned had some input over a long period of time.

I think probably the most important thing is this — and I'd like to read from a letter which was forwarded to us from the interprovincial power engineering association: "Our organization has served throughout the entire deliberations of the board since the original inception in 1975. We accept the appointment as a member and are pleased to continue," etc. "On behalf of the committee and membership we wish to commend you for fully subscribing to the advisory and consultative concept in dealing with the safety issues." The important point here is this: it was an acknowledgement that really this particular bill incorporates nothing more and nothing less than a great deal of consensus between all parties affected.

I will point out at the beginning, Mr. Speaker, that after the bill was introduced, there was a briefing session with the full 35-member committee. That was held on Wednesday, April 15. I will point out in advance that there was some concern expressed at that meeting with respect to the classifications being incorporated in regulation. There was also an overwhelming feeling of relief that finally, after many years of effort, particularly by the ministerial committee and the advisory committee during the last four years, that they were getting close to having legislation meeting the needs of the day. By a very substantial majority a motion was approved expressing approval of the bill in principle. Those who did voice opposition were not objecting to anything other than the transfer of the certificate sections.

The purpose of introducing the legislation is to provide, through an updated act, provisions which are appropriate to meeting the safety concerns. I think the legislation incorporates improvements to the act in three major areas. One of the biggest concerns they had was an open and streamlined process for appeals. Secondly, there are expanded provisions for participation by industry, labour and the interests of the public, in the development and application of the regulations which will accompany the new act. Finally, the legislation provides a means for coping with technological change.

Believe it or not, much of the legislation being replaced reverts to the nineteenth century. The same basic concerns that were evident when the legislation was first enacted still exist today, and the major issue is really safety of individuals and protection of property. The biggest change, of course, is technological. We acknowledge these changes, and we acknowledge industry's thrust and concern expressed over a long period of time.

Another item implicit in the bill is self-regulation — encouraging a climate of self-regulation that is practical, with government providing the necessary facilities to monitor and audit those programs.

This legislation establishes a boiler and pressure vessel advisory committee to provide for full, ongoing communication and cooperation between the ministry and all those sectors in industry and labour which are involved. We've established an appeals procedure whereby the decisions of inspecting power engineers may be appealed to the director of decisions of the boiler and pressure safety appeal board. That is nothing more than a board on which sit those members who are involved. Anyone who feels that legislation or its application poses an undue burden will have that right to appeal.

There was some concern expressed to the ministry with respect to the competency of operators of equipment covered by the act. The legislation gives the director a degree of flexibility in issuing final or interim certificates of competency. Under this provision the ministry intends, for example, to require the presence of competent refrigeration plant operators to ensure safety at larger ice rinks which are publicly used. Similarly the operators of dry-cleaning plants will now be assessed by an inspecting power engineer through relevant questions and demonstrations on the job.

The point of all this is that we're introducing an element of administrative flexibility which is consistent with industrial conditions but which will not compromise safety considerations.

I think the significance of the bill is that it came after five years. It really represents what has been requested by a large committee of those affected in industry and labour.

In closing, I would move that the bill be read a second time.

MS. SANFORD: This morning the minister explained that he was up late last night and that he's not very coherent this morning, but I have the impression that he really.... He did say that. I'm only quoting his words, Mr. Speaker; don't looked alarmed.

It seems to me that he was not prepared for the introduction of this bill either, nor is he very comfortable with the provisions of the bill itself. He was very defensively trying to explain that this committee had been at work for five years. Oh, really! It was quite evident to those of us who sit on this side of the House that the minister is not very comfortable with this bill, and he knows he's in a lot of trouble with those people who are going to be affected by the changes in this bill. He knows that, and it showed today. He tried to explain it away by saying that he was tired, and that's why he was hesitant and incoherent. Really, Mr. Speaker, I think that it was more than that. He was not prepared and he's not comfortable with the provisions of the bill.

I was interested that he mentioned that this committee of 35 people had been working in an attempt to come up with suggestions and recommendations which have resulted in this bill. They've been working since 1975. But I'm also

[ Page 5919 ]

informed that since the bill has been introduced, there have been more amendments worked out through the efforts of the committee and the staff people within the Ministry of Labour. This always worries me in this Legislature. When the minister has agreed to amendments to a bill that's sitting on the order paper — we're not aware of what those amendments are at this point — how are we supposed to get up and speak in second reading on the principle of a bill when that principle could very well be changed by amendments that we know are going to be introduced? The minister hasn't bothered to introduce them so that those of us on this side of the House can examine them and try to determine how those amendments will affect the principle of the bill. What's the minister doing with those amendments? Why is he sitting on them? Why doesn't he want them to be a part of the discussion on second reading of the bill?

