[ Page 6297 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Social Services Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1981 (Bill 26). Hon. Mr. Curtis

Introduction and first reading –– 6297

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing estimates. (Hon. Mr.

Chabot)

On vote 152: parks and outdoor recreation –– 6297

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Howard

Mr. Cocke

Mr. King

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Leggatt

Ms. Sanford

On vote 154: building and occupancy charges –– 6300

Mr. Howard

Division on an amendment

On vote 155: computer and consulting charges –– 6300

Mr. Howard

Division on an amendment

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

Third reading –– 6301

Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 8). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Williams)

On section 12 as amended –– 6302

Mr. Macdonald

Report –– 6303

Environment Management Act (Bill 22). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Rogers)

On section 3 –– 6303

Mr. Skelly

On the amendment to section 3 –– 6303

Mr. Skelly

Mr. Cocke

On section 3 –– 6303

Mr. Skelly

On section 4 –– 6304

Mr. Skelly

On the amendment to section 4 –– 6304

Ms. Brown

Mr. Skelly

Mr. Barrett

Mr. King

On section 12 –– 6308

Mr. Skelly

Mr. Cocke

Division on section 12

Third reading –– 6308

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1981 (Bill 24). Committee stage.

On section 1 –– 6309

Mr. Stupich

Hon. Mr. Williams

On section 7 –– 6309

Ms. Brown

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy

Hon. Mr. Williams

Mr. Lauk

On section 14 –– 6310

Mr. Barber

Mr. Lauk

Hon. Mr. Hyndman

On section 23 –– 6311

Mr. Cocke

Hon. Mr. Curtis

On section 38 –– 6311

Mr. Cocke

Hon. Mr. Nielsen

Ms. Brown

On section 51 –– 6312

Mr. Stupich

Hon. Mr. Hewitt

On section 61 –– 6312

Mrs. Dailly

Hon. Mr. Smith

On section 64 –– 6313

Ms. Brown

On section 80 –– 6313

Ms. Brown

Hon. Mr. Hewitt

On section 81 –– 6313

Ms. Sanford

Hon. Mr. Hyndman

Mr. Howard

Hon. Mr. Gardom

Tabling Documents

Ministry of Human Resources addendum to annual report, 1980.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 6314

Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing annual report, 1980.

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 6314

Appendix –– 6314

FRIDAY, JUNE 19, 1981

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'd like to ask the members of the assembly to join me in welcoming to the precinct the mayor of North Cowichan, Mayor Bruce.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I have the pleasure to introduce some very special guests, Mr. and Mrs. Harry Howard from London, England. Mr. Howard is the executive secretary of the International Association of Seed Crushers. They are considering Vancouver for their 1986 world congress. Mr. and Mrs. Howard are accompanied this morning — and throughout their visit — by our manager of conventions and incentive travel for Tourism, Mr. Dennis Holmes. I would ask the Members of the Legislative Assembly to extend a very warm welcome.

MR. RICHMOND: Today in the gallery is a young gentleman from the riding of Yale-Lillooet, who is now living in Kamloops and studying at Cariboo College. He worked very hard on my behalf during the recent election in Kamloops. I would like the members to please welcome Kevin Hanna.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'd like to join the member for Kamloops in welcoming Kevin Hanna.

Also in the members' gallery today are two constituents from the village of Hope. Would the House please welcome Mr. and Mrs. Leslie Wilson.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: With particular appreciation to the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) I would like to make an introduction that I know is going to be of special interest to the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom). May I introduce the fact that tomorrow is the opening of trout season on the Skagit River.

Introduction of Bills

SOCIAL SERVICE TAX
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1981

Hon. Mr. Curtis presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Social Service Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1981.

Bill 26 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
LANDS, PARKS AND HOUSING
(continued)

On vote 152: parks and outdoor recreation, $26,452,233.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, there are some who have suggested that by speaking this morning I am prolonging this debate, but that is one of the nice things about freedom of speech. If freedom of speech should prevail anywhere, it should prevail here in this chamber where we all come to speak, I hope, on behalf of the constituents who sent us here.

MR. BARRETT: If you can't speak to the Socred convention....

MR. KEMPF: Even though the Leader of the Opposition persists in disrupting this chamber, I wish to debate further this very crucial and very important ministry. I'm surprised and shocked at the irresponsibility of the official opposition who want to end this debate after only two days — a debate carried primarily by the government members. I want to say a few words this morning on parks. Before doing that I want to reiterate what I've been saying in regard to this minister's responsibility as far as land is concerned, and to suggest — as I have in the last two days — that we have a fictitious shortage of land in this province and a fictitious value on that law.

I'll get back to vote 152. I want to talk for a moment about parks, and attempt to encourage this House and this minister to give more attention to the provision of overnight parking facilities in this province, particularly in the north along the northern trans-provincial highway, Yellowhead 16, and the Stewart-Cassiar highway where the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Hon. Mr. Fraser) is doing a fine job in upgrading and paving that great highway through the constituency of Atlin. Mr. Chairman, we in British Columbia must accept the responsibility of providing more of these kinds of facilities in our province, particularly in the north. Because of the extreme shortness of the tourist season the private sector cannot possibly financially provide the service needed for a very fast-growing tourist industry in our province. I commend this minister for his initiative, and I fully realize that we have a number of excellent — bar none — overnight camping facilities in my constituency of Omineca: Beaumont Park at Fraser Lake, Maclure Lake Park at Telkwa, Red Bluff Park at Granisle, and the soon-to-be-opened Parron's Beach Park at Fort St. James.

But, Mr. Chairman, we have been so successful under this administration's excellent handling of the tourist industry in this province that there is a need for more. We have been so successful not only in enticing out-of-the-province tourists to British Columbia but also in convincing British Columbians that they should holiday in their own province and partake of those very excellent facilities that we have. Because of that, those excellent facilities, particularly in my constituency, are absolutely swamped during the months of June, July, August and September. Again I say this minister is not at fault; we're all at fault for not paying far more attention to this very vital and lucrative aspect of our economy. We have not allocated a sufficient number of dollars in light of the return to the province from this area.

Mr. Chairman, this morning I would like to make a comparison, and I have here some statistics from the state of Oregon. I'm sure that almost every member of this House has at one time or another travelled down the coast of Oregon and utilized one or more of the outstanding facilities for overnight camping in that state — not just on the coast but all over the state. In that state, where they have only 96,981 square miles of area compared with more than 365,000 square miles in British Columbia, they have 650 overnight camping parks.

[ Page 6298 ]

The budget for the state of Oregon in the last fiscal year was $5.5 billion compared with our budget this year of $6.5 billion. The money spent from that budget on parks and recreation was $37.9 million in the last fiscal year. In this fiscal year, we have seen fit to spend only $25.5 million. I think that points out very clearly that in this province we must give more attention to the provision of that kind of facility, not only for those who visit our province from other countries but for our own people as well.

I realize that the state of Oregon has been in the tourist business for much longer than we have. But we also must recognize the need to nurture that most viable industry. Oregon state is beautiful, but it doesn't hold a candle to British Columbia in that department. But it sure does in the provision of overnight camping facilities. We have better roads and highways than they do, thanks to many years of Social Credit administration. We know what happened to our roads and highways when we did not have a Social Credit administration in this province. But we're missing a link  — overnight camping facilities.

Interjections.

MR. KEMPF: The members opposite seem amused, but none of them have talked about this very vital industry in our province. They want to pass over the debate on this very vital ministry. They want to wrap it up in two days. We have a missing link.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: If you'd get out in the province and see some of it, you'd know that, Mr. Member for New Westminster. Not only do we need overnight camping facilities, but we need more day-use pullouts so travellers can pull out and rest in an area that has nice surroundings. Here again, I realize that the Minister of Highways is doing a good job. But in my estimation we need more. It's not as if we won't see a return for our dollar, because it will come back tenfold. There is an immediate need for two additional camping facilities along Yellowhead 16 West in my constituency.

I would imagine if the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) would stop laughing and be more realistic, he would find that he probably needed more of those kinds of facilities in his constituency.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I will remind the member that he is on vote 152.

MR. KEMPF: There is an immediate need for two additional overnight camping facilities along Yellowhead 16 West in my constituency of Omineca: one in Vanderhoof and one in Burns Lake, They have to be good-sized facilities, such as Beaumont Park at Fraser Lake, in order to take the traffic that now exists, let alone additional traffic that will materialize in the future — facilities large enough to have full-time caretakers, who would not only charge fees but also keep the area neat and clean.

