[ Page 4631 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Passenger vehicle licences. Ms. Sanford –– 4631

Wage reimbursement program. Mr. Gabelmann –– 4631

Closing of WCB hearing section. Mrs. Dailly –– 4632

Late payments from Ministry of Human Resources. Mr. Blencoe –– 4633

Home Owner Grant Amendment Act (No 2), 1984 (Bill 24). Committee stage

On section 10 –– 4633

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Ree

Skagit Environmental Enhancement Act (Bill 12). Committee stage

On section 4 –– 4634

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Nicolson

On section 6 –– 4635

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Rose

Third reading –– 4637

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No 1), 1984 (Bill 21). Committee stage

On section 35 –– 4637

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Nicolson

Division

On section 40 –– 4643

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Nicolson

Ms. Sanford

On section 45 –– 4644

Mr. Rose

On section 63 –– 4645

Mr. Nicolson

On section 66 –– 4646

Mrs. Wallace

On section 67 –– 4646

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Lank

Division

On section 69 –– 4649

Ms. Brown

On section 70 –– 4649

Mr. Rose

Mr. Nicolson

Young Offenders (British Columbia) Act (Bill 22). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 4650

Ms. Brown –– 4652

Appendix –– 4654

WEDNESDAY, MAY 9, 1984

The House met at 2:02 p.m.

Prayers.

M. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, visiting this Legislature from Ottawa, from Carleton University, I'd like the House to welcome Peter Bleyer, Bill Clay and Stephen Wright. They are just checking us out, and I wonder whether they're going to be interested in what they see. Anyway, I hope we welcome them.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today is a new member of my staff, Mr. Bruce Volder, who has started with my office as executive assistant. I'd ask the House to bid him welcome.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure my colleagues the first and second members for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston and Mr. Reid) join me in asking the House to greet my long-time friend, the Squire of Surrey, Mr. Tom Anderson.

MRS. WALLACE: Just arrived in the precincts are a group of grade 9 and 10 students from G. E. Bonner school. They are accompanied by 40 or 50 exchange students from Quebec. They will be in the gallery at 3 o'clock. I hope the House will not only welcome them now but give them a good example of British Columbia parliament when they are in the gallery.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I wish to apologize for any inconvenience that may have been occasioned to members yesterday because of the lack of publication of a bill that was introduced. There was a work stoppage at the Queen's Printer. I'm sure it was not intentionally done to coincide with that release, but I apologize for any inconvenience.

Oral Questions

PASSENGER VEHICLE LICENCES

MS. SANFORD: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Cabinet documents show that members of cabinet and the full cabinet intervened to overturn a decision of the Motor Carrier Commission which refused an operating licence to Conmac Stages Ltd. The cabinet passed such orders overturning the decision of the Motor Carrier Commission on August 7, 1980, and again on December 15, 1980. In view of the evidence heard by the inquest into the tragic accident involving a Conmac bus on the Mt. Washington highway, has the government decided to cease the practice of political intervention by cabinet in the granting of passenger vehicle licences?

HON. A. FRASER: All cabinet are doing is carrying out the act. The act says that appeals can be made to a committee of cabinet, and they're sitting on those appeals steadily. As far as appeals from the Motor Carrier Commission, I might comment that I don't sit on any of them.

MS. SANFORD: I'm addressing the question to the minister because he is the person responsible for the Motor Carrier Commission, whether or not he sits on the particular cabinet committees. B.C. Is one of the few jurisdictions which allows politicians — through the act, as the Provincial Secretary points out — to interfere with regulatory functions involving public safety. In view of the tragic result in this case, will the minister advise what consideration the government is giving to this matter, including the possibility of changing the act?

HON. A. FRASER: Our government is always reviewing all the acts.

MS. SANFORD: That's a non-answer to a very serious question on a very serious matter. In view of the fact that the cabinet twice interfered — intervened — to secure a passenger vehicle licence for the operators of Conmac Stages, what consideration is the government now giving to make all cabinet records, notes, tape recordings and documents available to the authorities currently investigating the tragic accident on Mount Washington?

HON. A. FRASER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether I'm the minister who should answer that, but I will. Our ministry has legal counsel attending the inquest at all times.

MS. SANFORD: I have seen the legal counsel at work at the particular hearings, but that legal counsellor has not made available to the inquest any of the documents relating to the particular decision taken by cabinet on this issue. Will the government authorize the release of those documents, whether it's done through their counsel present at the hearings or by whatever other route they may choose? Will they release all of the information — all the tapes, documentation and records — relating to the decision taken by cabinet to overturn the decisions of the Motor Carrier Commission?

HON. A. FRASER: I'm afraid that I can't answer that question. You should probably direct that to the Attorney-General.

MS. SANFORD: The acting Attorney-General is not here, Mr. Speaker. The third acting Attorney-General is the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) ; he's not here either. Would you please advise what members on this side can do when all of the three people responsible are not here?

WAGE REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAM

MR. GABELMANN: I have a question to the Minister of Labour, The 1984 students' wage reimbursement program is so badly underfunded that thousands of employers and employees have been unable to take advantage of it. What consideration is the government giving to additional funding to the wage reimbursement program to fulfill the promise of the calling cards issued by government?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The program has not been fully committed yet. It has $10 million. We have two aspects to the program. One is that students who present calling cards can get funded, and the other is that employers who apply can get funded. I expect the program will be fully committed, but at the moment we have put a temporary halt on the employers' applications to wait for the students' applications to catch up. There will be further adjustments as we go along. But, Mr.

[ Page 4632 ]

Speaker, I said when I introduced the program that we expected it would be fully committed, and it will be.

MR. GABELMANN: My understanding, Mr. Speaker, is that it was fully committed some time ago, but be that as it may. By contrast, fewer than 200 students have applied to, borrow the up to $2,000 from the Royal Bank of Canada under the student venture capital program. In view of the poor response to this program, is the minister prepared to consider changing priorities in order to create more student jobs which offer a paycheque for work performed?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, no, and I don't consider that to be a poor response; I think that's an excellent response, and it will continue. As the summer goes on, we'll be getting further student applications under that student venture capital program. We're fully committed to helping students who want to help themselves. Mr. Speaker, that's why we're so happy to develop the student venture capital program.

By contrast, in Ontario, where a similar program has been in place for, I think, ten years, they have only now reached the point where they're getting 1,000 students applying to that program. So I think for us to have 200 now and still moving in the first year of the program is an excellent response.

MR. GABELMANN: Can I take it, Mr. Speaker, when the minister says the government is fully committed to funding employment programs for students, that when, if it hasn't already happened, the $10 million limit on the first of those two programs is reached, that fund will be expanded to meet that need?

MR. SPEAKER: Future policy, hon. member.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Speaker, there is $10 million in the budget. We expect to have something in the neighbourhood at the end of the program of 9,000 students employed under that particular program. Mr. Speaker, I think that's an excellent commitment to the students of this province, and we'll do whatever else we have to do. But we budgeted $10 million, and that's what I had in the budget.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, if more than 9,000 students and young people want to take advantage of the program, has the government decided that it at that time will expand the number of dollars available?

[2:15]

CLOSING OF WCB HEARING SECTION

MRS. DAILLY: I have a question to the Minister of Health. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) has recently fired 21 staff in the course of closing the hearing section of the Workers' Compensation Board. Has the Minister of Health agreed to perform all WCB hearing work through staff audiologists in the public health system?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I would have to get the precise details. My understanding is that the component from the Workers' Compensation Board.... The Ministry of Health will be taking on some of the staff and will be providing the service to the Workers' Compensation Board from the staff within the ministry. But I don't have all the details as to numbers or what the dates may be or the precise arrangements.

There is a shortage of people in that area throughout the province, and it is believed that the Ministry of Health will be able to obtain the services of a number of specialists in that area and perhaps make better use of their abilities and skills. We will be hiring some of the people from the Workers' Compensation Board, or employing them, and we will be providing services to the Workers' Compensation Board under some type of understanding or agreement. But I would have to get the details.

MRS. DAILLY: A recent survey showed that there was no audiologist in the Peace River and the Cariboo; the Prince George audiologist has restricted services only to children and elderly because of the workload; and West Kootenay, Trail, Clearbrook, Chilliwack and Skeena have also suffered critical shortages of audiologists. Does the minister think that he will be able to provide for those services as well as take over from the WCB with that present situation?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: We think the situation will improve, yes, because we believe that the number of audiologists and others available through the WCB will permit us to deploy people in areas where they have no audiologists of any kind. There is a very difficult recruiting problem for audiologists throughout the province. There is also a problem associated with the numbers who are being trained for that purpose at our universities. We have been recruiting across Canada to try to fill some of the positions, and we are actively recruiting to fill. It is a problem we are attempting to resolve. We do believe that the Workers' Compensation Board contingent of audiologists will assist us in resolving some of the problems of the province.

MRS. DAILLY: As a final supplementary, I appreciate the detailed answer from the minister and his obvious concern, but I wonder if the minister would express this concern to the Minister of Universities (Hon. Mr. McGeer), who is denying funds to the universities to such an extent, Mr. Speaker, that they have to cut back on the production of audiologists. The question is: would he please see if he can get some cooperation to present and give more money to the universities so they can carry out these functions instead of having to go to another part of Canada to bring in audiologists?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, we have discussed the matter with the minister responsible for universities, and I do not agree with the member for Burnaby North that it is a matter of providing more money to the universities; perhaps for a change they might spend their money in a more appropriate manner.