Mr. Speaker, you may not know about those amendments that are coming, but I do. I don't think the minister's going to get up and deny, in spite of the glowing report he gave about all of the work and the agreement and everything else that had been reached by these committee members, that there are amendments that are going to come forward. But because I'm not aware of what those amendments entail — I'm aware of some of them but certainly not all of them — I'm going to have to proceed on the basis of the bill as it is before us today.

I think the biggest criticism relates to the fact that again this government is attempting to put all of the jurisdiction and all of the responsibility behind the closed doors of cabinet. In other words, this bill doesn't say that much, but it allows the cabinet through order-in-council to make regulations replacing sections of the bill which previously had to come before this House in order to be amended. Now it can be done quietly behind cabinet doors without any public scrutiny of what's happening in the preparation or the discussion of those changes at cabinet level. It's typical of this government. This government would like to do away with the Legislature if it could. They would like to do that. They would like to run the whole show by order-in-council and not have to bother to bring pieces of legislation before this House and to shuffle their feet and mumble into the microphone when they're presenting a bill to the Legislature. They don't want that. They want to do it all behind those closed doors of cabinet.

Whenever a bill brought in by that government says that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations, then we know we're in trouble. It is certainly the case in terms of this new legislation, which he tells us is designed to improve safety. How are we to know whether that's really going to happen when all of those changes are going to be initiated through orders-in-council and through regulation? He talks about an advisory committee that's going to help him draw up the regulations, but there's absolutely no guarantee that those suggestions and recommendations are going to be accepted by the minister. That's what's going to appear in the regulations passed though order-in-council. There's no guarantee whatsoever.

There will certainly be no questioning on behalf of the public, those people who are affected, when discussion takes place in cabinet about those orders-in-council and regulations. The only thing we can do is respond once they are there, once they are passed, once they are law. We don't have an opportunity, like we have today in second reading, to discuss the provisions. It's wrong, Mr. Speaker. This place is a very important democratic forum for the people of British Columbia. When they bring in one piece of legislation after another which allows them to make sweeping changes through orders-in-council and through regulations, particularly with a government like that, and when you think of what's been happening with orders-in-council and regulations as they affect even the Land Commission, there's no public input, no discussion taking place and no reporters to let us know why those decisions were taken. All we see is an order-in-council and regulations appear, signed by the minister, by the Premier or whomever.

The regulations regarding certification and qualification of engineers in this bill should be clearly spelled out in the legislation, so that if there are to be any changes they can be made right here in this House, following discussion. We now have classification of engineers, which goes on for a page and a half in the old statute. It talks about how they shall be classified — first class, second class, third class, fourth class, engineers with temporary certificates, and on and on. All of these are clearly spelled out in the previous legislation. They're now eliminated. They're going to be spelled out through order-in-council and through regulation.

The old legislation, which this new bill replaces, enabled the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make regulations for (a), (b), (c) and (d). In other words, four separate issues could be changed through regulation. But now we have, through regulations, changes that can be made for (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) (h) (i), (j), (k), (1), (m), (n), (o), (p) — right up to (u).

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: She knows the alphabet.

MS. SANFORD: The Minister of Municipal Affairs, who is amused by this, is guilty of the same kind of thing. He brings in legislation which allows him to make regulations.

Interjections,

MS. SANFORD: It's his fault; he interrupted me.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS. SANFORD: This is the kind of thing that's happening all the time. We object to it. We object to this centralization of power. We object to the fact that we cannot discuss in this House the issues of importance to the people of British Columbia, who are affected by one piece of legislation after another and who find that no changes can be made in this House because they're all going to be made through regulation. It's wrong. It works directly contrary to our whole concept of what a democracy is and what a parliamentary system is. I object very strenuously to the fact that the minister is going to make all those changes. All the qualifications and certifications in this bill are going to be done through regulation.