While on the subject of fees, I would just like to talk for a moment about the state of Oregon and compare the fees charged there with the fees we charge in British Columbia. I would like to seriously suggest that we look at raising our fee rates for government overnight camping facilities in order to do two things: (1) ensure that out-of-province users pay their share, because, after all, every taxpayer in this province already has an investment in these government facilities; (2) to protect the private sector, those who have the initiative to try to provide a facility, even though in many areas the season is very short. In the state of Oregon the charge for full hook-up — that is when there is water, sewer and electrical hook-up available — an Oregon resident pays $7 a night; a non-resident pays $9. In a facility where electrical hook-up only is available, the Oregon resident pays $6; a non-resident pays $8. For tenting sites, which include parking, table, fire-pit and flush-toilet facilities, an Oregon resident pays $5; a non-resident pays $7. In the primitive sites where only fire-pits and outhouses are available, the Oregon resident pays $4; the non-resident pays $6. I seriously suggest to the minister that we look at those kinds of rates for the province of British Columbia. I don't think they're too high. I don't think that's asking too much. And it will put into the provincial coffers additional moneys that will allow us to build more of those needed facilities.

We must look immediately to providing these facilities in the areas which are now hurting, particularly along Yellowhead 16 and the Stewart-Cassiar highway. We must take a look at raising those rates for the reasons I gave earlier. First of all — and it is the reason for me standing today to debate vote 152 — we must in this chamber recognize the need and give this minister the wherewithal to get on with the job.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, I just want to suggest that the member for Omineca could probably find that some of the things which he is asking for and seeking to have established in his constituency could partly be funded if the member for Omineca would pay back to the government the $1,334....

MR. KEMPF: Is that all you've got to add to this debate?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, we are on vote 152. I would commend vote 152 for discussion to the member.

MR. KEMPF: You're a disgrace to the north.

MR. SKELLY: You don't defend the north. How much does a maverick cost?

MR. KEMPF: I represent the north.

MR. HOWARD: Shall I proceed, Mr. Chairman? I was on the particular vote, talking about those overnight services and the like that the member was talking about. I just suggested to him that he has received money under false pretences and he should pay it back. If he's not prepared to pay it back....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the hon. member to make his comments relevant to vote 152. Certainly the remarks to this point in time — and I'm sure the member on reflection will agree — are not relevant to vote 152 and the administrative responsibility of the minister whose estimates we are currently discussing — and not the member for Omineca.

MR. HOWARD: They may not be precisely relevant to the vote, in your view, Mr. Chairman. That's perhaps because

[ Page 6299 ]

you're not able to follow the refinement of my argument in this regard. But they are certainly relative to the silly propositions put forward by the member for Omineca.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest to the member on the parks vote. I agree, having gone all around the province myself and having entertained myself in many of the campsites of the province, that there is need for more. But when the member got up and suggested that the opposition were letting down on this particular subject.... I waited with bated breath for him to talk about home care under Health; I waited for him to talk about acutecare hospitals under Health; I waited for him to talk about very important areas in this province. He is suggesting that we're letting this vote go through. It is so absolutely ridiculous that we have to listen to that kind of preposterous argument. If the member had got up, made his case and sat down, that would be fine. But instead of that the member gets up and flails away at the opposition while he really wants at the minister. Fair enough. And at the Minister of Tourism. He didn't even mention it under the Minister of Tourism. Right now he has a little cause célebre. Most of that member's time has been spent speaking from his seat, not from his standing position in this House.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I don't know if you're preoccupied with the letter from Joe Clark or what, but you're not paying much attention to vote 152.

MR. KING: The minister's point is well taken.

I wanted to deal with two points. I'd like to ask the minister if he has made a decision yet with respect to the Goward property near the mouth of the Adams River. I've written to him about it, and many of my constituents have written to him too. He indicated to me that he was looking very seriously at adding that to the provincial park area. I would just remind him that that area not only is appropriate for public park purposes but very closely borders on the very important and sensitive....

If the Premier would go on his way, Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could have the minister's attention. I don't think the Premier can get the attention of anyone else in the province but his subservient cabinet ministers. Perhaps that's why I have to compete this morning.

I want to remind the minister that that Goward property is very close to the very important and sensitive Adams River spawning run. I think it would be a shame if that should fall into hands for some kind of commercial or industrial development which would be invidious to that salmon run. As the minister has received indication, the whole community is in accord that this should be added to the public park. I would ask him if he's made a final decision on that.

The other point is the property I've written to him about at Sicamous just between Shuswap and Mara Lakes. I think it's the old Weyerhaeuser property in there, if I remember correctly. It's quite a large tract. There was support for the acquisition of that land from the local municipality as well as the regional district. I think it's something like 160 acres. It would really be appropriate for a reserve for public use for the future, because access to the Mara and Shuswap Lakes is not very readily available considering the amount of usage that resource receives. It's a major area of tourism for the province of British Columbia, and I wish the minister would look favourably at that acquisition too.

HON. MR. CHABOT: We've approved the acquisition of the the Goward property in principle, and it's just a matter of working out the details now. Yes, we will be acquiring that property.

On the other property, I'd have to check my records. I'm not familiar with the issue on the Weyerhaeuser property.

MR. STUPICH: Just a word about Newcastle Island Park, which was turned over to the government by the city of Nanaimo. In the approximately ten years the government has owned it the level of service has steadily deteriorated. There were some good buildings there at the time it was turned over, and they've been allowed to fall into a pretty sad state of repair. The grounds as well are just not being tended. I wonder whether the minister has any plans at all for doing anything to upgrade the level of service at Newcastle Island Park.

HON. MR. CHABOT: We've had people from your constituency, Mr. Member, who have advocated we build a bridge to Newcastle Island.

MR. STUPICH: That's a long time ago.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Oh no. In the last year I've had suggestions that a bridge be built to Newcastle Island as a means of access to that provincial park. However, we've examined that and find that it's not feasible at this time. It might interfere with navigation or the cost would be prohibitive. But I'll take your suggestion that facilities be improved on the island, and I'll look at that and talk to officials in my ministry.

MR. LEGGATT: I'm very surprised to hear that there have been representations within the past year. I've certainly not been aware of them, and in no way would I associate myself with them. The bridge to Gabriola is a different matter — even more political. I'm quite opposed to a bridge to Newcastle.

I'd like to ask the minister some questions concerning parks in the lower mainland area. One of the difficulties that many people have in the lower mainland is easy access to parks on a day basis for recreation. At the moment the Coquitlam watershed is sealed up because of the need for water in that area. The Seymour system of course has no access to the water at the top of it. The same is also true with

[ Page 6300 ]

the Capilano system. I raised this with the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) some time ago. I'm pleased to see he's here in the House. I want to deal with the question of Widgeon Lake, public access to Widgeon Lake and whether Widgeon Lake will become a part of the Greater Vancouver Water District's system, thereby denying the public access to it. Widgeon Lake is one of the few hiking areas with an alpine setting within one day of an urban area for the million people who live in the lower mainland. What I'm asking the minister to do is (a) to seriously consider park acquisition for the Widgeon Lake area and (b) to intercede with his cabinet colleagues when the subject of water diversion from Widgeon Lake comes up, so that particular lake can be protected for the inhabitants of the lower mainland who want to visit it on a one-day basis. It's a substantial hike, but it can be made in and out in a day. It's a beautiful, pristine alpine lake. It's kind of another area that's an island of tranquillity in the lower mainland.

I realize it's perhaps not a matter that has been under active consideration by his department, but I'm asking the minister to direct his attention to the problem of additional park areas in the lower mainland that are outside of the Greater Vancouver Regional District, so that hikers could go into that area. I'm not exactly certain whether Widgeon Lake is inside or outside of the minister's jurisdiction, or whether it comes within GVRD jurisdiction. I suspect it doesn't. It seems to me that it might be an area the minister could give some consideration to in his provincial parks program.

MS. SANFORD: I have one brief question for the minister, related to Hornby Island. I wonder if the minister could advise what he intends to do with the lodge at Tribune Bay which he wanted to sell as a resort, but which the school board would like to have for outdoor educational use. What are the intentions of the minister at this point?

HON. MR. CHABOT: That request is still under consideration.

Vote 152 approved.

Vote 153: ministry enterprises, $10 — approved.

On vote 154: building occupancy charges, $2,378,000.

MR. HOWARD: Earlier we had some ideas advanced by the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) about particular things that he would like to see happening in his constituency. He couldn't obtain those because there was no money available. Here is an opportunity for the member for Omineca and others to cut some of the fat and padding out of one of these votes — an excessive amount of money, an unnecessary budgetary expense — and make it available to the minister to provide some of the services that the member for Omineca and other members were inquiring about. Now the member for Omineca and others will be able to put their vote where their mouth is, and see whether what they say coincides with what they do. There's an excessive amount in this particular vote of $297,000. The purpose of reducing the vote by that amount is to put the expenditure back to what it was estimated to be and to what was voted last year. It's founded on the concept that for the preceding two years — no matter what amount of money was voted — it was not all expended by the ministry on building-occupancy services. It's not going to be this year. Even if it is, it accumulates in the coffers of B.C. Buildings Corporation and comes back into the treasury in a secondary way. So it's padding, it's unnecessary — all puff-up for the purpose of substantiating the tax increases. On behalf of the member for Omineca — because I know he's going to support this amendment, to get some money for the things in his riding — I would therefore move that vote 154 be reduced by $297,000.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm rather shocked and surprised, Mr. Chairman. This slight increase for building occupancy is about 15 percent. It doesn't appear to be excessive. I'll have to take into consideration the views of the member for Skeena, who feels that we should probably shut down some offices in this province. Because of his reduction here, it's clear he feels that we have surplus regional offices in British Columbia. Based on his recommendations, I'll be looking.... If you want to cut some fat, maybe we'll have to cut some offices. We'll have to look pretty hard at your riding.