I believe that the training of audiologists should be a more important element within the universities than the training of some of the people who are going through the universities. But even if we do train and produce more audiologists in our universities, it does not guarantee that they will employ themselves in British Columbia, because there is some very heavy recruiting from other jurisdictions as well. I believe we should produce more audiologists from our education system, at the university level or elsewhere, but I don't believe

[ Page 4633 ]

it's a matter of the universities not having the money. It's a matter of deploying it properly, in my opinion.

LATE PAYMENTS FROM
MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), but she's not here, so I will ask the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot), who is the alternate.

On May 7, in the minister's absence, I asked the Provincial Secretary about extra delays in payments by the Ministry of Human Resources for child-care services in its contract with the various day-care centres. That particular issue is now also affecting alternative schools, community grants, foster parents and hundreds of other community facilities. Will the minister advise why these cheques are still not issued and why he has not acted on this particularly important issue?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I believe that question was taken as notice by the minister.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, in response to the second member for Victoria, I wish to advise him that I did refer his question to the Minister of Human Resources when she returned to Victoria yesterday morning. She was in the chamber yesterday, but the member didn't appear interested in pursuing the question then while the minister was here. I believe the minister was prepared to answer the member at that time. However, he is pursuing the question again in the minister's absence, so all I can say is that as soon as the Minister of Human Resources returns to the chamber, I am sure she will give the member the full information that he is seeking.

MR. HOWARD: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, with respect to question period and the availability of ministers. There was the desirability of posing a question to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), who is not here. The acting Minister of Education, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith), is not here. The second acting minister, in case those two are absent, is the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), and he isn't here. The same situation prevails with respect to the Attorney-General, and that's a disgraceful set of circumstances.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, this point has been canvassed many times under many guises. Unfortunately, the matter is beyond the Chair's ability to deal with it. It is the responsibility of members to be in the House if they are not otherwise attending government business. Whether or not they are is not for the Chair to determine, and therefore it is not a point of order to be taken at this time.

MR. HOWARD: I'm pleased to hear you say it was canvassed many times.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it's quite obvious that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) is not out doing government business. I'd like to know whether, under standing order 8 — which says that every member is bound to attend the service of the House unless leave of absence has been given by the House — you have given leave of absence to the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: Again, the point reflects identically with the point just canvassed and covered by the Chair, and concludes the matter.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. NEILSEN: Mr. Speaker, with leave, public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 24,

HOME OWNER GRANT
AMENDMENT ACT (NO, 2), 1984

(continued)

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

On the amendment to section 10.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I must advise the House that the answer today is not really that different from the answer yesterday, when I stated that this amendment had to do with regulations. I would gather that possibly my answer was too simple to an amendment that reads as follows; "Section 14(2)(d) is amended by striking out 'and 3(3)(a.1)' and substituting '3(3)(.1)'" and so on.

This amendment really corrects an oversight in that area of regulation. For instance, we had not provided for eligibility for the homeowner grant in the area of land cooperative residences. Also included in that Section is the power to make regulations for handicapped persons. Of course 3(2) deals with the same thing for multiple-leased parcel residences. The portion that gives us the authority to regulate, section 14(2), did not include those two sections or the section that allows for the inclusion of handicapped persons. I would hope that this will answer the question of the opposition concerning this amendment.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm glad we've got this clarified. Yesterday it was indeed somewhat embarrassing for the minister; clearly he did not know what this amendment was all about, yet it was under his name,

The reason we have this amendment.... Again, it's poor, sloppy legislation brought in by that minister. The amendment is required consequent to the amendments already proposed in Bill 24. Because there have been new classes of eligible residents added to the act, it is necessary to extend the existing powers of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to cover these new classes. The minister blew it the first time around. In Miscellaneous Statutes there were a number of sections to cover up the minister's incompetence over Bill 9 last year, when he threw out settlement plans in his haste to get rid of regional planning.

[ Page 4634 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are simply dealing with an amendment to a section. Discussing previous legislation and other matters of Municipal Affairs is not in order in this debate. To the amendment, please.

MR. BLENCOE: The point I'm trying to make is that this minister consistently brings in legislation into this House — and this amendment proves it again — that is incomplete. It's poorly done, it's sloppy work and he continues to show that he's not capable of handling Municipal Affairs. That is the feeling of the UBCM over and over again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member....

MR. BLENCOE: And it's time the minister, Mr. Chairman, got a handle on his portfolio and did his job properly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member will come to order. To the amendment only, please. Debate on other principles or debate that would be better done in estimates is not in order in this committee, on this amendment, and on this section of this bill.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, it's very important, when you're dealing with local councils, homeowner grants and financial matters of million-dollar operations that we have in terms of municipalities, that you get legislation correct and do it right. We have had a number of occasions now, and this is another one, Mr. Chairman, that continue to show that this minister does not put his legislation together property. This amendment would not have been necessary....

Once again we have seen sloppy legislation by this minister. Obviously we support this amendment, but it should have been done properly. Yesterday he didn't even know himself what the mess was all about.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, that rampage is typical of that member. I forgive him because of his total lack of not only the process of developing legislation but also his lack of experience in this House.

[2:30]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I'll advise the minister and the second member for Victoria that both arguments have been totally out of the scope of the amendment before us. Can we speak to the amendment?

MR. REE: Mr. Chairman, I sat here and listened [illegible] to the comments from the second member for Victoria. I sort of got the impression it was the pot calling the kettle black, because yesterday — and I'm talking on the amendment, Mr. Chairman — the member, who is the official critic of the minister, was not even aware of the amendment when it was called in this House. He had to be directed to page 14 of the Orders of the Day. The amendment was printed in the Orders of the Day and was available to all members of this House. The member for Victoria wasn't aware of it. He was not doing his job for the people of Victoria.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member....

MR. REE: On the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the amendment, please.

MR. REE: This is in rebuttal to the member's comments, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member's comments were found to be out of order, so any rebuttal would also be out of order. I have advised the minister of that, and I'll advise you of that now.

MR. REE: Mr. Chairman, when he did read the amended section, once it was brought to his attention and once he was told where the amendment was, he still could not follow that amendment and required assistance. He could not debate this amendment in this House yesterday, because he was not aware of it, not familiar with it and did not understand it. Certainly I support the amendment, because I support the principle of the homeowners grant being extended to these additional people and the opportunity of regulations being made to facilitate the giving of that grant to handicapped people. Mr. Chairman, I could not sit here quietly and listen to that pot calling the kettle black.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I think we have fully dealt with the process of amendments. We've dealt with the ministry. But the only business of this committee at this time is to deal with the amendment itself.

With that said, the Chair recognizes the second member for Victoria.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I think we have to correct the record on this issue. Let's get the truth in front of this chamber. That amendment was slipped in here. Within an hour it was before this chamber. There was no notification of when it was going to come forward. It was an attempt to cover up the inadequacies of this minister because he's again blown his legislation. That's the issue. If he did his job properly, we wouldn't have to react.

Section 10 as amended approved.

Sections 11 and 12 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 24, Home Owner Grant Amendment Act (No. 2), 1984, reported complete with amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Committee on Bill 12.

SKAGIT ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT ACT

The House in committee on Bill 12; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On section 4.

[ Page 4635 ]

MRS. WALLACE: This is an unusual section, in that we have established under a previous section a commission with all the rights and powers of a corporation, and so on — which is in fact a Crown corporation — and yet it is not an agent of the government. This is a surprising section to me, and I wonder if the minister would comment on that.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think you have to recognize that this commission is not established as a Crown corporation. It is specifically established under an agreement between the state of Washington and the province of British Columbia. It is a commission in its own right. Each governmental jurisdiction has provided it with authority, and each one will nominate members to it, hopefully in the next little while. The funding is provided for as part of the agreement. So it operates, in effect, as a separate entity. Presumably there would be recommendations to the government or to the parks branch or to the Ministry of Environment from this commission, which may involve the government. But any commission could do that. It is not operating as a direct agent for the government.

MRS. WALLACE: To whom does the commission report?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I can't answer that specifically, but they would be making recommendations to both governments and particularly, as far as land matters are concerned, to the government of British Columbia. In many respects they are funded, and can go ahead and carry out their duties.... If, for instance, they wanted to purchase a piece of land as part of filling out the Skagit agreement, they could go ahead and do that as a commission. If they made a recommendation that government needs to go further than that in providing land or dealing somehow with Crown land or establishing a park, then they would, as a commission, make recommendations.

MRS. WALLACE: Who decides on their rate of pay? Or are they paid?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm trying to remember the particulars from the agreement. As I understand it, they are not being paid. They would be getting legitimate expenses, and that's about it.

MR. NICOLSON: If they're not an agent of the government, are they empowered to make any recommendations to government concerning any kinds of trade-offs? Would they have any rights to enter into any kind of discussion concerning, for instance, the Kootenay diversion, or raising the levels of the Pend-d'Oreille dam?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, the levels have been established in the agreement, so they would not be making recommendations regarding that. That's already been agreed upon.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

On section 6.

MRS. WALLACE: This is more of the same, really. This is the appropriation section, which talks about the $250,000 in U.S. currency that may be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund before March of next year for expenditures that may be required to meet the government's obligations under the agreement. By this section we're paying out $250,000 in American currency, presumably to a commission over which we apparently have no control, and they are to carry out the terms of the agreement, We don't know how much we're paying them. We don't know whether or not they are getting any payment or any expenses, or who they are reporting to. This is a pretty broad thing you're asking us to do here when you're coming up with.... This is the Minister of Environment's bill, and I would like some explanation of just how he intends to handle it. Obviously he doesn't seem to know what the situation is or how it's being handled, how much money is available to the commissioners or who they're responsible to.