It's no wonder that people are saying to us: "What guarantee do we have when this can be done behind closed doors? What guarantee do we have that regulations are going to be changed to reflect improvements in safety rather than the profit motive? If the profit motive is very strong, then perhaps regulations will be made to improve profits rather than safety." Those are valid statements made to us by people who are going to be affected by this legislation.

The minister mentioned an advisory committee. I think this is an omission: the legislation does not ensure that there will be trade union representation on the advisory committee. The minister stated that there will be. But I think that people

[ Page 5920 ]

out there would feel much more comfortable if in fact the legislation itself stated that there shall be trade union representation on that advisory committee.

What about oil refineries? Are they going to be exempted under this legislation, or is that, as rumour has it, part of the changes that the minister will be introducing through amendments? I would like the minister to comment on that — whether or not oil refineries are going to be exempted, or whether or not one of those amendments he's going to be bringing in will ensure that oil refineries are included under the provisions of this particular statute.

I'm also worried about the wording. In spite of the fact that we've been working on this bill for at least six years, and there have been 35 people involved, I think that some of this wording is sloppy. I would like to bring this one particular section to the attention of the minister, so that when he brings in his amendments he can have a look at that particular section to see if it might need some changing. It talks about where, in the opinion of the director, it is necessary to investigate an accident. I'm not supposed to refer to a specific section, but it is 23(l). It's the general sloppy wording that I'm concerned about: "Where in the opinion of the director it is necessary to investigate an accident, the director or a person designated by him may investigate the accident." To me, that is sloppy wording, because it says that where, in the opinion of the director, it is necessary to investigate, they may investigate. It seems to me that if it's necessary to investigate, then they shall investigate, if we're going to have the level of safety the minister brags about in the provisions of Bill 17.

I would like the minister to address some of the points that I have raised when he is summing up in second reading, particularly those relating to regulations. There's a very disturbing trend coming from the government and from this minister in other statutes, such as the labour standards legislation, where so many of the provisions were put into regulation rather than into the statute.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the House Leader asks whether we are voting for it or not. The tricky little behaviour of this government is that they put a bill together that is basically an improvement, but there are some areas in the bill we disagree with. How do we vote against it in principle? It's very difficult. Let me say that the classification section alone is worth a great deal of consideration. The minister has given the strong impression that there are going to be amendments, and I agree with my colleague from Comox (Ms. Sanford) that amendments should be on the order paper so we can see what we're discussing.

Possibly they've seen the light and in this particular case there will be some changes that will make a great deal of difference to the bill. They will mean that the Legislature can be discussing questions of change in the future. My problem with this bill has been my problem with a number of bills introduced by this government. Areas that have been very much a part of the legislation, that require a change in legislation in order to change, are now areas that have been removed from legislation by a bill such as this and placed into regulation.

I'm talking about the classification of engineers, and their duties, responsibilities and so on and so forth. That's being put into regulation. Well, isn't that great! It can be changed at the stroke of a pen behind closed cabinet doors. We talk about committees advising the minister, and maybe the present committee is okay and maybe the present minister is okay.

But what we're doing is placing on the books something that may be entirely different because of a change in personnel or a change in committee. The present committee isn't going to live forever. The present minister isn't going to live forever or be there forever. He's going to have to run uphill all the way.

I note that the House Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is really rambunctious today. He's even in a position where he'd like to bet something.

In any event, I believe it is wrong and will continue to suggest that it's wrong. Under these circumstances the engineers are subjected to a change at the whim of a committee and a minister. As I suggest, that committee can change and the minister can change. I'm not making any value judgment on the present committee, because I don't even know who they are. I know who the present minister is, and he has some good points and some bad — mostly bad because he chose to sit on that side of the House. In any event, he has done what his colleagues have done, and that is taken responsibility away from the Legislature. I suggest that if this government were given an opportunity by constitution they would change the situation so that elected members could cool their heels and debate nothing — including the estimates. I think it's just a little bit much, and this bill is just another symptom of a habit that I think is going to carry us into a self-destruct situation.

MR. KING: I have just a couple of brief points to support the concerns which my colleagues, the member for Comox and the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), have expressed. There is concern regarding the bureaucratization of standards of certificates of competency, or of trade qualifications, if you will.