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.

Vote 154 approved.

On vote 155: computer and consulting charges, $1,354,100.

MR. HOWARD: Another opportunity presents itself to save the taxpayers some money. Under the computer and consulting charges, rent, which we pay to ourselves — called B.C. Systems Corporation — has been padded, adjusted upwards, in order to suit the tax increases that came along; juggled in order to justify tax increases. That's precisely what has been done. There is an extra amount of some $15,588 in here. I've got to look at my library book, Mr. Chairman, to show you, and particularly the member for Omineca, who, even though he complains about services to his constituency, so far in this session has voted against the reduction of $72 million.

[ Page 6301 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

MR. HOWARD: He's not alone, Mr. Chairman. Every Socred says: "Squander the money, be spendthrifts, have excessive amounts, pad the accounts and never mind the taxpayers." That's all we've been trying to do consistently over these weeks with each estimate, by not selecting those items which relate to services or programs, but only those items that relate to excessive padding and unnecessary expenditures. This is another one of them. Moving this reduction, which I do, that vote 155 be reduced by the amount of $15,588, if it were passed and if the others would have been passed, would have brought the total amount of money which we've discovered to be padded in this ministry alone to some $316,088. I so move and would urge members opposite: for heaven's sakes, for once during your political career have some sensitivity toward the needs of the taxpayers — just for once. It's a small amount of money, $15,588. All it says is tighten the belt back to last year. Those of you opposite who want to indicate that this is a token recognition of the rights of taxpayers have the opportunity to do it now. We will look forward to your voting with us on this one for a change.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 19

NAYS — 26

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

On vote 155.

MR. HOWARD: Apropos the comment by the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing that may not have got into Hansard, about the colour on that chart that we're using — I think he classified it as "commie red" — it's not nearly as red as the jacket worn by the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). I suppose she falls into that category too, or would you consider her to be fascist?

Vote 155 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: We'll move to public bills and orders. Report on Bill 17, Mr. Speaker.

POWER ENGINEERS AND BOILER AND
PRESSURE VESSEL SAFETY ACT

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

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

MR. HOWARD: I think it should be indicated to the House that the sponsor of the bill, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), is not here — not that that makes any difference; he's not familiar with the bill anyway. But I think he should have been in attendance to handle his own legislation.

Bill 17 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 8, Mr. Speaker.

PROVINCIAL COURT AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

The House in committee on Bill 8; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

On section 6.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.] May I very briefly explain that the amendment is to ensure that a judge may be assigned to other duties, not in addition to and therefore expanding his area of responsibility, but in place of all or any part of his duties.

Amendment approved.

Section 6 as amended approved.

Sections 7 to 10 inclusive approved,

On section 11.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.] Since the bill was first drafted the position in the Canadian Bar Association, British Columbia section, has changed from that of chairman to that of president.

Amendment approved.

Section 11 as amended approved.

On section 12.

[ Page 6302 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.] It merely corrects a clerical error.

Amendment approved.

On section 12 as amended.

MR. MACDONALD: Will the Attorney-General say when there is to be an inquiry, which I presume, under this amended act, will be the kind of open hearing that we're talking about; and when will there be an investigation — the kind of thing that happens where somebody is assigned to speak to people, but it is not in any sense a hearing before the Judicial Council? What's the difference between them? Can you still order investigations, as in the Colenutt case, that Chief Judge Darrell Jones just investigated? Can you explain the difference between when you are going to have an investigation and when you are going to have an inquiry?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the statute contemplates two separate kinds of examination of conduct. If it is a matter of a complaint from a citizen with respect to matters which do not go to the question of fitness, then there is an investigation and that complaint is examined by the chief judge, and there is a report to the Judicial Council as well as to the Attorney-General.

The matter of inquiry is one which does go to the question of fitness or the performance of the responsibilities of the office. Such an inquiry involves not only an investigation of the matter but also a hearing which will be held either before the Judicial Council or, if the person under inquiry so selects, by a judge of the supreme court.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, under the old act — and, as I read it, under this act today — a case like Colenutt, which was a citizen's complaint that the justice system wasn't working right for him, could have been treated as an investigation. As it was, it was treated with secret proceedings and no evidence, and no real explanation was given to the complainant or anybody else. It could have been referred to the council for a regular hearing, or the Attorney-General could have ordered that the council should hear that citizen's complaint in a regular way. That's still the case, I assume. Are you eliminating that kind of redress for the private citizen?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Chairman; in fact, just the opposite. In circumstances such as those to which the member alludes, the existing legislation is inadequate to ensure that there is power to direct that an inquiry can be made. This provision gives that authority to the Attorney-General irrespective of what reports may be received by others.

MR. MACDONALD: I think it's clarified in this sense that what we're passing today does definitely allow for a proper hearing of a civilian complaint before the council. Under the old act, I think the power was definitely there in any case.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Certainly it was. The Attorney-General could order the council to look into anything whatsoever, including the Colenutt case. But we can debate that on another occasion. The point is that when you have a civilian complaint about the justice system, it should be treated with the same attention given to complaints respecting the unfitness of a judge. That's important to the justice system too — that the citizen doesn't get chewed up in the process. I would hope that while that can still be treated as a private kind of investigation, without the taking of proper evidence, the policy of the department should be that where there is a substantial complaint, there should be a full and proper hearing on that civilian complaint.

Section 12 as amended approved.

Sections 13 through 15 approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the title pass?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: What about sections 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That was all taken care of, hon. member, when the amendments were passed en bloc.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: On a point of order, section 12 shows an amendment to section 20 of the act as it will be when it's recorded. section 12 of the bill deletes sections 14 through 23 of the statute, and substitutes other matters. In section 12, therefore, there is a further amendment by deleting the replaced section 20, which deals with the matter of the appeal and substitutes the words of the amendment. I move the amendment which is standing in my name under section 12 — the second part of that amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, we have passed all amendments on the order paper indicated under the last amendments. All amendments standing on the order paper have been passed.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, just so there is no confusion in the committee, under section 12 of this bill there are in fact two amendments, and both of them have been moved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Both amendments have been moved and duly passed.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Then on page 6 of the bill we have three additional sections — 13, 14 and 15.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sections 13, 14 and 15 have already been passed, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order relating to the procedure here, how is it that amendments pass when they were not moved as amendments? There were notices given.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment was duly moved, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: The Attorney-General seems in some doubt as to whether he actually moved them.

[ Page 6303 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair recognizes the fact that the amendments standing on the order paper were duly moved in committee under section 12, including both amendments.

MR. HOWARD: Even though the Attorney-General didn't know he did it.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I move that the bill be reported complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 8, Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1981, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call committee on Bill 22, Mr. Speaker.

ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT ACT

The House in Committee on Bill 22; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. SKELLY: The section states: "Where the minister considers that a person proposes to do anything which would have a detrimental environmental impact, and that environmental impact cannot be assessed from information available to the minister, he may require the person to supply an environmental impact assessment in respect of that thing, prepared in accordance with the regulations." In the opinion of this caucus, if some project is going to have a detrimental effect on the environment, the minister should require an environmental impact statement if he doesn't have the material before him. It shouldn't be a permissive section allowing the minister to require an impact statement if he wants one or does not want one. If the project is going to have a detrimental impact, the law should require the minister to require that statement.

I have an amendment to this section, which would remove the word "may" in section 3, line 4, after the word " he" and before the word "require," and substitute the word "shall."

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Chairman, the government does not find this amendment to be acceptable, the reason being that there are several occasions when we may find ourselves in a condition of having what we consider to be a detrimental environmental impact but not having to go to the requirement of having this assessment. The matter may be relatively simple and one which could be dealt with without going to the process of requiring a full assessment; that's why we leave it in the permissive state.

MR. SKELLY: As with all environment legislation in this province, the legislation is almost completely permissive. The minister could state in the regulations that certain levels of detrimental environmental impact would not require a full-blown environmental impact statement. That is done in a number of provinces, including Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. There's really no necessity to do a full-scale environmental impact statement similar to the one on Hat Creek, where the minister determines that it requires impact statements that are possibly at a less detailed level. That should be spelled out in the regulations. However, as presently written, this statute gives the minister the right to waive environmental impact statements even if they have a magnitude of impact along the lines of the Hat Creek project. So what we would like is that the minister be required to require an impact statement, but that the detail in the statement, as spelled out in the regulations, be varied according to the anticipated impact of the project. It's a reasonable suggestion for an amendment, and I'm sorry that the minister has chosen not to accept it.