We're anxious to see this agreement go ahead and have some settlement — a costly situation to rectify a bad job of bungling originally, but let's not bungle it again. Let's see what we're doing here. What are we getting for our money — $250,000 this year, with a commitment for another $250,000 down the road for three more years. Where's that money coming from? Are we going to have another bill next year to come up with another $250,000?

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, is the Minister of Health not well, or is he just being insulting?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: To whom?

MRS. WALLACE: To me.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: How could I be insulting?

MRS. WALLACE: You know very well, Mr. Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. WALLACE: Is the minister prepared to answer my questions? If not, I think we should consider what happened yesterday, and perhaps ask that the committee rise and report progress if he's not prepared to answer.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, I'm quite prepared to answer. I guess I was under the illusion that the member, having taken such an interest in this, would perhaps have read the material that was distributed, appendix D to the agreement, which spells out in complete detail — it was public information — exactly where the money was coming from; all the agreements and so on. I did not prepare myself to answer every one of these details. I'm prepared. I've got appendix D here and I'm quite willing to read the whole thing into the record if that would satisfy the member.

If the member might be satisfied, I could make sure that she gets a copy of the agreement, which spells out exactly how the funding is done, the objectives of the committee, how it is to operate, etc. — whatever the member likes. Or I could take the time to read this whole agreement.

MRS. WALLACE: All I want to know is whether or not the commissioners are to be paid. Does it say that in the agreement? If they are to be paid, how much?

[ Page 4636 ]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Let me read article 4. It may answer the member:

"There is hereby established a commission which shall consist of eight members, four of whom shall be appointed by the mayor of Seattle and four by the Premier of British Columbia. Both the mayor and the Premier shall endeavour to appoint one member from their respective governments, one member with financial management experience, one member with property management or property acquisition experience, and one member representing the environmental or conservation interests of the Skagit Valley. Alternates may be appointed for each member of the commission in the same manner as the members.

"Initially, terms of two of the four members appointed by both the mayor and the Premier shall be for two years, and terms of the remaining two members appointed by the mayor and the Premier shall be for four years. Subsequently, all terms shall be for a period of four years. Members are subject to removal at the discretion of the authority who appointed them at any time. In the event a member does not complete a term, an alternate may do so. The commission shall elect co-chairpersons, one of whom shall have been appointed by the mayor and one by the Premier, for a term of two years each.

"A quorum shall consist of at least six members of the commission or their alternates, including always three appointed by the Premier and three by the mayor. The affirmative vote of at least two members appointed by the Premier and two by the mayor shall be required for any decision to be taken by the commission.

"Minutes of all meetings shall be kept."

Shall I go on with article 5?

MRS. WALLACE: You haven't answered my question yet.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Article 6:

"It is the intent of the parties that expenditures from the fund for administrative costs, consultants, travel and the like be kept to an absolute minimum. It is not the intent of the parties that expenditures from the fund replace or supplant operating budgets or responsibilities of public agencies, nor is it the intent that the commission enter into obligations for maintenance projects on a continuing basis.

"It is agreed by the parties that Seattle and British Columbia shall provide staff support to the commission on an as-needed basis. The members shall receive no remuneration from the fund; however, they may be paid reasonable per them and travel expenses as authorized by the annual budget."

And I had answered that previously.

[2:45]

MRS. WALLACE: I thank the minister for the answer at last. They are to get reasonable travel expenses; they are also to be provided staff by the province. This is not to come out of the $250,000 allocation. Is that correct? Is this money over and above the $250,000? Is the $250,000 solely for the purpose of the settlement of the Skagit agreement, or is some of that money going to be used to fund the commission? That's the point I'm trying to get at here.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think the statement said that it is agreed by the parties that Seattle and British Columbia shall provide staff support. They are not going to be hiring staff and putting them in, but our staffs will be providing support to them. I don't know if that answers the question.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I don't have any precise questions on this particular clause, but I would like to use this opportunity to make a comment or two related to the general nature of the clause.

I believe I'm correct in assuming that the $250,000 is payable to Seattle City Light, because the province of British Columbia over a number of years, after the agreement was first signed, received money from the city of Seattle. This may be part of the settlement or it may not be, but I'm not particularly concerned about that. I'm quite sure it is justified. It was probably fairly negotiated.

What I would like to use this time for is to say, as a person who raised this issue in the House in the early 1970s before anybody was even concerned about it, how pleased I am that this matter has now been settled. It started out in a very small way, attracted a great number of people, and proved that on environmental matters the public could be aroused and did care. People such as Dave Brousson and John Fraser, the member for Vancouver South, and others.... It became a non-partisan issue. If there's anything that we can learn from the Skagit Valley — the reversal and all the difficulties that we had to face.... It wasn't easy to have this decision reversed. As a matter of fact, a lot of people might say that we welshed on it. But the point is that we made a bad move at a time when power was everything. We were power-mad and people didn't care much about flooding valleys. But they began to believe, and I hope they continue to believe, that Canadians are more than hewers of wood and storers of water.

If there is anything that can be learned from this, it is that we should take the warning and not embark upon environmentally sensitive issues — and the minister is right in the middle of one up on the Bonaparte reserve at the moment with this waste disposal stuff — without first of all studying what might be the long-term implications. While we tried to be good neighbours with the city of Seattle, and while there were ample precedents for perhaps raising that dam as part of an earlier agreement on the Pend d'Oreille dam serving the city of Seattle, this issue was not acceptable to Canadians. I think that that is something that we should remember before we start flooding any more valleys that may be equally environmentally sensitive, and equally expensive.

Without trying to making a pun out of this, this is a watershed. Perhaps the Manitoba question — the Garrison diversion — is another. But the Skagit preceded it, and Canadians are no longer willing to provide this kind of storage for the benefit of another nation, no matter how friendly. It is a watershed decision. I'm glad it's gone through, and I congratulate the government for reversing its stand, one it took, I believe, as early as 1947, but I'm not certain of the date. Since I didn't know the bill was going to be called — I have another list entirely — I couldn't go and get my notes on the subject. I'm glad it's over, and I'm pleased that it was resolved so successfully.

Sections 6 to 8 inclusive approved.

[ Page 4637 ]

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 12, Skagit Environmental Enhancement Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Committee on Bill 21, Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (NO, 1), 1984

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 21; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

On section 35.

MR. PASSARELL: To the Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Chairman, as a graduate of Notre Dame University I have a bit of concern about the nature of the government's status in taking the act away in 1977. But I have some specific concerns in regard to my own transcripts, as a graduate of Notre Dame University in Nelson. I hope the minister would have some type of information on this. If he doesn't, would you please take it as notice and then get back to me?

Firstly, since you're taking away the act in regard to Notre Dame University as well as its successor, David Thompson University Centre, now nothing exists there. I'm wondering, concerning my transcripts: do they fall into the hands of the community college in Castlegar? Where do my transcripts go, as a graduate from Notre Dame — or those of the other 250 graduates?

HON. MR. SMITH: I think that the important thing is that the transitional arrangements that will have to be made can't be made at all until the obligation of the province under the agreement, which the member for Nelson-Creston has spoken of so eloquently, is released. But as I understand it, hon. member, the records of that university will be continued in some other institution for those purposes. Whether it's in the community college, the Ministry of Education or the University of Victoria I can't tell you, but it's obvious that those records must be retained and that citizens who earn credentials there must be able to receive records of that and use them. That's a reasonable matter that you've raised.

MR. PASSARELL: My concern to the Attorney-General is that if you're going to store bachelor of education or bachelor of science records in a community college.... If you're a graduate asking for a transcript for a master's degree or a doctoral degree, it's going to look very poor on that individual's record that he received his bachelor of education degree from a community college. My suggestion would be, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister — and hopefully this is what government policy would involve — that those transcripts would be left with, for instance, the Minister of Universities in his ministry instead of having them go to a community college. A person with a four-year degree receiving his transcripts through that operation in Castlegar....

It just doesn't seem right that we would have to expect our graduation and transcript records to come from a community college that we never attended.

So my suggestion. through to the Attorney-General, would be that hopefully they will be stored at a university or in the Minister of Universities' ministry. We're talking maybe 200 or 300 graduates maximum on this issue, and I would personally rather have my transcripts in a university than a community college. So just as a suggestion, I would hope that those 200 or 300 records could go to the ministry instead of a community college.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, it simply isn't good enough to say it may be here or it may be somewhere else. These rights should have been protected and they should be protected in this legislation. This is such a slapdash piece of legislation. Simply to say that the act no longer exists....

To say that an agreement signed in seal and covenant binding the government and the Notre Dame board to that agreement.... Simply to say that it no longer exists doesn't answer that question which has just been raised here by a graduate of Notre Dame University — one of the members of this House. It would be absolutely unthinkable, I think, that such records should be housed with the Ministry of Education or with a community college. If those records are housed anywhere but within one of the three universities of this province, it would be a great disservice. It would cause great confusion, and it would be a demunition of the quality of the degree that had been earned. Certainly the test of time has proven that the graduates of Notre Dame University have excelled themselves in graduate studies at universities all over the world. The teachers have gone out and had very distinguished careers. Mr. Chairman, indeed, studies would show that there was a very high percentage of the graduates of Notre Dame, as opposed to the graduates of the three universities in the province, that went on to graduate studies.