I know of a situation where a tradesman in this province, after having attended a training course at a college in his city all winter, is still waiting for an opportunity to write the exam which would qualify him. This is a far more common trade than the one we are talking about in this bill. The point is that that's highly destructive to the person who is attempting to qualify or to obtain, in this particular case, a certificate of competency. After having gone through the courses and attended the instruction sessions, to then have to wait five months, six months and in some cases, I understand, a year before one can write on the basis of that instruction to gain their qualification is not only asinine but destructive and uneconomic, aside from being frustrating and debilitating to the worker himself. It's uneconomic in terms of the dollars the province puts up for instruction. Not to allow, for some vague reason because of the bureaucracy in the minister's department, the person to have an opportunity to write is, in my view, scandalous.

That's why the views of my colleague from New Westminster are certainly taken seriously by me. I know of that kind of thing happening. I'd be willing to discuss it with the minister in more precise terms if he wishes. But that's not good enough. When I see the wheels of bureaucracy within the minister's department turning that slowly now with the responsibilities they currently hold, to suggest that we can deliver through this bill yet another area of jurisdiction in a highly complicated area of steam engineering and related matters makes me worry whether it's going to be adequately monitored or that there is going to be the technical expertise

[ Page 5921 ]

to follow through on the responsibilities which are granted to the ministry under the bill. I had to say that to the minister, and I have to say it to re-emphasize and stress the concerns my colleagues have outlined. It's not an empty perception; it is something we are familiar with on a first-hand basis through letters I have received from various tradesmen around the province complaining that after having undertaken the instruction they can't find the opportunity to write and qualify. I think that's a tragedy, as well as extremely wasteful.

The other brief question I have for the minister is that I wish in his reply he would state whether or not this act applies to the British Columbia Railway. I don't see the precise scope of the bill outlined; it simply identifies a pressure vessel. I'm rather interested to know whether the Budd cars on the British Columbia Railway, on the rolling stock as well as steam generators within their stationary plants, are covered under the scope of this legislation. I'm particularly concerned with the rolling stock, because they do carry steam generators.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the last item which the member for Shuswap–Revelstoke (Mr. King) has raised, I cannot answer that question. I will undertake to find out immediately, though. As far as stationary stock is concerned, I suspect so. Rolling stock is the one that gives me some concern. Of those items which were raised, when the legislation was submitted and introduced in the House, a set of regulations was prepared and filed for review. Those regulations are the creation of the advisory committee, consisting of 35 member associations. I might say that I received two objections in writing, both from the same union. The objection was filed on classification by the Pulp, Paper and Wood Workers of Canada. I will say that I did not receive one objection from any other trade unions involved.

I suppose in raising that you may undertake to have forwarded to me a great deal of correspondence. But after five years, and the fact that the bill has been introduced and been in the House for a period of over six weeks, I doubt if any objections filed now from those affected would have the same impact they would have had at the beginning. I didn't receive anything from the plumbers and pipefitters, the Canadian Paperworkers, operating engineers, CUPE, IBEW, or the Energy and Chemical Workers Union — and that pretty well covers trades. I never received any objections whatsoever from industry.

I mentioned earlier in my remarks that a substantial majority of members of the committee endorsed and supported the legislation. In fact, they are the authors of it, and I think that's a valuable thing. Unless it happens to be an MLA's particular vocation or trade, I think we would be very unwise not to respect the views of those involved from day to day.

One point was raised with respect to oil refineries. To the best of my knowledge, they're included. To the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford): I don't know of any amendment to exclude them. With respect to the classification, I pose this question, which I think is the question posed by the member: would not removing the power engineer's certificate classifications from the act and placing the sections in regulations permit the government to arbitrarily change the plant classification so that a man who has a certificate would no longer be able to operate a plant? This is an obvious concern. The answer is no, it will not. The bill provides for requirements to have the power engineers for plants designated by regulations, with specific sections such as sections 17, 18 and 21, dealing with supervision. The placing of the certificate classifications of the regulations is done to comply with the rules of good drafting. Classification of engineers by certificate is an issue concerning the qualification of the engineers to perform certain work. I don't think it should be confused with jurisdictional issues which arise when there is a conflict between those trades over who has jurisdiction to perform the work. I might say I think that is the underlying thrust of one body which objects. Those classifications that were present in section 22 of the old act have been placed in the draft regulations; with the input from the advisory committee the implementation of those classifications in the regulations will proceed. In other words, it's the advisory committee which will self-regulate its industry that put them in.