MR. COCKE: In supporting the amendment, I would suggest very strongly that the minister probably made the weakest argument I've ever heard, the weak argument being that they might be able to settle it outside of the impact study. If that's the case, then in any event it changes the character of the whole situation, and so therefore would not require the study. I believe that what the minister said doesn't hold any water at all, and the minister should very well accept this amendment, which gives some sort of credibility to his legislation. Otherwise, we can see the legislation being just another piece of political propaganda, indicating that the government takes seriously some of these environmental problems but doesn't really want to do anything about it. If we look at our history, time after time the government have let different groups get away with doing a real disservice to our environment. Then we come along and say we're sort of strengthening the act and put this kind of section in. It's a joke. I can't see anybody do anything but support the amendment of the member for Alberni.

MR. SKELLY: It shouldn't be rushed through, Mr. Chairman, without the opportunity for the minister to reconsider the arguments placed before him by the member for New Westminster and by the member for Alberni.

Amendment negatived.

On section 3.

MR. SKELLY: I have an additional amendment to section 3. That amendment is to add a subsection 3(a)....

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: If you were serious about the environment, this kind of act would never have been presented in this Legislature.

The amendment states: "Every environment impact assessment supplied to the minister pursuant to section 3 shall be made public at the same time it is presented to the minis-

[ Page 6304 ]

ter." The reason for this amendment is to give the public full information as to what steps are being taken by the minister to make sure that a project does not have a deleterious environmental impact. One of the problems we have with the impact requirements in the Fraser estuary and in the Cowichan estuary is that there's no obligation on the part of the minister to make it public. People are confused around environmental issues in those areas, because impact statements are being held privately. What we would like to spell out in this section is an obligation on the part of the minister and the development proponent to make the impact statement public so that citizens will be aware of deleterious effects on environment that are taking place as a result of the permissive attitude of the minister.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I have five amendments which have been passed to me by the member for Alberni. This bill has been on the order paper for some time. Some of these amendments would require some complex analysis to find out whether or not they're in order. But speaking to the one that I have before us at this time, some of the information I wouldn't disagree with if the section was a "may" and not a "shall." The reason is that sometimes we require information of a confidential nature from corporations that they are not prepared to give us in the fullness that we'd like to have it if we have to make it public. Sometimes we require things which are protected by patent or protected by official secrets in Canada in terms of formulations and other things, especially to do with pesticides. For that matter, I would suggest that in most cases we will be prepared to make it public, but not in all cases. I would not find the amendment acceptable to the government.

MR. SKELLY: I simply can't believe it. Again in almost every other province of Canada there are requirements to make environmental impact statements public. In our neighbouring country of the United States there are requirements to make that information public in a freedom of information statute, which gives every citizen of that country the right of access to information held in government files. In the past much of it was considered proprietary information or patent material. Now the public has access to it, so they know what damage is being done to the environment. I know attempts have been made by corporations to suppress or prevent public access to that information. In general the courts in the United States have ruled that the public has a right to know what kind of material is being dumped into their environment. This minister intends to screen that material to protect the companies involved. That simply is not acceptable in this province as it's not acceptable in the United States.

There is adequate precedent to include a section like this in an environmental protection statute. If the minister doesn't see fit to include it, he's not much of a Minister of Environment.

Amendment negatived.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

MR. SKELLY: There are two parts of section 4 which I would like to propose amendments to. I expect they'll get the same treatment as the previous suggestions.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: I suspect they would have received the same results whether they were on the order paper or not. There are a number of questions on the order paper that were there long before April 27, and they're not answered either.

In section 4(3), line 2, after the word "after" and before the word "notifying," I will move to insert the word "publicly." If this had been a complex amendment I certainly would have presented it a long time ago, but it's a very simple amendment which requires that notice be made public. And after the word "affected" and before "make" I will move to delete the words "but without the necessity of holding a hearing."

In each of these sections I propose to amend under section 4 the government specifically eliminates the right to public hearings, and they eliminate any kind of public access to this procedure for issuing environmental orders. What I would like to do by this simple amendment, which will only take the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations and the Minister of Environment seconds to read and analyse, is to make the procedure public, to notify the public that orders are being issued, and to eliminate the specific bar against public hearings.

I move that amendment to section 4(3).

On the amendment.

HON. MR. ROGERS: This bill has been on the order paper since April 27, and this particular section.... The member seems to think drafting legislation is a relatively simple procedure. He should try doing it sometime, because it isn't all that simple.

I suppose I have two copies of the same amendment here. What you're endeavouring to do is to insert "publicly" in this process. I'm afraid I can't tell you whether or not this drafting would even be acceptable. I'd have to have some serious time to even consider that. I'd have to discuss it with legislative counsel to find out if it's in order. On the other hand, on the principle of the thing, what you're trying to insert is the fact that you want the public to be involved section by section all the way through this. I think that's what your other amendment involved, and I think I've already addressed that matter.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MS. BROWN: The spirit of what the member is trying to do is obviously quite clear to both the Minister of Environment and the Attorney-General, because they've indicated that given the time and, as the Minister of Environment said, some consultation with legislative counsel, these amendments would get serious consideration and, who knows, even the possibility of being accepted.

The member for Alberni is suggesting — and certainly he must have the support of every member of this House — that the public has to be more involved in decisions affecting the environment. The responsibility of the Minister of Environment is not to protect people from the environment but to protect the environment for people. The best way to do that is to make the decisions as public as possible and get as much input as possible from the community at large. The only thing that would result would be an enriched and better piece of legislation and, in the final decision, improvement all around for everybody involved. If the Minister of Environment is

[ Page 6305 ]

saying he needs time, then I'm sure the opposition is prepared to give him the time.

HON. MR. ROGERS: You've had two months to get them in.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I don't understand his statement that I've had two months. If protection of the environment is important, what is two months? Are you saying that because two months have gone by, you are now prepared to sacrifice the environment? That argument doesn't make any sense. All I'm suggesting, in support of this amendment and of the other amendments which the member will be raising under this bill, is that if the minister needs the time — an additional two, three, four or five months to ensure that when the bill comes back it is in fact a good environmental management act — then the opposition is prepared to give him that additional time.

Public input only serves to protect the environment, not destroy it. The more public input it's possible to get, the better for the environment and everyone concerned. The minister's reluctance to accept these amendments leaves us quite baffled and makes us question his commitment to protection of the environment.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, the minister says that we've had two months to present the amendment. Going along with what the member for Burnaby-Edmonds has said, we still have time in this Legislature for the minister to withdraw the bill and go back and talk to his legislative counsel to find out if these amendments fit in. We weren't aware until late yesterday that this bill was going to be debated today.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on.

MR. SKELLY: We didn't have an opportunity to get the material in in the form....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Alberni has the floor.

MR. SKELLY: We have a lot of people working on this issue all over the province to whom we sent the bill. They're examining the bill and sending back proposals for amendments and comments on the bill. It takes a little time to go through the process of public consultation. I'm not sure the minister has done that. But as far as I'm concerned, that time should be taken. We have received some proposals. Those will be submitted to the minister today, as reasonable proposals which are fairly simple to understand and fairly easy to incorporate into the legislation. If he wants a recess, I'm sure the Chairman would grant him one to bring legislative counsel into the chamber to see if these amendments are appropriate for the statutes and fit in. Nobody is preventing the minister requesting a recess; and I'm sure if he asked our side, we would give leave for that. It would take very few minutes.

On the other hand, in many cases through the years, especially under the NDP government, when a reasonable proposal was made across the floor, Mr. Chairman, it was analyzed. Legislative counsel would sit in the corner of the House and come over to take a took at the proposal. If he felt it fitted in with the legislation, then it was in there. That's how the Legislature should work. We're all here to make laws in this Legislature. Since the Social Credit government has come back to office, it appears that they make the laws and the opposition sits and listens. What we're trying to do is get involved in a more active legislative process, in which everybody is involved to improve the laws and to protect the public.

The only reason for these amendments is to protect the public and let them know what's happening. In each case, the minister has rejected the right to public involvement, rejected the right to public input and rejected the right to public information. What I'm asking the minister to do in this case is take a short took at it, talk to legislative counsel — they're within minutes of the chamber — and incorporate the right of the public to become involved in this process.