Mr. Chairman, what we are proposing here is to kill a covenant and agreement signed between the government and another party. I ask this to the Attorney-General: people can sign an agreement with the provincial government, but what is the meaning of an agreement with the provincial government? Is it really someone selling himself into a binding or almost into a bondage of one direction where one party is bound to the other and bound to the terms of the agreement, but the government is free to set aside any agreement? Is it then possible. really, to have any form of an agreement or any form of a covenant with the provincial government? If the provincial government can set it aside simply by bringing in an act of the Legislature, does any agreement with this government have any real legal meaning, or is it just an act of good faith that one enters into with the government?

For instance, if the government can set aside the agreement with the Notre Dame University board signed in 1977, undertaking and promising to do certain things, is the government now free to disobey and disregard, for instance, an agreement with the medical profession here in British Columbia? If you sign a schedule of fees, for instance, with the medical profession, is it something that is really of no use? If government signs an agreement with some contractor for construction at the Expo site, does that contractor really have

[ Page 4638 ]

a contract, or is government simply now signaling that they're willing to set aside agreements when they find them no longer of use to the government? Is an agreement or a covenant to be two-way, or is it simply to be one-way and only binding on one party? Why in the world would anyone ever want to sign an agreement or a covenant with government now that this step has been taken? Can the minister answer that question?

[3:00]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MR. SMITH: I understand, Mr. Chairman, the sincerity of feeling which prompts this member to raise the issue of this agreement and debate this matter in committee, but surely the government entering into contracts to provide a fee level for physicians or contracts that are entered into with Expo or other matters is hardly on the same footing as a statutory agreement which was made here as part of the Notre Dame University of Nelson Act in 1977, which revived, continued and reconstituted the University of Notre Dame and which was done during a climate, Mr. Chairman, where there was thought to be endless amounts of money for social services, and also during a climate in which, as I recall — because I had the responsibility in 1979 for this institution, David Thompson University Centre — there was thought to be considerable potential for an increase in the student body in that institution. It was in the optimism of that period from 1977 through to 1979 and 1980 that various decisions were made. Regrettably, those decisions are being altered today because of a change in the economic climate and because of a realization that in the field of post-secondary education everything can't be done at a number of institutions; some things have to be done well, instead of a number of other things badly. It is of great regret that this institution, which is so important to the city of Nelson, is one of those that the government can no longer support. I understand the member's frustration. I don't know that I can say more. He's correct to raise these matters, and I sympathize with him. I wish I could do more than that; I can't.

MR. NICOLSON: I'll bet the Attorney-General a case of beer or a bottle of Glenlivet that more of the graduates of David Thompson University Centre last year have got jobs than graduates from the faculty of engineering at the University of British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, you'd better get in tune with your government's philosophy. We've heard about the change from education to training. It's vocational training that this government has been stressing. Certainly if you're going to do things on that yardstick, it has been a very great success.

The minister says that times change. We are talking about agreements. We are talking about the word of an hon. member, and when two ministers of the Crown sign an agreement, and when seals are affixed to the agreement and it is ratified in the Legislature.... I would like to read to the Attorney-General from the Canadian Abridgement, second edition, on statutes: "Ratification of agreement by Legislature. Effect. Per Moss, J. A.: 'The agreement between the parties, though ratified by an act of the Legislature, still remains a private contract.'" There is still a private contract, regardless of whether that agreement was ratified by an act of this Legislature and whether we attempt to unravel it by an act of this Legislature. The government has not heard the end of this legal matter.

You don't set aside such a unique piece of legislation, which ratifies a 15-article agreement, an agreement that sets terms and conditions for the continuance of access to a chapel which is sanctified ground on the campus of that university. I would read to the minister the preamble of the Canadian Bill of Rights, assented to in August 1960: "The Parliament of Canada, affirming that the Canadian nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God, the dignity and worth of the human person and the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions...." The Canadian Bill of Rights has been used successfully in the courts to defend the rights of people. It is not superseded by the constitution or the new Canadian Charter of Rights. It is not to be set aside. There have been decisions founded.... This government is exceeding its power when it seeks, without negotiation with the local community, to deconsecrate hallowed ground. You have no right to do that. You have no power to do that, and you don't have the power to do that under the assumption of the British parliamentary system. It doesn't matter whether we are Christians, agnostics, atheists, or what any individual member of this House is; these are the principles and this is the sovereign authority which is recognized by all parliaments. Sovereigns recognize the ultimate sovereignty of a deity. We in return recognize the sovereign. It has been spelled out in the Canadian Bill of Rights.

I am saying that you are trying to do things here with a very simple, clumsy, blunt approach to reforming a law, which is beyond the competence.... There is only one competent way to do this, and that is to sit down and have honest, frank negotiations with people who do hold powers. How can people turn over to you properties and chattels in response to an agreement? Now that the agreement is being repealed, to whom do the chattels revert? I ask the minister, then: to whom do the 75,000 volumes in the library — now over 75,000, but the 75,000 volumes agreed upon and catalogued at the time this agreement was made — revert if we do away with this act? The minister responsible for this isn't even in the House. Can the Attorney-General answer that question? Can he answer the question which I've just quoted, in terms of defining what an agreement means, from the Canadian Abridgement?

HON. MR. SMITH: I have no doubt that the proposition that the member refers to in the Canadian Abridgement is sound in law. But what the Legislature sanctifies the Legislature can desanctify. The Legislature is supreme to alter contracts. That has been done before in this Legislature. Vested contractual rights are sometimes altered, and are sometimes altered retrospectively. Many are uncomfortable when that occurs. But in the case of this matter, hon. member, while you are of course free to pursue any remedies under the Canadian Charter of Rights — anyone in this country....

If your argument were correct, it would mean that because of an agreement which the government made with a university in 1977, ratified by legislation, the government of the day was obliged in eternal perpetuity to continue funding and making that university available in that community, even if there were no one living in that community, even if everyone left that community — perish the thought that they would

[ Page 4639 ]

— even if the need for it had gone. Your argument is that we would be obliged to continue it for eternity. I really don't believe that's a sound proposition of law or government.

To try to answer your direct question about the library, I understand that there are matters being addressed today at a meeting in Vancouver between officials of the ministry, representatives of David Thompson University Centre and representatives of your city council in Nelson, hon. member, and that that is one of the issues being addressed. The minister has in the past said that the library collection will be retained for public use, that the library books and equipment will be transferred to Selkirk College. I understand that that matter. however, is under discussion at the meeting in Vancouver. It is one of the matters that the minister and his staff wish to resolve to the satisfaction of the community, if that is possible. They are not just going ahead arbitrarily but are endeavouring to deal with the community, the council and the representatives of the university centre.

MR. NICOLSON: There may be some agreement reached there. It is my contention that unless an agreement is agreed to by the Notre Dame college board, which continues under the act of 1977 — I don't have a copy at hand; there is a copy somewhere on my desk in my office, I guess — I don't see how it can have force and effect. Also, the government may or may not have the right, as it has the power, under the British North America Act and the Canadian constitution, on educational matters and post-secondary education — which the federal government does not. Nevertheless, it does not have powers regarding freedom of religion; that is not within your competence. What you are doing is setting aside an article of the agreement which guarantees religious freedom in the chapel. You people put it into the act. You are not competent and we in this Legislature are not competent to set that aside. That is but a simple example of the lack of regard that has gone into its preparation, sneaking this amendment into the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act as section 35 and introducing the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act about five minutes before the House adjourned for a two-week holiday.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: So was I, my hon. friend. It was one which I declined to take, particularly as this government has bungled the whole handling of this situation. Even if I agreed with the closure of David Thompson University Centre, which I don't, I would never be able to agree with the way in which this is being conducted. You've taken a simple solution to a complex problem. As H.L. Mencken, that great iconoclast, once said: "For every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat, plausible and wrong." That's what we've got here: simple, neat, plausible and wrong. This is not the way to solve this problem. This is not the time to start negotiations.

We had a letter, signed by the two ministers, addressed to both the president of the University of Victoria, Dr. Howard Petch, and Dr. Jack Colbert, chairman of the Selkirk College board. It was dated September 21, 1983:

"After studying the report of the David Thompson evaluation committee and following our meeting with you on September 13 concerning the future development of the centre, we would summarize our views as follows.

"We are satisfied that the success achieved thus far by the centre warrants its continuation" — and then there's a caveat. "However, this must occur within the context of moneys which may be available, and you should not anticipate in the foreseeable future any increase in the funds presently allocated. We understand that this is likely to require more selectivity in the programs which are offered."

That, of course, was the same advice that was being given to the three major universities, so there was no great surprise in that, "We are satisfied that the success achieved thus far by the centre warrants its continuation." If graduates getting jobs is any indication, there are probably a lot more graduates getting jobs there than there are in some of the faculties at the major universities, and I don't fault the major universities on that either. That is the fault of this government and the kind of economy we’ve got.

[3:15]

Whether this is recognized or not, it is a landmark step being taken by the provincial government — breaking faith with a signed and scaled covenant. When I think of the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and the speeches that he made as a Liberal in this House about the sanctity of contract, and we weren't dealing with covenants.... Of course the covenant that was signed by this government is that the university would continue.

Mr. Chairman, this is also a form of confiscation without compensation. The government is ending up with all kinds of chattels, buildings and properties.

MR. R. FRASER: And whose property was it?