Section 24 of the act gives the Power Engineers and Boiler and Pressure Vessel Safety Advisory Committee broad power of recommendation with respect to industry and the workers. The principle will facilitate a response to needs as they arise. I think, most importantly, it will enable recommendations to be made to keep the regulations in line with national standards. It will encourage monitoring of the activities and accountability to the public. It is anticipated that the committee's advisory role will be a key to the operation of the act. While I appreciate the concerns which have been expressed by the member for Comox and supported by the member for New Westminster, I think that we've got to rely on and have some good faith and trust in those people on the committee. I do. I accept it. I think, as a matter of fact, that members of the committee have demonstrated that as well. You can rest assured that if there was a violent objection to that particular provision, we would have received a great deal of opposition to it from the committee and its members.

One other point was raised. The member for Comox requested that we put it right into the act that people from the trade union should be appointed. Well, the trade union is an integral part of industry, and so is industry itself — the management side. Frankly, I believe in the consensus approach. I have sufficient confidence and trust in the general public and those people who are involved to accept their recommendations. It only makes good sense. Why specifically point out one particular group of people, another group of people...? I find that all perverse.

The point that was raised with respect to section 23 I have made a note of and will follow it through.

With respect to the matter raised by the member for Shuswap–Revelstoke on securing qualifications and writing examinations, he has offered to discuss this with me and I look forward to that — and the other item with respect to the BCR.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

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

Bill 17, Power Engineers and Boiler and Pressure Vessel Safety Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 13, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 5922 ]

FINANCE STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

Bill 13, Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1981 read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 21

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 18, Mr. Speaker.

ELECTRICAL ENERGY INSPECTION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I take pleasure in moving the second reading of this bill, the electrical safety act. Again, this particular bill contains a number of technical aspects and changes which have been proposed, provisions for an improved appeals process, and expanded opportunities for participation by those involved in industry and labour and the public in the development of the regulations. There are a few measures to update the existing legislation. Some of them are motivated by our concern to provide a safety service which is responsible for the needs of the community in contemporary conditions of technology, which I'm sure the member for Shuswap–Revelstoke (Mr. King) is very familiar with.

This legislation was first introduced in 1919.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, it was a long time ago.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I think the last amendment came through....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) not to interrupt the person who has the floor.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The last major change was recorded in t948. A number of changes have taken place since that time, and as a result of the impetus from both the industry and the trades involved, an effective appeals procedure was required, and we're going to accommodate that.

Again, Mr. Speaker, there were a number of people involved in the committee in this case. It is a group of 13, and most of the representatives, obviously, are related to the electrical industry. The IWA was represented as well because of the nature of the work they do in the mills. I might tell you that after Bill 18 was introduced into the House, it was again circulated to those involved. A full advisory committee met on April 10, and again the comments sent to me endorsed the bill with pleasure in its entirety. I have not received any opposition or correspondence by the affected community.

The name of the act has been changed to Electrical Safety Act. We're again proposing an advisory committee composed of members drawn from a broad cross-section of the electrical trade. The function of the committee will be to advise me on all matters relating to electrical safety and equipment. The appeals procedure in both the trades and industry have been somewhat upset by the delays which have occurred from time to time in resolving problems. The appeals procedure has been set up in conjunction with the additional legislation, which has not received second reading but has been introduced to the House, the Building Safety Standards Act. In conjunction with that these appeals will be handled with some rapidity. Those appeals and those boards will consist of those who are affected from all segments of the industry. There is a modification proposal with respect to the offence provision, which will permit penalties under the Offence Act. At the same time a realistic limitation period has also been established for those offences, if they should occur.

Another important improvement in the legislation is the provision of a means for ensuring its standards have been met during the construction rather than relying on after-the-fact inspection alone. There are some minor amendments in the bill which might be considered to be unnecessary government interference with respect to inspections. Any right of entry is now described to be "at any reasonable time," as opposed to "at any time." An inspector will be restricted to examining installations of electrical equipment rather than the examination of the premises. One of the problems is that an inspector with a paternalistic approach might be inclined to overreach — and have from time to time. If, in fact, the decision of an inspector is going to affect the structure of a building, that appeal could be handled by the building safety standards committee.