HON. MR. ROGERS: The member might recall that during my estimates you promised me these amendments. Every day I have looked on the order paper for these amendments. Now they arrive this morning, hand-written, and for the first time. I have circulated this act and sections of it far and wide. I have discussed it in a number of places with a number of people. People have made suggestions to me. Some have been loath to put their suggestions in writing because they are complaining about the extent of the fines, and I don't think they'd want to be identified as people who are complaining about that particular matter. Nowhere did anyone suggest that these amendments that you put forward be considered. None of the people to whom I circulated the bill — and I have circulated the bill extremely extensively.... Not only that but I have spoken on it publicly on a number of occasions and no one has suggested these amendments. If you have amendments of this nature, which are fairly complex in terms of whether or not they'd even be legally acceptable, and which would involve a matter of policy, if you were to give us some time to consider these things in any kind of bills.... The member for Burnaby Edmonds (Ms. Brown) says two months. This bill was introduced on April 27. You've had two months to have these things on the order paper. They're not on the order paper; they're hand delivered today. I think that's inconsiderate. They're not acceptable.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, first of all, on the nature of handing in written amendments — I know that the minister is new in the House — the whole purpose of having amendment paper in the House is that in the process of debate sometimes reasoned argument takes place, and because on a rare occasion intelligence prevails, we use the amendment paper provided by tradition in the House for that purpose. So the minister's argument is acceptable only because he is brand new. The fact is that the tradition of this House and every House in the Commonwealth is to supply paper in the House for such amendments to be made here in the House on the spot. Your argument may or may not be valid to you. I ask you this simple question: if you don't accept this amendment, do you believe in the principle of public hearings, and do you believe in that principle being applied everywhere as much as possible in this act? Can I ask you that question?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I think if the Leader of the Opposition was serious about that question, he would have asked it

[ Page 6306 ]

during second reading. That's to do with the principle of the bill, not clause-by-clause....

MR. BARRETT: Don't question my sincerity. This is committee stage.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The minister has the floor.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I'm not questioning your sincerity. I'm discussing the progress of the bill through the House.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I'll resist my anger for that kind of judgmental statement. This is committee stage. He's a new minister. In committee this very discussion should take place. In this section we're talking about public hearings. I ask you simply and plainly, without the need for gratuitous, judgmental, nonsense statements: does the minister believe, as applied to this section, that there should be public hearings, and are they desirable in his frame of reference? That's all.  I'm asking you that.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I've already indicated that to the committee.

MR. BARRETT: Then, Mr. Chairman, if the minister sincerely believes that public hearings should take place, what on earth has stopped him from ensuring in law that they do take place?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I didn't say that.

MR. BARRETT: Then you're opposed to public hearings. That's all I want to know. Are you opposed to or in favour of public hearings as they apply to this section?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I've already indicated that.

MR. BARRETT: Are you opposed to or in favour of this section, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I've already indicated to the members of the committee that I'm against this amendment.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, that is clearly where we should have been right at the start. Instead of lecturing the member or lecturing me, just state exactly what your position is — you're against the public hearings in this section and you reject the amendment — and we could have gone on with it. But instead of that we had a minister who was gutless in saying exactly what his position was.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Absolutely gutless.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Avoiding dealing with these issues in front of the public. Shame on the minister!

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll ask the hon. House Leader and the Leader of the Opposition to come to order.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I find the personal reflection on the minister from the Leader of the Opposition unparliamentary. I will ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw that remark.

MR. BARRETT: I withdraw the remark, Mr. Chairman. I want to point out that I wasn't saying that about the House Leader. He's able to defend himself. I had no intention of insulting the House Leader, even though he interrupted my remarks and was badly behaved.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: He's out of order right now.

I want to point out that there is no argument of validity that the timing of this motion is late. There's no chastisement of being naughty in not putting this on the order paper. The simple fact is that the minister is against it. That's all. Have the conviction of your position to stand up and say: "I don't care if it's handwritten, put on the order paper or when it's delivered; I'm against it." You're against public hearings as they relate to this section. That's what we got out of you. It would be a little bit more straightforward in terms of political debate if you emphasize that as we go through section by section, instead of facetious little lectures on things you obviously don't know about.

Those order papers are in here for written amendments. Those amendments can come at any time and can be in order. As far as the lawyers are concerned, you've got a battery of lawyers over there. You can press the bell or send a note out and we can have lawyers in here to contradict each other or contradict the minister or come up with new ideas. That's what they're paid for. But to insult this process and say that you have to be notified two months or six months or three months or three days ago is patently absurd. You're opposed to public hearings in this section and that's all there is to it. We know what your philosophy is. You're the minister against the environment and against the people of British Columbia.

MR. SKELLY: It's a little difficult. I realize I've been here nine years and possibly a few years longer than the minister. I've been through a number of amendments and a number of forms of amending bills. Some people do it on the order paper. Some people bring up their concerns during second reading, and they expect the minister to take a look at those concerns — which are printed in the Blues and printed in Hansard — which express the lack of public information in this bill, the lack of public input into this bill and the lack of a proper appeal system in this bill. All of those concerns were expressed at second reading some time ago. When you're dealing with a government in a civilized way, and you make constructive suggestions during second reading and those suggestions go for nought — not a single amendment came down from the minister's side as a result of debate on second reading — then why waste your time with a minister like that, when you know that the person who engineered the bill in the

[ Page 6307 ]

first place engineered it in such a way as to deprive the public of access to information, deprive the public of input and deprive the public even of knowledge that the processes were taking place. When somebody engineered the bill in that way, do you really expect the minister to respond to suggestions in second reading that the bill should be changed around, and that amendments in fact should come from the minister as a result of constructive suggestions made in second reading? Forget it. Forget that kind of constructive response to constructive suggestions.

As a result, we end up in this process in committee stage. There is nothing in these sections that would require even a lawyer or a legislative counsel to take a look at them. If it did, you could pull the bill right now with permission of the House. Within 15 minutes you could have an opinion from legislative council as to whether these sections are appropriate. But you haven't even called for that advice. That's your attitude towards public input, public information and public involvement at any level. That's the kind of public involvement, input and information that's been completely engineered out of this bill; not by you, I would suggest, but by the others in your cabinet.

MR. KING: Let the upper middle-class protect the environment.

MR. SKELLY: Yes, the rich protect the environment. It certainly isn't evident in this bill.

I would ask the minister to adjourn debate on this section of the bill, withdraw the bill and consult with his legislative counsel as to the appropriateness of these amendments. It's not going to take very much time, but surely the minister would grant that amount of time to consider these amendments.

MS. BROWN: The environment is too important for the minister to say that because he has not received the amendments until today, he's not prepared to consider them. This business about the bill being introduced two months ago is just a red herring. Whenever and at any time it's brought to his attention that the public has been excluded from this bill, to the detriment of the environment and all of the people of British Columbia, the minister should be prepared to reconsider. It's not good enough to stand up and say that the member had two or two and a half months. The member made it clear that the bill was circulated, that he asked people to read it and make recommendations, and that he awaited their response. The very fact that the minister did the same thing and came up with different responses from the people who read the bill on his behalf is enough indication that we must have public input. The public must have a chance to say something about what happens in terms of the maintenance of the environment. This is what this bill deals with in this section. I want to support the member for Alberni and all the members on this side who are urging the minister to withdraw this bill and take the time necessary, no matter how long it may be, to look at it. Was the public left out inadvertently or were they engineered out, as the member for Alberni claims? In any event, isn't it important that the public input be there? If it takes the minister another two, three or four months to make it possible for the public to participate in these decisions, the minister should have that time. The opposition is prepared to let the minister have that time.

Mr. Chairman, I am speaking in support of this amendment.

MR. KING: I just wanted to remind the minister that amendments being introduced at committee stage are quite normal. That's what the committee stage process is all about — amendment of bills. For the minister's information, the government itself on many occasions has introduced amendments during committee stage whereby the opposition has lacked any opportunity for a study of those amendments until the committee stage was in process. For the minister to hide behind that argument is patently nonsensical. I should remind the minister also that intransigence on the government's part in listening to reasoned arguments which justify an amendment have resulted in disaster in the past.

Mr. Chairman, I'm sure you remember the case of the insurance company in this province that was legislated out of existence because of an error in legislative draftsmanship by that government. It was one of the opposition members — the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) — who located that error, fortunately, to prevent this corporation operating outside the law. The Legislature, in the meantime, had recessed and had to be reconvened at great expense to the province of British Columbia to patch up a sloppy drafting error that government had perpetrated. It's the kind of stubborn intransigence this minister is showing that breeds that kind of sloppy draftsmanship — that kind of disdain for the public interest. The issue is clear; the issue is simple. Is the substance of the amendment something that the minister and his government can support, or is it not? That's the issue. For the minister to attempt to hide behind some procedural strawman is not very brave. I wouldn't say it was cowardly, Mr. Chairman, but I would certainly observe it's not very brave. It's not very intelligent.

Perhaps the minister feels that the general public does not have a role, and that there should not be public hearings. I think it was the gist of the minister's comments, in an interview carried in the Vancouver Sun yesterday, that it has traditionally been the upper middle-class who have protected the environment. That was our class — the upper middle class — the minister said. He talked about the upper classes protecting the fields and streams. That sounds chummy to me. It smacks of the private reserve — you know, the private game preserve that only the rich can afford, where they have private fishing and hunting grounds. Oh, the upper class will take care of it. Perhaps that's why the minister doesn't want an amendment that would give that great, unwashed public some input into the protection of the environment. If that is the case, the minister should have the fortitude to stand up and say so. It ill-behooves a neophyte minister to attempt to hide behind artificial procedural rules in this Legislature — rules that do not exist. It is important that the public have an opportunity through full public hearings to voice their concerns and suggestions for the protection of the environment.