MR. NICOLSON: It was privately held property. It's a lot more private than the lands held by Marathon Realty and the CPR, I might say. for which his government would go the final mile to defend property rights and the sanctity of contracts. Believe me, if a government was ever to try to right some of the wrongs of past governments and contracts undertaken.... If I could see the same kind of dogged determination to do away with contracts that have outlived their usefulness — look at the way in which the CPR holds the Dominion coal block and other properties — from the members opposite, one might at least say they were being consistent, but I don't see any pursuit of that. If we in this Legislature are willing to show such disregard for the sanctity of contracts, then what does the government's word mean on anything?

I must admit that people are saying: "We're becoming very blasé about this. The government has done this, it's done that. So what?" I always thought that those funny little raised things on a piece of paper that gave it a texture and were kind of circular and had some red wax spilled over them and looked very fancy had some kind of a special meaning. There was some kind of a mystique wrapped up in something like that, and when a government affixed such a seal to something it really meant something. Most Central or Latin American countries would probably honour contracts a great deal more than this government seems willing to do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members.

[ Page 4640 ]

MR. NICOLSON: This act is a very simple and inadequate remedy, even to the purposes of this government. This act could very well be found to err in law. This act deals not just with educational matters; it deals with religious freedom, guaranteed under law to us as Canadians — not as British Columbians but our rights as Canadians.

This little section with two subsections comprises at the very most, if you include the title, ten little lines, and that's counting every partial line in it. By it the government is seeking to set aside 15 carefully drafted, carefully agreed to and negotiated compromises between the Notre Dame University board and the government of British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, I don't think that something like this should ever be allowed to pass into law. It shouldn't be allowed to pass into law without proper negotiations taking place with the proper parties. The legal party with which this was signed is the Notre Dame University board. The city of Nelson can be of great assistance in helping to reach some sort of resolution. The David Thompson University Centre Action Committee can also be of great assistance in reaching some kind of new settlement, a new compromise. But the Legislature cannot set aside all of the terms and conditions of this agreement. It continues as an agreement on its own with or without the statutory stamp of approval.

The Attorney-General should give some consideration to that. I note that the minister responsible for this is absent, and I would urge the Attorney-General to consider very carefully the points which I have made. We are exceeding the jurisdiction of this Legislature. Before we embark upon such a disastrous course, I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 16

NAYS — 26

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

[3:30]

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, also subject to the agreement which the government is unilaterally setting aside, which means that we're all serfs in this province — if we ever dared enter any kind of a binding agreement with the province  — because it's one-way, it's entered into in bad faith.... I would ask how the government proposes to proceed with the trust funds that were created over the years. I can think of certain scholarship funds, like the Pisapio Foundation, where again there was an undertaking to look after and control the management "of all endowment and restricted funds held in trust to provide scholarships and bursaries to support present and past Notre Dame University students completing degree requirements for a degree from Notre Dame University or other universities."

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Can the minister tell me what happens to those funds? Do they become the property of the public trustee, or does the government glom on to those? Do they put them into northeast coal? What happens to those special funds donated in trust for educational purposes for people attending Notre Dame University? Does the Attorney-General have an answer to that question?

HON. MR. SMITH: There is also a debt which this entity had as well, and a number of those things have to be worked out. The closure of the university is a reality. What has to occur is that a number of the issues that the member has raised involving the library, the chapel, assets and debts have to be worked out and are going to take some time to work out. A meeting is on today dealing with those aspects.

One of the matters that the member for Nelson-Creston mentioned was the chapel. It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that the chapel will continue to be maintained for the benefit of the ministerial association of Nelson by the Ministry of Transportation. Whether that forever occurs, or whether that forever occurs at that particular site.... I think that the government is sensitive to the fact that the chapel is of local importance, and we'll make every effort to try to keep that chapel present and accessible.

But I think what the member wants is for all these matters to be done and tied up before there is a change in the statutory status. He talks about the Notre Dame University of Nelson Act continuing, even though the agreement goes. The legislation here repeals that act, and I would remind the member that for some time David Thompson University Centre has not been functioning under that act but has been functioning under a separate arrangement that was made in 1980 between the University of Victoria, Selkirk College and the provincial government, whereby the University of Victoria would operate that facility. I remember that arrangement, because at that time I was the Minister of Education and went up to Nelson and commenced that arrangement. The institution has not been operating under this act. The legal entity of this act still technically exists, but it has been simply a legal entity and not the real entity that has been running David Thompson University Centre.

The member is lamenting history. He is not facing the present or the reality of the future, which is that a post-secondary institution cannot be supported in Nelson, apart from what is already there with Selkirk College, and that that decision has been made. I agree that it is a regrettable decision for the people of Nelson in the short run.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, contrary to what the minister says, here's the graduating class of Notre Dame University from last year. It was the final graduating class, but it certainly was continuing. It did have a graduation, it did

[ Page 4641 ]

have a valedictorian, and several people graduated. I could read you their names. I won't, but there was a graduation last year. This instrument has been continuing, and there would have been need for some amendments to the Notre Dame University act this year had the institution continued. What I am saying, though, is that by simply putting in a ten-line amendment in the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, we are not wrapping anything up, and legally all kinds of things continue.

The minister says there are certain liabilities. One of the liabilities is probably a continuing mortgage held by the archdiocese of Nelson, by the Very Reverend Bishop Doyle on behalf of the archdiocese of Nelson; I believe they do or did hold the mortgage. Who has to pay that mortgage now? Is the old Notre Dame board responsible for it? I think the minister's argument was that not only were there assets, but there were also liabilities. I don't know if the minister is accepting my argument, but I am saying that's true. If you dissolve the act, who has the liabilities? Are you placing those back in the hands of the old Notre Dame board? Is the government still assuming those liabilities?

This is a mess. I'll tell you, if you want to downsize government, you can downsize it by first canning the person who drafted this poor, lousy piece of legislation — whomever is responsible for it; maybe it's the minister. It is a legal nightmare, and if anybody wants to donate to a good cause, support some sort of legal action against the provincial government. There are holes that you could drive a truck through. I shouldn't be getting up and moving adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House; it should be the Attorney-General looking at this thing. Special liabilities. The university agrees to discharge all of its outstanding contractual liabilities by December. Of course, they did that. They were given a certain grant and they discharged liabilities in terms of solidifying pensions and paying certain people off.

Transfer of real property. Under this agreement real property was transferred to the government. But if this agreement no longer exists, who has title to that property? Does the government have title to it, or does the old Notre Dame University board have title to it?

As the Attorney-General points out, section 2, the liabilities.... Who assumes the liabilities now? The provincial government was to assume them; they did assume them; I guess they kept payments current, or whatever. But this thing is not finalized, it's not solidified.

The student union building. What use is that to be put to? It's up there on the campus with no students.

Then there are the special liabilities. That was indebtedness arising out of contracts. That's been looked after: the province agrees to pay the university a certain amount; then the university agrees to pay that amount out, being the amount to cover those contractual liabilities.

Then there are the assets: the furnishings, the fixtures, the equipment and, in general, a whole bunch of things, listed in schedule C, with a depreciated value of $425,000, according to a Thorne, Riddell report. What happens to those chattels and the volumes of the library?

The minister says there are negotiations taking place right now. Well, if negotiations are taking place right now, why don't we get an agreement? Why don't we get some reasonable people — and people are certainly willing to be reasonable.... People have certainly given up on this government in terms of any kind of a return of this government's involvement in post-secondary education and degree-granting programs at the Nelson campus of David Thompson University Centre — that is, beyond programs such as the distant education program, the Knowledge Network and so on.

There were special assets, there were pension funds and there were trust funds. How are they going to be managed? Who qualifies now for the Pisapio Foundation scholarships? What's the disposition of that? Has any agreement been arrived at by the trustees of those foundations?

The university agrees to issue degrees prior to May 31, 1983. That was this last graduating class. They kept that part of the bargain. The province agreed to employ Mr. Martin Brown at its pleasure for a maximum term of five years, and that part of the contract has been fulfilled; also a bookkeeper at the university, and that part of the contract was fulfilled.

But the chapel.... To say that there's some kind of an understanding right now — an understanding with whom? Mr. Attorney-General, it's my understanding that court action is being initiated today by people who do have legal claim to some of these things. I would say that government could do a lot better than to try to bring through a clumsy piece of legislation that.... If I want to do mischief with government, I welcome the passage of this legislation. This is the kind of legislation with which a protracted lawsuit can be pursued, and the idea of post-secondary education beyond Hope can be kept alive for those of us who live in the interior, so that not only can we have such an institution in the Kootenays but we can have that level of post-secondary education in other parts of the province as well. As long as that idea is there in the Kootenays, it's something for the people of the Okanagan, who support our area very well, I must say. It's something for the people of Prince George and northern Vancouver Island to look at as long as that idea is there.

The main undertaking has not been extinguished. It isn't extinguished, because this agreement continues whether or not it is a statute. An agreement is an agreement according to the Canadian Abridgement. "The province agrees that courses should be offered at the facility that will enable students to begin and complete university degrees in arts and sciences. education and fine arts. The province will cause the educational lessee of the facility, within the scope of its limits and authority, to provide university-level courses and programs." It sure was not either of the educational lessees that backed out of this agreement. It was a decision of the provincial government, which came as news to both the educational lessees. It was an announcement with no prior warning or negotiation.