In summary, the legislation will bring significant improvements to the regulation of electrical safety, through the advisory committee, which will constitute a beneficial input to the policy process. Again, it's on that process that I think we in government should rely, not on that which comes from civil servants or from some particular lobby group. The safety factor here, as far as checking any recommendations made to government.... They will be those which come through the committee. As I mentioned, the appeal board will permit rapid resolution of technical disputes. Other changes will allow more flexibility for implementation of new standards and practices.

I have some questions with respect to some issues which have been raised, but perhaps I can make reference to these after the members opposite have had an opportunity to comment.

[ Page 5923 ]

I move second reading.

MS. SANFORD: During the debate on Bill 17 we clearly outlined our objections to the direction the government is taking with respect to governing by order-in-council, through regulation. Those comments apply just as much to this bill as they did to the last bill. I'm not going to repeat all of our concerns about what's happening in terms of democracy and the relevance of the Legislature in this province, because I think we outlined our objections pretty clearly on the previous legislation. Here again we have the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council making regulations with respect to qualifications and certification, to which we objected so strenuously in the previous bill.

The minister said: "Trust us." That's not good enough. I think this Legislature is too important to have the minister say: "Trust us. We've got a committee. They'll tell us about regulations." There's no way that the government has to accept the recommendations of any committee that's established. They can bring in whatever regulations they wish. That's why we're concerned about having these qualifications and certifications taken out of the legislation and put into regulations which can be changed on a whim by any cabinet.

I guess this bill is really a result of the work done by Bill Hartley, the member for Yale–Lillooet some years ago. He was also concerned about electrical inspections at that time and, Mr. Speaker, appointed Dr. Hugh Keenleyside to carry out a commission of inquiry into electrical inspections in the province.

I'm wondering whether or not the minister intends to employ the services of far more electrical inspectors than we currently have. Even back in 1974, when this particular report was prepared, Hugh Keenleyside expressed his concern in the report that the branch itself is understaffed and that electrical inspectors were underpaid. I don't know if that has improved or not. He was also concerned that in some cases they were underqualified. If we're going to have, for instance, all of these conversions that will likely take place as a result of the federal government program allowing $800 for conversion from oil-fired to electrically-fired heating units in homes, I would assume we will require the services of more electrical inspectors. Unfortunately, that won't apply on Vancouver Island; they won't qualify for that particular program, because of this government's request to the federal government.

In addition to the concern expressed with respect to the number of inspectors in the branch and the fact that they were sometimes underqualified, understaffed and underpaid, Hugh Keenleyside also expressed his concern about the fact that there weren't sufficient inspections done, particularly in some areas. One of the concerns he expressed in his report at that time was that electrical installations in many schools and hospitals are never formally inspected after having been inspected at the time of their original installation. Few, if any, schools or hospitals in the province are subjected to regular and comprehensive reinspections by members of the public service. I know the minister is engrossed right now in a conversation, but I am concerned about this. Can the minister assure this Legislature, as a result of this new legislation and the new regulations he proposes, that the recommendations contained in this Keenleyside report with respect to follow-up electrical inspections will be carried out in places like schools and hospitals?

I don't know if the minister has ever had an opportunity to read the report that was done at that time, but I think some of the concerns raised by Keenleyside in 1974 are as valid today as they were then. I'm wondering if the minister can assure the House that there will be proper staffing in the branch and that they will be properly qualified, although that's somewhat questionable because of the fact that all of these qualifications are going to be done by regulation and we can't tell by this bill what kind of qualifications they're going to have.

There is some concern. For instance, the operating engineers are concerned about the fact that the minister intends to bring in qualifications through regulation. I have talked to people who expressed that concern. They feel thatare there already some 16 or 17 restricted certificates which allow people to learn some small aspect of the electrical industry and then get a certificate for that. That's already there and provided for.

What they're concerned about is really the concern raised by the member for Shu swap–Revelstoke (Mr. King) under the previous bill; that is that the training programs that the people undertake in order to become qualified are going to become meaningless because of changes that could be brought in through regulation. They want to be sure that the people who work in the industry are qualified and properly trained. If the minister had confidence in his own apprenticeship training programs, it seems to me that he would ensure that those standards are maintained and met, with the exceptions that are already in the bill. We don't have that guarantee in this particular amendment.