The minister should address himself to the substance of the amendment. Does he support an opportunity for public involvement, or does he not? It's as clear as that. The minister should have the fortitude to stand up and speak on that issue.

MR. SKELLY: I'm sorry the minister refused to stand and debate the amendment itself, because one of the things we've seen right through this bill is an attempt to deny public access to the whole process in environmental decision-making. We are wondering why the minister refuses. The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) said it may be because of his class background or something; I hope that's not the truth.

[ Page 6308 ]

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll ask the Leader of the Opposition not to interrupt members.

MR. SKELLY: It appears that time after time in every environmental statute, including this section of this one, the public is specifically denied access to environmental decision-making. We have a very simple amendment, which would not allow public involvement in the decision-making process and not public hearings, but would simply remove a bar to public hearings and would allow the public to be notified. That's all we're asking in this amendment.

Possibly what we should do is to give the minister time to look over the amendments. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion 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.

Amendment negatived.

Section 4 approved.

Sections 5 to 11 inclusive approved.

On section 12.

MR. SKELLY: This section allows the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to overturn any decision of the appeal board for what the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council decides is in the public interest, whether that means taking George Spetifore's land out of the agricultural land reserve or giving some Social Credit group up on Kinbasket Lake virtually free waterfront for ten years. We simply do not feel that the public interest is protected by the existence of the Social Credit cabinet. For any appeal board or appeal proceeding to have any kind of validity or respect at all from the public it should have an independence from cabinet and an independence from this body. We would prefer to see that appeal board and the decisions it makes independent from cabinet. We intend to vote against this section. It should be stricken out of the act.

MR. COCKE: I have just one word, and that is that the minister and naturally the government — it's a government bill — have indicated very clearly that they're not interested in the public or the public interest by virtue of the amendments they have rejected. For us to trust that cabinet to act in the public interest with respect to this regulation section is a joke. How could anyone support it under the circumstances we have seen before us today?

Section 12 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 26

NAYS — 19

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

Sections 13 to 20 inclusive approved.

Schedule 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. Speaker in the chair.

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

Bill 22, Environment Management Act, read a third time and passed unanimously on a division.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 24, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 6309 ]

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 1), 1981

The House in committee on Bill 24; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. STUPICH: I've never heard of the Society of Management Accountants. I just don't know what that is. I wonder if the minister could tell us who that organization represents.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It's my understanding — and I can't give you specifics — that there's been a recent change of name by the industrial accountants group.

MR. STUPICH: I wonder whether this bit of tokenism was requested by the association itself. When the appointment is made by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, is it with a recommendation from the association or does the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council go elsewhere?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The amendment was made at the request of the association. The appointment to this board of governors is not made on their recommendation but by the Lieutenant-Governor exercising his own discretion, as is the case with chartered accountants.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

On section 7.

MS. BROWN: Sections 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 all deal with the Family Relations Act. Can I deal with them all as one, or how would you like them done? The act is addressed to the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), so he probably could respond.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's deal with section 7, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: I'm talking about the paternity and support amendments right through to the Family Relations Act. I have a couple of questions I just want to ask on those. Is that okay?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MS. BROWN: The problem that we are having with maintenance orders is that there doesn't seem to be any teeth in terms of the enforcement. I'm not quite sure whether these amendments in fact do that. I know that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) must have discussed this with the Attorney-General, because it is a real problem that we're having with maintenance orders. It doesn't seem that we can enforce them. The minister wants to respond.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: These amendments are intended to ensure that the orders made under this act for the maintenance of children are based on the same criteria as those contained in the Family Relations Act. The member who has just asked the question should know that once a paternity order has been made, the amendments will allow a reciprocal enforcement in other provinces of maintenance orders made under this act in the same manner as orders made under the Family Relations Act. Under the present wording of the Child Paternity and Support Act this is not possible. I think this is what the member was getting at. Maintenance orders made in British Columbia cannot be enforced outside of the province. The amendment will also permit better enforcement in British Columbia, as it allows the use of the provisions of the Family Relations Act.

The order for maintenance is to apply to children up to age 19. At present the Child Paternity and Support Act limits the age to 16. That's the change there. When a child reaches this age, it's necessary to reapply under the Family Relations Act for maintenance to age 19. The amendment then eliminates the need for this procedure. The judge will be able to use the same criteria for determining the amount of the order as are used in the Family Relations Act. At present, some orders can be extremely low, and it's anticipated that by using the Family Relations Act criteria, orders will be made in higher amounts. This is to bring it in line with the provisions of the Family Relations Act — again, I think that's what the member is getting at — and the judge will have the power to cancel or reduce arrears of maintenance under an order, which is not in the present act. In general, the main impetus then of the amendments is to ensure that the provisions for the making of maintenance orders under this act will be uniform with the provisions of the Family Relations Act.

MS. BROWN: I want to thank the Minister of Human Resources for explaining the amendments — to bring it in line. Are we going to then have better enforcement as a result of this? Because I know that the Family Relations Act is there now in place, but we're still having problems with enforcement, even when the parent who is non-paying resides here in British Columbia. It's the teeth in the enforcement section that we need.

I just wondered if the Attorney-General wanted to respond to that question about the enforcement.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, that matter is not specifically involved in this amendment; it is indirectly involved. I wish to assure the member that administratively within the family law division of the ministry this question of enforcement and increased enforcement is being examined. There are many problems associated with the enforcement of orders under the Family Relations Act — and there will be under this one. We are presently considering a major revision in the entire structure which will handle these enforcement problems.

If I may just briefly say with your permission, Mr. Chairman, the direction in which we're trying to move is to take the initial responsibility away from the person who holds the order and to provide some more professional assistance.

MR. LAUK: Just a word on this, Mr. Chairman. I hope the Attorney-General is careful when he moves the civil order into a law enforcement procedure. Is that what the Attorney-General is discussing? Is that what he meant by more professional assistance — giving it into the hands of a bunch of supercops who can swoop down and...? Not that something like that may not be needed from time to time, but I would hate to see a precipitous action taken.

[ Page 6310 ]

Sections 7 to 13 inclusive approved.

On section 14.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, in the city of Victoria there are three buildings owned by a developer named John Congdon. They are on Cook Street, Pendergast and Olympia. In the instance of each of these buildings it has been the landlord's declared intention to convert them from rental to condominiums and to sell each of the apartments therein. There are approximately 120 apartments altogether. Through a loophole the landlord was able to sell the building to himself.

MS. BROWN: Sounds like BCRIC.

MR. BARBER: It's true, just like BCRIC. He sold it in the name of Congdon Construction to another company named Despard Construction. Mr. Congdon is the sole owner of both companies. As a result, he has been able to circumvent the requirements of an order-in-council passed by our administration in 1974, and subsequently.... The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) says that's a good thing. Do you realize what's happening to the people who are being kicked out of their homes?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARBER: Anyway, he's been able to circumvent the provisions of the order-in-council and the policy of the city of Victoria, which is to protect the tenants who own those homes.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the first member for Victoria is saying that the Minister of Forests said certain things that were not said. I'd like the record to be clarified. I said nothing. I would ask the member to please withdraw those comments which he ascribed to me.

MR. BARBER: I will not. You pounded your desk when I said the developers circumvented a regulation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister makes a correction.

Hon. members, we must all remind ourselves that it is not appropriate for one member to attribute remarks to another member.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, it's well known in this House that during the speeches of all hon. members those remarks that are made by the speaker who is recognized can be applauded or rejected, and the sign of that approval is by pounding the desk. Because the Minister of Forests uses his forehead rather than his hand to pound the desk does not mean that the pounding of the desk was not a sign of approval of the suggestion made by the hon. member for Victoria. I don't know why he's so upset. I think we could move his chair out into the corridor, though.

MR. BARBER: What the developers managed to do is thereby circumvent both provincial and local policy, which requires the approval of municipal governments before a building may be converted from an apartment to a strata title. What that has meant for the senior citizens — not exclusively, but primarily senior citizens — who are currently tenants in those three buildings is that they have found themselves under some duress and considerable pressure to move out. The landlord has given his written commitment to me that unlike the previous encounter — which was on Heywood Avenue, Victoria, also owned by Mr. Congdon, when he for all practical purposes required the tenants to leave — he says he will not too gravely encourage them; he will allow them to stay in the building. The problem for the tenants is that they are now being hit with significant rent increases to pay for the costs of renovating those suites in the building which are shortly to be marketed as strata titles. This is grossly unfair and is currently the subject of an appeal by the rentalsman.