[3:45]

The government, in article 10 of the agreement, said: "The province undertakes to protect the educational investment of the students presently enrolled at Notre Dame University." That has been kept. "The province further agrees to the concept of third- and fourth-year programs at Nelson and will make all reasonable efforts to implement such programs at the earliest possible date." I wonder what a court of law would decide as to whether or not the Crown has made all reasonable efforts? And with the student society: "The province agrees to encourage the maintenance of one student society to represent the interests of all students enrolled at the facility." Student transfers? Well, those have been pretty well looked after. What about audits?

[ Page 4642 ]

Then the province and the university agreed that a bill should be presented to the Legislative Assembly amending the Notre Dame University of Nelson Act of 1963. If this bill is repealed, what happens? This bill repeals the 1963 bill, so is the old 1963 bill in effect? There's probably some good authority to say no. I doubt very much whether in drafting the bill that question was even given any consideration.

But Section 11 of the bill that we're repealing says that "the Notre Dame University of Nelson Act, S.B.C. 1979, C.57, is repealed." What happens there? Would students not be entitled to some form of compensation? Have you not taken real property or real value...? Have you not diminished the value of their degrees by having even the very buildings almost cease to exist? There is no university presence whatever at the David Thompson University campus.

Might a student have an action against government and demand compensation if they can give evidence of any kind of difficulty that they've encountered in getting recognition of their degrees, if they're turned down, perhaps, in applying for a post-graduate program, turned down in applying for a job, or if their credentials are held up to ridicule or are suspect? Is the government not liable? These are the things that we're going into here.

I don't make all of these cases simply because I happen to be the member for Nelson-Creston. If I was the member for, say, Burnaby North, which is represented very capably by my colleague (Mrs. Dailly) and is a community where I grew up and with which I identify, I think I would be just as concerned because of the principles being violated here. Whether the government has the right to do this, we have to ask the question: should government do this? The government has the right, perhaps, to make some very bad law. I can question the decision. Sure, I disagree with your decision to close down the university centre. I'm not looking at the past, and I don't have any great expectations of this government. I have high expectations that an NDP government, whenever it eventually comes to power, sooner or later, will open up that campus again, will open up other degree-granting institutions throughout the interior and will decentralize in other areas of government as well as post-secondary education.

It is part of our party policy. It's party policy that we will be reaffirming, improving and strengthening at our upcoming convention. Three separate resolutions on David Thompson University Centre were submitted to our resolutions committee. They've been consolidated into a fourth resolution, which lies in that booklet. Those resolutions came not just from the Kootenays; in fact, those three came from other parts. They came from the education policy subcommittee of our party. One came from one of the Okanagan ridings. They realize that David Thompson University Centre is the key to an equitable form of educational opportunity throughout the province. Only 7 percent of the students graduating from high school in the interior go to university, whereas 17 percent of those graduating in metropolitan centres have the opportunity to go to university. University is inaccessible to those who live in rural areas, and the statistics prove it: 17 percent versus 7 percent. Read the report, A Widening Gap, published about three years ago by the University of Victoria, which examined the reasons and causes for that disparity. David Thompson University Centre was part of that.

I'm accepting that it's closed down. My goodness, how many times can you do something? If you were to say it's going to start up tomorrow, how would you attract students back to the institution after what it's been through? Who would go back after such a rapid and unilateral change? I'm saying that even in closing this down we're further compounding not the principle of whether there should be post-secondary education and degree-granting in the interior, because under this particular act we are doing this in a clumsy, ill-advised manner. I would be furious, if I were the Attorney-General, at the lack of craftsmanship in this section of the bill, at the omissions and the fact that there was no attempt to resolve some of these outstanding items. We've had a great deal of time to do it since January 6, when the announcement was made. Agreements could have been signed. It could all be legal. It could also be sealed and covenanted. It's quite possible that it still could, if the government had some sort of willingness.

Mr. Chairman, don't think that the people in Nelson are stupid. They're not holding on to unreal dreams. They've dealt with this government before. They know what they can expect from them. But they know they have rights. They know that they, not the government, own those university library volumes. They know that other aspects — donations, buildings........ Mary Hall was not built out of provincial government money; it was built out of federal government money, which is, after all, people's money. Somebody interjected: "Who paid for it?" The people paid for it, largely through federal taxes. People paid for it by private subscription and donations in those areas. People in that area put money up front for post-secondary education, when people in other parts of this province wanted a handout. That's got to be remembered. You talk about initiative. People in that area have always had initiative.

We had an electric railway and electric lights when the people in Victoria and Vancouver were still using gas lamps. People in that area have shown initiative, and this is the kind of treatment that they get for it. I don't know if it's a judgment of some of the more radical parts of the government on their choice of representative for four times running, but I would say that for the last 32 years we've had a couple of good representatives in both Wes Black, my predecessor, and myself. Certainly I couldn't see something like this happening in the old Social Credit government of which Wes Black was a part.

This is a lousy piece of legislation, and I hope it's opposed in court. I hope that the government is embarrassed. I hope it doesn't cost the people who will fight for their rights too much money in legal costs to prove their case. It is my opinion that even the remedy which this government has.... Even if we were all agreed that the university should shut down, to which I certainly don't agree, this would not be the way to do it. It isn't the way to treat people, whether we're unanimous or divided in this House on the intent. It could be done much better and more slickly through negotiation.

I'm sure that in his heart of hearts the Attorney-General feels that there quite possibly are shortcomings in this bill. I doubt that he would get up and say that he is sure that this legal manoeuvre which we are going to pull here today is going to answer all the questions. I'm sure that he is not sure in his heart of hearts that it is beyond challenge in the courts. Certainly I hope so.

[ Page 4643 ]

If Canada is the country I believe it is, then this kind of law simply can't pass. This kind of law means that if you sign an agreement with government you are binding yourself to the pleasure of government. It is all one way. That is not natural justice. There is just no way that this can go. I would hope there would be some way we could pass over this section of the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, There are good sections in the act. There are others to which people would take exception. It's too bad this isn't part of an act in itself. It probably could be argued that the act should have been divided into parts. I have some very good arguments and citations that argue that. How can we accept the principle of a bill, which of course we've already done in second reading.... On the one hand it makes some nice little amendments, it extends a few nice little features here and there, and it clarifies a few other things. On the other hand, it embodies the principle of disregarding the sanctity of a contract.

There is a moral question here. Can we break a contract by an act of the Legislature? Maybe the answer is yes. The moral question is: should we break a contract when we haven't even tried to negotiate our way out of what the government feels are untenable conditions? I would say no, we should not. In the final analysis it might be decided in the courts as to whether we can. It's my understanding that there is some interest in doing that. Certainly the government of Quebec many, many years ago found itself afoul of the courts in a case involving bylaws affecting the rights of Jehovah's Witnesses to pass out literature on street corners. Maybe in this agreement we are setting aside things that are not only educational matters but are matters that are not the sole dominion of the province of British Columbia. Maybe in this act we are creating something that is ultra vires.

I would urge that we set this thing aside so that we could.... After all, the university centre isn't going to open on September 1 anyhow. I think we could get over this thing. Some negotiations are taking place, and I think that negotiation would be a much wiser way for the government to proceed. This step we're taking today is a step that....

Voting for this will create a conflict within anyone, I would think, who's been trained in the law — and I'm not, but it certainly would for me. It just has to go against a lot of the teaching, training and conditioning that a lot of us have had. I have never seen a situation quite like this in the Legislature in British Columbia in the 12 short years that I've been here. I've heard allegations of breaking contracts and various other things.

[4:00]

I can recall government settling out of court in the case of a civil fraud action involving B.C. Railway. Why didn't they just break the contract by bringing in an act in the Legislature? Those were also some contractor friends of the government. Why didn't you take that solution there if that is the way that legislators are supposed to conduct themselves? I don't know if caveat emptor is the right warning to people who would sign a contract with this government, but if this section passes, it really is a kind of a contractor beware. Anyone who would agree with this government, beware. Anyone who would covenant with this government, beware.

Section 35 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 16

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

Sections 36 to 39 inclusive approved.

On section 40.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, just a short question to the Provincial Secretary on the Pension (Public Service) Amendment Act with regard to Pacific Coach Lines. Regarding the money that is transferred to the public service, the past employees of Pacific Coach Lines have a right to say yes or no on their money going through. As I look at subsections (2) through (5), if the employees pull their money out, do they receive the same type of interest that any employee does who has money in the public service — 4 percent or 5 percent — or do they just receive the money they've put into it?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, first, the reason for the inclusion of Pacific Coach Lines employees in the Pension (Public Service) Act is to ensure that their contributions for pension purposes are secure. It was due to a request made by that particular group of employees to participate in the public service pension plan that we have proposed this amendment.

I’m not sure whether the pension plan of Pacific Coach Lines makes provision for interest on reimbursement. I know that the public service pension act does make provisions for interest, and I presume that Pacific Coach Lines does. There are very few pension plans in this country that don't have provisions for interest on the reimbursement of contributions. I happen to belong to one of those plans in which no interest is accumulating, even though I paid for 41 years. Not 41 years; 35 is the maximum number of years you can pay, I might say. I won't name the company, but if I were to withdraw from that particular pension plan and attempt to get my contributions back, they would charge me an administration fee. I believe it's small; it's one-eighth of 1 percent. Unfortunately, I can't tell you whether there is interest here. I would have to assume that there is. But if it were a reimbursement of contributions under the public service pension act, certainly there would be interest, because that's the law of the land.