I have a question with respect to penalties under the legislation. There was one penalty in the old act that I could determine. It was a very small penalty in section 15 of the old act, which is being eliminated through these amendments. I'm wondering what provision there will be for penalties for offences under this particular legislation.

But again, I must reiterate our concern about the direction that this government takes in bill after bill in putting provisions in regulations, rather than including them in legislation so that changes made in qualifications, certifications or whatever can be brought before this House and be discussed on the floor of the Legislature, rather than changed through order-in-council, through regulation or under the auspices of the cabinet at their whim.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, again on this bill, as on other bills that we've discussed previously this morning, we see a situation where power is being moved from the Legislature into advisory committees in conference with the cabinet.

The minister didn't answer the question the last time he closed debate. At that time my question was the whole point of.... The minister said: "I have every confidence in this commission, and I have every confidence in...." But he's talking about 25 years from now, or he's talking about when we have an NDP government. Is he going to be confident in the commission we set up? It's always the habit of this government to take away from the decision-making process in here and to place it in the hands of the government. When I say "the government," I'm talking about the cabinet, who meet behind closed doors in secret and make their decisions around these kinds of appointments, etc. I think it's a bad habit that's been going on for two years.

It can easily be said that another party facing an election — facing a win — could very easily say: "That's okay, so we make the decisions." But I don't think that's good, and I don't

[ Page 5924 ]

think that's healthy for the process. I don't think minor detailed situations should be decided in the Legislature, but I think major and significant changes to any piece of legislation or parts flowing therefrom should be made here in the Legislature. The reason we were elected was to give us an opportunity to debate policy direction and that kind of thing. I have watched the legislation flow through this House and wondered why it is becoming less and less, and suddenly came to the conclusion that they require less legislation because so much authority has now been vested in this cabinet that if it continues on this way this debating society will be just that — a debating society. I don't think that is a very healthy situation in the province of British Columbia.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I haven't gone through this act in great detail, but one thing occurred to me that I would like to draw to the minister's attention. I would ask him to respond either when he closes the second reading debate, or when we go to committee on the bill. It is regarding the duties of the electrical inspector. That's deemed to mean the chief inspector, but it includes inspectors appointed by municipal councils to inspect electrical equipment in a municipality. As far as I can see, there is no statutory requirement that that inspector be a qualified person.

I don't know whether the minister has experienced this, but many members of the House have. From time to time inspectors appointed at a municipal level, whether building inspectors or electrical inspectors, are not themselves fully qualified tradesmen who have the adequate and required knowledge to act in a regulatory fashion as an inspector. I ask the minister what provision there is to ensure that the people who will be fulfilling this role throughout the province, particularly at the municipal levels, will indeed be qualified to conduct inspections in the electrical field. It's something that in my view is very important, and I would ask the minister to address himself to that point.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to add a little bit to the comments made by the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford). I can recall the dedication of one particular civil servant who was the electrical inspector in our area. I recall seeing this person all over the territory, seeing him suffer a heart attack and come back perhaps too early to work, and I recall his very regrettable and untimely death. At that time he had told me that the standard of electrical inspection that was being carried on wasn't complete. It puts a strain on people who are conscientious and try to stretch their time and ability beyond what is reasonable — late hours, perhaps coming home and not.... These people have to travel over great distances, covering electrical inspections in Nelson and Creston, up both sides of the lake and all over the place at the same time. I don't know how far north from Nelson his territory went.

We can make all kinds of changes in this House. They can be good changes; they can be poor changes. The bottom line is how much we are willing to prioritize electrical inspection in terms of budgeting. What we have done in the past has required people, I suppose, either to do an inadequate job — certainly a job that they could not be satisfied with — or else jeopardize their health in order to try to keep up with the kind of standards they felt they could live with.

I can look at other parts of this act. I'm a little concerned, Mr. Minister, that the reporting section says that the inspector shall report to the minister. There is no provision for tabling in the House. I don't like that style. It fits in with the comments of my colleague from New Westminster that, again, this bill is eroding the House. I think that a very simple amendment could be added to that by the minister just by saying: "...and the minister shall table the report during this session."