My question to the minister is whether or not he contemplates that section 14 in any way can address the problem, which is twofold: first of all, the circumvention of the clear intent of this Legislature — the current government did not revoke the order-in-council passed by our administration, and that's good — and the clear intent of policy in the city of Victoria that only with consent of local government may a building be converted from rental to strata. I should point out that it is currently the policy of the city of Victoria that no buildings shall be converted from rental to strata, because we're in a very desperate shortage of affordable — or any, for that matter — rental housing in Victoria. If the minister declares that this section is not competent to address that problem, I wonder if the minister might undertake to bring in and incorporate within the miscellaneous statutes bill which we gather will be coming down shortly some further provision to strengthen the clear and untrammelled ability of local governments to protect the interests of renters who may wish to continue living in a rental building where the developer has found some sneaky way of getting around the provisions in law.

There's a second issue as well. I wonder if the minister could tell us whether or not section 14 or a section to be incorporated in the next omnibus bill might also address it. It is the case that the tenants in these three buildings were not aware that the developer had previously attached to the title a condition which allowed him, he thought — by virtue of this loophole; by selling the building to himself — to transform the building from rental to strata. I wonder if the minister might give an undertaking that, either through this section or some section to be contemplated and included in the next omnibus bill, a requirement might be imposed on the owners of all rental properties in the province that if they choose to apply under whatever local policy may exist for conversion from rental to strata, they be required to notify in writing each of the tenants of their intention to do so. There are two problems here. The first is that these people feel that they are under considerable duress and unfair pressure to move from their homes in these three buildings. The second problem is that they were given no notification whatever that it was the intention of the landlord to do this — because, you see, the law does not currently require it. On both counts that seems to me to be unfair to the individual tenants. On the larger count what seems unfair and unreasonable is that this or any other developer shall, by selling a building to himself, which is what happened when it went from Congdon to Despard — both owned by the same individual — be able to circumvent the clear intention of this Legislature and of the city of Victoria. I wonder if the minister could answer those particular questions about the section; if the section fails to address them as they should be addressed, would he give an undertak-

[ Page 6311 ]

ing that the next omnibus bill coming down — in the next week or two, I gather — might in fact help remedy these problems?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: I will try to summarize the answers to the three questions raised by the first member for Victoria. First, section 14 would not address or relate to the kind of problem the member has just described. Section 14 deals with a different type of problem but I do point out that it provides a superintendent's discretion. Therefore the structure of the section in any event does not automatically provide that certain things will happen, but gives to the superintendent a discretion.

With respect to the member's two further questions which relate to the jurisdiction or autonomy of the local or municipal government to have a right to screen or approve so-called conversions, and with respect to attempts by persons to circumvent the clear policy of this government that conversions from rental to strata premises shall require municipal approval, I think the simplest answer is this: these concerns and this issue have recently arisen in the city of Vancouver in the Barclay Manor case. It's the current classic. I've spent several hours this week with the rentalsman working on that problem. It's very complicated. I expect to have a report to the House early next week. In the course of that report we'll be addressing the issues that the member has raised.

At this moment, I cannot give any undertaking as to what the next miscellaneous or omnibus bill will or won't contain. As we analyze the Barclay Manor situation, we're finding that a series of policy issues are arising — some involve some consultation with Vancouver city hall, for example. So I wouldn't want to be premature in committing myself. I can assure the member that I am greatly concerned about any efforts to circumvent the process, and I think that in this very tight rental market the trend should be to ensure that tenants have full and adequate notice of any proposal which might impinge on their security. People who are going to test or try new techniques first should, if at all possible, be required to have those run by or commented on or vetted by, if not the rentalsman, certainly local government. So that's the direction we're moving in.

MR. BARBER: I thank the minister for his comments, and ask whether or not he would be prepared to discuss with the rentalsman the issue of the three buildings in Victoria owned by Mr. Congdon at Cook Street, Pendergast and Olympia. The rentalsman's office in Victoria has the entire file. I've had a great deal of correspondence with the office. If he would be willing, I think he would find some similarities between this issue and that with which he is currently familiar at the Barclay building in Vancouver.

Secondly, I would urge the minister again that at the very least, we should have some provision in law this session that requires notification by the owner to each individual resident of those buildings if he intends to seek approval, or in some other way obtain approval, for conversion. The simple fear is that the citizens in these three buildings have been made to suffer by virtue of gossip and rumour — the stories of carpenters who come in to fix up vacant suites which will not be rented again, and the carpenters say, "Oh, didn't you know? Here is the new policy. No one told you?" The stories and the fright that abound are just unreasonable. It is absolutely unreasonable that that should be allowed to occur.

As I say, we finally got an undertaking from the landlord. Nonetheless, it doesn't deal with the real problem. We're grateful for the minor undertaking from the owner. I would prefer, and urge on the minister at the next statute opportunity, a major undertaking by the government to ensure that notification and reinforcement of both his government's commitment and ours — continuous now for seven years — to require municipal approval. That should be guaranteed and ironclad in law. At the moment, there seems to be a loophole that's hurting citizens, and that's not just fair or reasonable.

Sections 14 to 22 inclusive approved.

On section 23.

MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Chairman, on section 23 we're looking at an amendment to the Ferry Corporation Act, and the amendment gives the Ferry Corporation the right, and no doubt the obligation, to turn back any of the surplus from their sinking funds to the government — that is to general consolidated revenue. In this situation I would just like to remark that having sold four ferries, including the Queen of Oak Bay, which has just come on stream, really what we're doing here is borrowing money. I suggest we're playing jiggery-pokery as usual. I would just like to hear precisely what we can anticipate in terms of revenue from this particular situation. Oh, the Minister of Finance is in such a huffy to get on his feet.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the responsibility for this particular section would rest either with the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) or with myself. This is a one-time move, and I trust that the explanation which follows will be of assistance to the member for New Westminster and to other members of the committee.

Prior to the establishment of the Ferry Corporation as we now know it, over something in excess of $41 million in securities was transferred out of consolidated revenue fund of the province in order to provide investments to retire the debt that had been incurred up to that point. As a result of higher than anticipated earnings on those investments, there developed a surplus of something in excess of $4 million after repayment of the debt is expected — a relatively small amount in terms of the Ferry Corporation and other activities. Since the so-called new Ferry Corporation did not make any payments toward the retirement of this debt, the surplus should — and would with this section — be returned to consolidated revenue fund. I hope the explanation assists the member.

Sections 23 to 37 inclusive approved.

On section 38.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I notice that the Health Emergency Act has been changed and a commission now shall submit to the minister a report from the preceding calendar year respecting the operation of the commission, and the minister shall lay the report before the Legislative Assembly as soon as possible. Well, that's a significant change. In the past there was a statutory demand for the minister to put it forward at a specific time. Now the minister can bring it forward.... We saw a report recently in this House on the fiscal year 1979. So if there is anything a mite

[ Page 6312 ]

embarrassing in the report, the minister can have difficulty getting it ready and into the House. The whole question of a separate financial statement is something I would also like to question the minister about. In any event, what's the reasoning behind this particular move?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Basically, Mr. Chairman, the amendments would permit the health emergency division to supply a separate report to the minister. That report then would be incorporated into the annual report of the Ministry of Health, rather than having two separate reports.

MS. BROWN: Does that mean that a separate, detailed financial statement will still be prepared? And does this mean that it will simply be incorporated into the annual report, or are we going to lose that detailed financial statement?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The purpose of the amendment is as the member suggested; that is to incorporate that report. My information is that the report which would have been tabled separately would be contained within the Ministry of Health report. I don't see any reason why it should have lost any of its detail.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, it sounds like an expeditious way of handling a situation, but I worry about it from this standpoint. This year when we went through the Health estimates, vital statistics, who once had a vote of its own, was buried under administration with absolutely no way of being able to bring it out. The same thing applies to an annual report. You can take a particular area and just bury it in the report. The numbers are all there, but at this level one doesn't have access to those numbers. The minister will have access, but the House will not. I'm really quite worried. I can see that as long as the emergency services isn't embarrassing to the ministry in any way, shape or form, then their numbers will be large and in place in the report. Somewhere down the road this could be an embarrassment, and then it could be buried under some particular area within the report. I'm not quite sure I really understand why it's being done.

MS. BROWN: One of the first things that the auditor-general pointed out in auditing the Ministry of Human Resources was the lack of detail in the annual report. She criticized quite strongly that, in fact, annual reports give you general kinds of statements. But the detailed financial statement, which you can presently get, is going to disappear. Instead we're going to get a kind of general, overall statement, as you find in most of the annual reports around. I think the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) was right when he zeroed in on the vital statistics branch in the Health estimates. It had one line under administration. Although there were a number of things that one wanted to raise under that particular vote, I had to ask the minister where the vote was, because it was so diminished in terms of its reporting. It seems to me that the House is quite satisfied with the report as it's presently done and with the detailed financial statement which accompanies it. Any move away from that is not going to make it any better for the opposition or the government members in terms of understanding what's going on in that ministry. I don't think it's a good amendment.

Sections 38 to 50 inclusive approved.

On section 51.