[ Page 4644 ]

MR. PASSARELL: Can employees of the ex-Pacific Coach Lines voluntarily pay in on their retirement plan, as the minister would to the CPR or the CN?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I never suggested for a moment that I made any contributions to CR I know I've made contributions; I've paid the employer as well as the employee portion of the pension plan for 10 years because I was on leave of absence. The only stipulation under those circumstances — that unidentified company — the only time there is any concession for an employee being on leave of absence is if you're involved in union activities and are absent from the position. But I wasn't a union leader with that particular company and therefore I had to pay the employer's as well as the employee's portion for 10 years.

So did I answer your question? No? What was your question?

MR. NICOLSON: A lot of people who had what looked to be a pretty stable career had built up a certain amount of pension plan. If one of those former employees goes into the private sector, can he continue making payments — both the employer's and the employee's contribution — to this plan to bring himself up to 30 or 35 years, or whatever is required for maximum on retirement? Somebody who was in there?

[4:15]

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, that doesn't work. If the member knows anything about pensions, he knows that it doesn't really work that way. The employer, Pacific Coach Lines, is long gone. How can the employer make a contribution on behalf of the employee? No, the employee cannot make the employer's contribution as well as the employee's contribution to a pension plan in order to get up to the maximum of 35 years of contributions, which would give him the 70 percent averaged over five years, giving him a full pension.

Any employee with Pacific Coach Lines essentially has been.... An employee making a contribution for a minimum of 10 years has a vested pension right with the Pension (Public Service) Act. But I would say that if he wishes to make additional contributions over and above his existing vesting, that would be tolerable. For instance, your pension plan with the Legislative Assembly: once you qualify — and I would think you qualify now — you can make contributions. I think you've been here a minimum of three times and have attained a certain age, so you would be eligible for a pension. You know the magic formula: if the two added together equal 60, then you're eligible for a pension.

But you have the right to make a voluntary contribution to your pension plan over and above the employer's as well as the employee's contribution. That right would exist for voluntary contribution if these people deem it's to their advantage to do so. Let's take, for example, an individual who has spent 10 years working for Pacific Coach Lines. He has a protected pension plan here equivalent to 10 years of service, averaging his salary out over five years. He can readily identify essentially what his pension benefits will be once he reaches the eligible age. But you have to take into consideration the age factor of that individual. That individual might be 30 years of age or thereabouts and therefore have substantial work experience to come in the years up to age 65, and therefore be able to participate in another pension plan as well. So he would have this small pension plan sitting on one side, which, through the Superannuation Commission, he can have identified as to what kind of a pension it will generate for him down the road — and, I might say, indexed as well. Then, depending upon the company that he goes to work for, or if he goes to work for the public service, he again has an opportunity of increasing his pension. I would think — and I can't say categorically whether that's correct or not — that he might have the opportunity of blending the two in, if he goes to work for the public service, and the entire pension would more than likely be indexed. If he goes to the public sector, there are pension plans that have indexation, and he would have those benefits. So he might have a portion of his future pension benefits already in place, and during the rest of his working career he can build up another pension which would, in many instances, give him the equivalent of a full pension.

MS. SANFORD: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I'm not quite clear on one aspect of this. If an employee has been working for Pacific Coach Lines for a number of years and is now at the age of, say, 55, and because there is no work available for him in the province, he is no longer able to find work in any category or in any field, and is required to go on UI and manage as best he can, is that person able to continue contributing to the plan, paying both his own portion and what was formerly paid for him by Pacific Coach Lines, in order to qualify for a full pension at the age of 65?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'd be inclined to say no, that he wouldn't be eligible to make contributions on behalf of the employer as well as himself to a pension plan. There are very few circumstances in which an individual can make those kinds of contributions. This is not one of those circumstances in which that kind of financial arrangement could be made.

Section 40 approved.

Sections 41 to 44 inclusive approved.

On section 45.

MR. ROSE: We've changed a few words in the act, and that obviously has to....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I'd like some explanation of sections 45, 46, 47 and 48. The minister is not here. There is an amendment to the School Act that has to do with the prescription and specification by the minister.... I'd like some explanation of why these are necessary.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Attorney-General, an explanation has been requested — I think the hon. member said, of sections 45 to 48, but perhaps we can just do 45 and take them in order.

HON. MR. SMITH: These amendments are simply to meld the School Act with the Regulation Act that we passed, if you will recall, in the last session. The key-word approach was altered in the Regulation Act, if you'll remember, and as a result of that the Ministry of Education now, in light of the

[ Page 4645 ]

Regulation Act, has to have the School Act amended to have "key word" removed so they don't have to be deposited with the registrar of regulations. Otherwise a whole host of things which are not really regulations would have to be deposited with the registrar of regulations. This is material that wasn't deposited in the past because it was not of a legislative nature. So the amendments maintain the status quo. They're bringing the School Act into line with the Regulation Act.

The only exceptions are the amendments to section 15(f), 16(f) and 17(c). "Key word" has been removed from the introductory words to sections 15, 16 and 17 so that all the paragraphs in those sections are no longer automatically regulations that must be deposited. Certain paragraphs in those sections do deal with material that should be deposited with the registrar of regulations, however, so "key word" is being placed in those specific paragraphs. So those specific paragraphs indicate ones that should be deposited and have been deposited in the past, and we're simply changing the language in conformity with the new test in the Regulation Act. We're not suddenly producing a situation where something will not be deposited that was deposited. We're changing the language to meet the requirements of the Regulation Act.

Interjections.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, we're doing nothing but melding this thing with the Regulation Act and the test under that. There is no hidden agenda in that stuff at all; it simply melds it, that's all.

MR. ROSE: There may not be a hidden agenda, but if I understand the minister, what he's saying is that if you have in this act — as we do in, say, section 15 — "by regulation, " and you're omitting "by regulation, " that means that you no longer have to publish a regulation, because your new Regulation Act indicates that anywhere it exists in other acts, the phrase "by regulation " no longer has to be published, which seems to me to permit the minister to move — you said "no hidden agenda" — in such a way that he doesn't have to move openly and have his regulations published. He can regulate without publishing his regulations. That's what I'm asking about.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, it isn't. It's simply changing the language so that that which under the old act, before the Regulation Act came in, published as regulations, does publish now.... The paragraphs are all specified. Those are the ones in which he will continue to deposit something. What it's doing is providing that they will be deposited. It's doing exactly the reverse. It's safeguarding the deposit. It's not taking anything out of the deposit situation that was there before. It's status quo.

MR. ROSE: If the minister says that that's what it means, I'll take him at his word. I'm sorry; it's my fault that I didn't research this earlier personally and try to get some information on it. But it seems to be hardening the lines all along. "Regulate" becomes "govern," "prescribe" becomes "specify," regulations are deleted, and things like that, which isn't really very comforting, knowing the propensity to centralize that has followed the past three Education ministers. It goes through this whole thing, so that's why we're certainly on the lookout for anything and we're not really sanguine about things like this that appear to toughen up the wording and perhaps not require the same kind of exposure for the new clauses. That's what concerns us.

HON. MR. SMITH: If it will reassure the member more, if it does anything other than maintain the status quo, I will advise that this section not be proclaimed, so it could come back and be debated again, because my briefing note on it makes it very clear that that's all it does, and that's the way I'm presenting it.

MR. ROSE: I think that's a pretty fair offer, and I accept it with alacrity. There is another possibility, though. In the event that we didn't get through this today — and I'm not suggesting we won't — you can always stand the clause until we can have a more thorough explanation of it and have an opportunity to do a little more research on it — because, after all, we didn't even know it was coming up today.

[4:30]

HON. MR. SMITH: No, that is the full briefing note on it — that because of the change in test and the requirement to change the language, because the old language that brings into force regulations is no longer used, we have changed those sections so that, clearly, regulations will have to be deposited in those instances, and that is what we're doing. We are totally maintaining the status quo and nothing else. I couldn't say any more to that tomorrow. If you get a legal opinion that says otherwise and you want to show it to me, I'll certainly advise that that section not be proclaimed.

MR. ROSE: I'm prepared to leave it at the moment. But I would like the minister perhaps to table the briefing notes he has on it. It would be kind of helpful.

HON. MR. SMITH: I won't table them, but I'd be quite happy to let you see them. Come around and read them, sure.

Sections 45 to 62 inclusive approved.

On the amendment to section 63. [See appendix.]

MR. NICOLSON: The amendment changes the word  "exclusive" to the words "increased by the amount." Right now it says: "is exclusive of interest payable under an enactment or by agreement on the amount claimed." It's being changed now to read "is increased by the amount...." Out of curiosity I would ask the Attorney-General: does this term "exclusive of interest" have any place in the English language? Does it have any legal meaning? Is that why it's being omitted? I certainly agree with the improvement.

HON. MR. SMITH: It all arises out of a decision of the county court entitled Buckler v. Earthwood Manufacturing Ltd. Recently it held that prejudgment interest must be taken into account when determining if a claim is within the monetary jurisdiction of the court. As a result of that case, the Law Reform Commission recommended that interest should not be taken into account when determining if a claim was within the jurisdiction of the court, The proposed amendment provides that the monetary jurisdiction for personal actions for debt or damages claimed is not to exceed $2,000, exclusive of interest. We're making a parallel amendment, which you've already voted on and passed as section 29 of the

[ Page 4646 ]

County Courts Act. That's the reason for this strange use of language: to meet a demanding decision of the county court.

Amendment to section 63 approved.

Section 63 as amended approved.

Sections 64 and 65 approved.

On section 66.