The reference to the Inquiry Act doesn't sit well with me. I see that it says "for the purposes of this act," which perhaps limits what may or may not be done. The powers of the Inquiry Act allow a person to enter public premises, seize documents, do this and do that. I think that where such powers are required they should be spelled out in the specific act without going on a shopping spree, looking for powers here and there. It's just a little bit too convenient in legislative drafting. I could show you many pieces of bad legislation on the books — pieces of legislation with good purposes and good intents, such as the Creston Valley wildlife management area, in which sweeping powers were given — which worked to the detriment of the purposes of that particular act. My suggestions in this are that — I quite agree with my colleague for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) — more effort should be made to bring the Legislature into the decision-making process. Certainly, a very small thing, such as that reporting section, is an affront to the Legislature. Almost every other commission, whether it be the Land Commission or the Human Rights Commission, and every other kind of board.... If you look through most legislation, you will see that reports are tabled in this House. It's the tone of this that bothers me and the manner in which powers are taken from the Inquiry Act. I come back again to the fact that if we do not place a priority on hiring electrical inspectors, this thing will not work. I know how complete or incomplete electrical inspections are, even in this day and age.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: With respect to the last comment raised, I would ask that you leave that with me, and let me canvass this a little later on.

The question is raised by the members opposite with respect to incorporating regulations within the bill. Do you know that there are literally pages and books of regulations? I notice that the number which are going to accompany the boiler and pressure vessel legislation is something like 50. There are changes in technology almost on a monthly basis. It seems to me that unless there is that freedom to make those changes with respect to changes in industry.... It is something that the industries and the trades involved have really requested. That's why I find it somewhat unusual that this particular point is being repeatedly made. I would think that the same would apply....

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: What's the matter? Is it raining in Skeena, Frank?

The question I ask is whether the legislation before us now is something which industry and trades have come before us with — something they have thought out and could recommend as legislation they can live with. Now it seems to me that we ought to be considering what the public is interested in. I accept the point, and I thank the member for the constructive criticism — it came from most members — involving qualifications. I intend to look at that with respect to the numbers of inspectors and their qualifications. I'm also aware that when we get into areas which are large and away from the lower mainland....

[ Page 5925 ]

If you get up-Island or into the interior, you'll find that one municipal inspector covers a pretty big territory. You will also find that he is usually running from 6 o'clock in the morning till 10 o'clock at night in a busy construction season. I am aware of that. That problem has been raised, and I will undertake to address that for the members. The only parameter that I can place on it is obviously going to be one of budget. Of course, with the way things seem to be going now, there seem to be recommendations for decreasing everyone's budget, and I think that probably in light of those comments by the opposition I may have some difficulty finding the additional funds.

I appreciate the comment again raised with respect to operating certificates, and again that point came up under the previous bill. I would ask that perhaps the member for Comox would let me know about the complaint she received involving the operating engineers. There was reference to the fact that some people are receiving limited training and yet are being placed in responsible positions when, in fact, a full journeyman should be occupying that position. If she would be prepared to send me the particulars, I'd be quite prepared to look into that for her.

The other question which was raised was with respect to offences and penalties here. The offence section in the existing act is felt by those who are charged with its administration to be uncoordinated as to location — that's their terminology and understanding — and outdated, perhaps, as to the amount of the penalties imposed. So the combination of all offence provisions in this section permits the ready application of the Offence Act. If you go to the provisions of the Offence Act, you will find there are limitations. It seems to me the maximum penalty is $5,000. It's treated summarily, so, I suppose, if you carried it to the extreme, I think there is an imposition of.... If incarceration were involved, I believe it's six months, but I don't think that we're....

There is one item which, I think, was alluded to involving regulations, and that is respecting the reporting and investigation of fires and accidents. To the member for Nelson–Creston (Mr. Nicolson), I really think the provision of the Inquiry Act with which he feels uncomfortable.... One of the problems we have is that it seems to me that the causes of fire and damage are often swept under the rug and covered up. In B.C. we've got ten municipal authorities who provide electrical inspection at public expense within municipal boundaries. There is no requirement under the existing act for these authorities to investigate or report details of electrical fires or accidents occurring within them. It's essential for all information related to electrical fires and accidents to be accumulated and analyzed to ensure that the necessary provisions are made.

AN HON. MEMBER: Annual report?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I find it somewhat difficult that people would be reporting to the House under the reporting section. I will look at that particular issue which the member has raised and will have a full answer during the debate.

Accordingly, I now move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

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

Bill 18, Electrical Energy Inspection Amendment Act, 1981, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:08 p.m.