MR. STUPICH: The sections 9 and 10 that are being replaced in the section before us now did provide for an appeal on almost any grounds. If someone didn't like what was being done, they could appeal. The amendment before us limits the appeal to a point of law, so I take it from this, if this amendment passes, that no one will be able to appeal an order of the Marketing Board except to the supreme court and except on a point of law. I'm not sure whether the Attorney-General should be answering or the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) or the Chairman.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The appeal process is there, Mr. Chairman. Normally what happens is that a grower or a person appeals a decision of a commodity board — for example, the Chicken Marketing Board — to the B.C. Marketing Board. He appeals to that board — a provincial body — a decision of a commodity board. So that is his route of appeal. To then go through a procedure to appeal a decision of the provincial marketing board other than on a point of law is almost going through a second appeal procedure. The avenue always has been that the commodity board passes an order; if somebody is aggrieved they appeal to the provincial board. I recognize that the member for Nanaimo knows all that. It was redundant to go a further step with a further appeal. Therefore we have taken those two sections out, and the appeal route now on a decision of the provincial board is on a point of law.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, there have been appeals from decisions of the provincial marketing board. I appreciate the procedure is as you say, but nevertheless people have felt in the past the desirability of appealing. That procedure was there to accommodate that. It is your intention now that they will no longer have that avenue of further appeal except on a point of law.

The other question I'd like to ask is: now that we're bringing the supreme court into it, it seems to me that that achieves two things. It delays the process considerably, and it makes it much more expensive. Is the expense borne by the person who appeals?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, there has only been one appeal in the history of the B.C. Marketing Board, so basically the section itself has never really been used. The costs would be allotted in the normal manner with regard to any supreme court action.

Sections 51 to 60 inclusive approved.

On section 61.

MRS. DAILLY: This is the amendment to the School Support (Independent) Act. I particularly want to ask the minister about the dropping of the number of qualifying years from five to three. When this act was brought in I remember the former minister who was in charge giving all his rationale for the five years, and I'm wondering why the present minister or the government has seen fit to change it.

HON. MR. SMITH: It was the experience of the five-year waiting period that the result was really six years before a new school was funded. That was too long, and it was not

[ Page 6313 ]

necessary for a school to prove that it was meeting all the other criteria for funding set out in the act. The reduction of that to three, plus the first year in which they won't get funding, should amply guard against a proliferation of schools that may lack stability or cohesiveness, but still reduce the period sufficiently that bona fide and stable schools will be able to qualify.

On the education tour this reduction was asked for almost universally from people in the independent school system. I feel it's a good balance. There are Catholic schools in this province that are seeking to establish in new areas, and it seemed harsh and unreasonable that they, and some others, should wait the five years plus. That's the rationale for it.

MRS. DAILLY: I thank the minister for his explanation. I notice that FISA, of course, is referring to other provinces where it apparently gets less and less. I just want to make the point that I hope we don't find that here. I'm sure that if your government endorses this act we all want to be sure that the type of schools that qualify under it are properly investigated.

Sections 61 to 63 inclusive approved.

On section 64.

MS. BROWN: I want to ask the minister if he could tell me in terms of dollars what the end result of this new formula is. What exactly is going to happen now? The budget impact on that change in the 1982-83 budget year, which will be the first year that it's applicable, is estimated to be approximately $350,000. That is in revenue that has been lost to independent schools, as the member knows, arising out of transfers where students did not stay the full qualifying period. Quite often there were transfers within the independent school system, so two independent schools got no benefits. But that is the dollar impact.

Sections 64 to 79 inclusive approved.

On section 80.

MS. BROWN: I just wanted to ask the Minister of Agriculture and Food whether there was any consultation with the municipalities or the regional district before bringing in this particular amendment. In fact it seems to me that what he is doing is taking over some of the jurisdiction of the municipalities and the regional district. In case you haven't read it, Mr. Chairman, it means that now the consent of the municipality or the regional district is not needed before an inspector moves in and starts his weed-control program. I just wondered whether there was any consultation before this decision was made.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Concern has been expressed where an order was issued for clean-up and it wasn't carried out, especially in a regional district situation where the inspector had to wait 30 days and had to go back to the regional district board to get approval. By that time the weeds had all gone to seed, and the problem had passed. All the seeds had spread around to everybody else's property. So yes, they were consulted. What happens is the property owner is first served an order. He gets notice; he gets time to clean up the property. If he doesn't, then the weed inspector has the right to go on the property and clean it up.

MS. BROWN: Without bothering to consult with the municipality.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Without having to go back, because it was just too much of a delay.

Section 80 approved.

On section 81.

MS. SANFORD: This morning we've had answers from ministers responsible for the various sections of the bills. We've heard from Agriculture, Health, Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and Human Resources. I regret the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) is not here, because this section deals with an amendment to the Workers' Compensation Act. I have a number of questions, and I would also like an explanation as to why this particular section was necessary. In view of the fact that the minister is not here, I'm wondering if the government would perhaps agree to hold the bill over. First of all, could I have an explanation of the reason for this particular section.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: The underlying reason relates to the steps to make the boards of review independent from the board itself. As part of the move to greater independence, I think the 1979-80 session legislation reflected that. As I understand it, there are several loose ends to be tidied up relative to financial arrangements for staff of the boards of review. I understand that this particular amendment will bring the boards of review under the short- and long-term illness plan of the provincial government and will remove the direct financial responsibility of the Workers' Compensation Board for the boards of review. In the simplest of terms, I think that given that the boards of review have been moved a step independent from the board itself, one of the remaining questions for the staff of the boards is: what about things like traditional employee benefits? The provision here is to make it possible for them to be secured through agreement, as opposed to those particular benefits being directly provided under the board, given that the policy goal is to make the boards of review more independent from the board in every sense.

MS. SANFORD: I have a further question to the new Minister of Labour. We are removing the words "and the members and staff of the boards of review" from section 86(6). Section 86(6) in the act says: "The commissioners of the board, and the members and staff of the boards of review, are entitled to the benefits provided under subsections (3) and (5), and to other fringe benefits provided to employees of the board. Since we're removing members and staff of the boards of review from section 88(6), could the minister explain what other fringe benefits those people will now have eliminated as a result of this particular amendment?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Chairman, none will be eliminated, and indeed the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the affected staff members do not lose — and indeed maintain — the short- and long-term illness plan of the provincial government.

MS. SANFORD: Well, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is attempt-

[ Page 6314 ]

ing to explain that this relates to the long- and short-term benefits and that the employees and boards of review members are being moved from the coverage now contained under the WCB Act to the provincial government plan itself. I'm wondering if the minister could then explain what benefits are improved under this long- and short-term disability section for these particular people — that is, the staff and the members of the boards of review.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Well, I think it's clear, Mr. Chairman, that the amendment before us is one that deals with the procedure by which such employee benefits as may be added can be achieved. I can only say to the member that this amendment ensures that when in the result it is wished to expand the range of employee benefits, they can indeed be secured through agreement. As of this moment the amendment does not speak in terms of any immediately added amendments for those people; rather, as I say, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that it will be the case that the short- and long-term illness benefits will indeed continue to be available to those affected staff members.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, I think the committee needs to look at the matter of order and procedure involved here. While the explanations from the adviser counsel to the Minister of Labour may sound all right in a legal way, he is not the Minister of Labour, and the Minister of Labour is the person who has the responsibility for reporting to the House about the compensation act and for handling amendments and proposals thereto. That's the essence of what part of responsible government is — the minister of the Crown responsible for his ministry to the Legislature. I'm not saying that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs doesn't know what he's talking about; he obviously knows far more than the Minister of Labour, if we're making any comparisons on this matter. But it seems to me that we should not handle this particular section of this bill in the absence of the Minister of Labour. Regardless of the explanations given, it is the responsibility of the Minister of Labour, as it has been for all other ministers so far during the day. So I suggest that the only course we should follow is to hold it over until the Minister of Labour is available.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, the procedure being followed is the usual procedure in committee, but the request is a reasonable one. I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy filed an addendum to the 1980 annual report of the Ministry of Human Resources.

Hon. Mr. Chabot tabled the 1980 annual report of the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1 p.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

8 The Hon. L. A. Williams to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 8) intituled Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1981 to amend as follows:

Section 6: In the proposed section 8 (2) by deleting "in addition to" and substituting "in place of".

Section 11:

In the proposed section 12 (2) (d) by deleting "chairman" and "Section" and substituting "president" and "Branch" respectively.

In the proposed section 12 (3. 1) by adding "second and" after "the presiding member shall cast a".

Section 12:

In the proposed section 15 (2) by deleting "subsection (2) " and substituting subsection (1)".

By deleting the proposed section 20 and substituting the following: "Appeal to Court of Appeal

"20. The judge, justice or court referee may, within 30 days after the notice under section 19 (3) was mailed or personally served on him, appeal to the Court of Appeal from an order made under section 19 (1), and the Attorney General is respondent in the appeal."