MRS. WALLACE: I have a question on this one. I'm wondering about the reasoning behind this. Apparently it limits the amount of personal or private interest any individual or corporation can hold in a public utility. I'm wondering if the basis of this is something that's happened in the past. Or is this something related to some future proposal where public utilities will be privatized under the line of thinking of this government on privatization of so many government enterprises?

HON. MR. SMITH: This arises also as a result of a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada known as Atco v. Calgary Power, which made a distinction between ownership and control. That has opened a loophole in the Utilities Commission Act. It is for that reason that this legislation was proposed: to confirm the intent of the act that changes in ownership or control of more than 20 percent of the shares in a public utility must be approved by the commission. That's why it was introduced; again, as a result of a court decision. It was thought that that was clear from the intention earlier. But because of this decision and the distinction between ownership and control, the legal advisers to the government advised that we should make this change, and that's why it's here.

Section 66 approved.

On section 67.

MRS. WALLACE: Now we're hitting the meat of the thing. Section 67 is certainly no housekeeping amendment at all. Section 67 removes the right of the Public Utilities Commission to award any payment to interveners in any public hearing. This is something that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Rogers) has been touting for some time. I have asked him many questions on the floor of this House relative to intervener funding. The Public Utilities Commission is relatively new. The first major trial of that commission in dealing with a matter of major public importance in this province was the Site C Hearing. During that case the commission, in its wisdom, did award intervener funding. Now let me be very clear, Mr. Chairman, that that funding is not at the cost of the commission or government. The person who is defending his request and is at the hearing asking for something — the appellant — is assessed costs, and those can and do include the cost of the commission, the hearing and the cost of interveners, under section 133 of the act, which is presently being appealed by this section.

In the case of Site C that was done. It amounted to something like 3 percent of the total costs that were assessed to B.C. Hydro. Interveners, who would not have been able to do so had not that funding been available, were able to appear and participate. The commission admitted freely — it's public knowledge — that as a result of those interveners' costs being assessed, they were able to be there and make the case. The commission came up with the decision that that construction should be delayed. That decision has saved the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia millions and millions of dollars, because just on the heels of that decision we realized how tremendously overbuilt Hydro was, and yet they were wanting to build more.

Those interventions were directly responsible.... A small cost of 3 percent was assessed to B.C. Hydro, the appellant. They had to pay 3 percent of the total cost for that public hearing. Granted, it was a costly hearing. It was a first run. It was held partly in Fort St. John and partly in Vancouver. I would imagine that it cost Hydro a fair amount, although I haven't seen the actual figure. A very minute part of that went to the interveners, who were very directly responsible for the commission's decision to delay that construction.

What has happened? Well, just shortly after that, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources wrote to the chairperson of the Public Utilities Commission and said: "Look, we don't want any more of this funding of interveners. Never mind what the act says; we're going to change that. We don't want any more of that funding of interveners." The letter, in fact, was dated August 10, 1983, and was sent to Mrs. Marie Taylor, chairperson of the B.C. Utilities Commission:

"Dear Mrs. Taylor:

"Re Intervener Funding at BCUC Hearings:

"Further to our discussions at the time of the provincial budget, I am writing to advise you that in line with government's overall policies of economy and restraint, cabinet decided that it wished the commission to discontinue cost awards to participants at its hearings."

What utter nonsense, Mr. Chairman. Not one red cent of that comes out of the government. The commission assesses the costs to the appellant.

Yet the minister, before this legislation was even introduced, was writing to the chairperson of the Public Utilities Commission and telling her that they were not to assess any more intervener funding. What the minister was saying in fact was: "Look, Hydro is upset that they're not able to go ahead with Site C. The reason you had to make that decision was because those interveners were there, so let's get rid of them. Let's not give them any money." That is what he was saying, in effect.

This is just one instance, Mr. Chairman. The Alkali Lake Indian band case is another outstanding example of what's been going on there. Here we had an Indian band that was making representations relative to the gas pipeline. They were asked by the commission to provide certain maps of some of the things they were talking about relative to historic sites and hunting grounds — the historic patterns of their tribes. They said: "Well, we need some money." The commission said: "No, sorry, we can't give you any money." In spite of what the legislation says, we can't give you any money." They went to the federal Department of Indian Affairs and were told: "No, sorry, we can't give you any money." So they went back and they appealed this decision that they couldn't get any money. They were defending historic rights there.

The legislation — the law of this land — said that the Public Utilities Commission, which was hearing this case,

[ Page 4647 ]

had the right to allocate funds to them. Yet because of this minister's intent to change this ahead of the law being changed, the Public Utilities Commission was forced to kowtow to his wishes, and refused to grant that funding. It has been appealed and appealed. The phony excuse that he uses is that it's part of the restraint program, when it doesn't mean one cent. He talks about the budget; it doesn't affect the budget one cent, because it doesn't come out of provincial coffers. Yet we now have hidden in the Miscellaneous Statutes — hoping it would slip by and not be noticed — a section that will wipe out section 133, which provided an opportunity for intervener funding, which provided a fair approach towards public hearings. If you were going to go to the expense — and granted, it is an expense — of having public hearings, it must be just that, a public hearing. And it must be fair; there must be an opportunity for both sides of the question to be heard.

We all know that historically what happens is that a large corporate entity is the appellant. They have banks of lawyers and access to a fair amount of money. They are appearing at the hearing and in most instances their purpose is one that will be monetarily beneficial to them so they can afford to spend large amounts of money.

[4:45]

Who are the people who want to tell the other side of the story? They're native Indian bands, citizens groups that don't have access to those kinds of funds. That's why this clause 133 was written into the act: to ensure that those groups would have an opportunity to be heard. They say "Nonsense" over there. I suppose they think this money is going to go to irresponsible groups, to people who don't really deserve that kind of support. Remember that this is at the discretion of the commission. They can make that decision as to whether or not a group is responsible, whether or not they are representative of one side or one portion of the argument that the Public Utilities Commission has the right to hear if they're going to make an unbiased and fair decision.

If those groups do not have the kind of funding that allows them to present their case, then the Public Utilities Commission will not have access to all the information that they should have. That's exactly what this section does: it removes that right. It means that those groups will not have the funding, they will not present their case, and Public Utilities Commission hearings will become kangaroo courts — charades — where one side is heard, and the other side, if it's there at all, will be ineffectual. It will be hampered by the lack of funds, legal counsel, advice and research. Research is important. There have been reams of suggestions as to how this whole process could be made less costly and more responsive to the public need. Some of the groups that we're talking about: I've mentioned native Indian groups; others are the Consumers' Association, the Federation of Anti-Poverty Groups, the old age pensioners' organization, for goodness sake; groups that have been really active, like the Sierra Club; groups that have been very active in presenting the other side. Every question has two sides, and if a public utilities commission is going to sit in judgment on a specific issue, then it is extremely important that both those sides be heard.

One of the most important ways that that will happen is if intervener funding is continued. It doesn't need to be as expensive as the Site C hearing. I'm sure that is one of the things that has prompted the minister to take this action. It doesn't need to be as expensive as the Site C hearing. That was a first trial run. But some things are important: that is, early involvement of all groups. It certainly is public cooperation and coordination, and those things should be encouraged. There are many ways that the total costs could be reduced. But the way not to reduce them and the way not to get sound and fair and unbiased decisions is to cut out intervener funding.

In the Site C case, as I pointed out, intervener funding was only 3 percent of the total cost to B.C. Hydro. So it's peanuts. Yet it can be responsible for terrific savings, as were evidenced in that case. It may well be the case if in fact the Alkali Lake Indian band have an opportunity to present their story. It may result in a better understanding, some common ground being found. Cooperation, not confrontation, is the way to go. The sledgehammer is not the way to deal with groups who are committed, sincere, honest, dedicated and concerned about an issue that affects their very lives and livelihood. This is an unjust, unfair amendment.

Again I don't know who I am talking to. I see a former Minister of Energy over there. If the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) would like to give me some reasons why the current Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Rogers) is gutting his legislation.... I think that's the minister that brought this act in in the first place. No, he says not. But certainly he had enough sense to leave those intervener funding provisions in place. If he would like to get up and tell me why this is happening, if there is any reason why.... I think I know the answer. I think it is exactly what I've said: that the government doesn't want to bother to listen to those concerned citizens, to the Alkali Lake Indian band, to the old age-pensioners, to the Consumers' Association, to the Peace Valley Environmental Association. They don't really want them to have an opportunity to present their side, because under this government public hearings will become and are becoming simply kangaroo courts. The government makes a decision, along with its power corporation or whatever it may be, on what it's going to do, and then it tries to have some kind of justification for that position through a public hearing. When the truth starts to come out it hurts. They don't want those people there. They don't want to fund them, because they don't want to hear what they have to say. This whole Section is just a travesty, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. SMITH: The member is quite correct that this is a policy change which will have the result of not requiring or empowering the commission to make cost orders. That's only so far as the commission is concerned. It does not mean that the minister can't in a case, if it's appropriate.... If he wishes to fund or provide some funding for intervention, he can do so, but it means that the commission will not have the power or discretion to make sure that there is funding for interveners. Clearly that was done because of restraint and because of the desire not to fund what can be — and often isn't, it's true — a cottage industry of professional interveners.

The case that the member referred to, the Alkali Indian band case........ This legislation does not affect the ruling made in that case. It does not seek to reach back retrospectively to affect that. In that case, as I recall, the issue before the court was that the commission had to make the decision. It had to exercise its judicial discretion as to whether to award costs. It had to do that under the existing legislation, despite the fact that there was before the Legislature a bill which would relieve them of that responsibility. Since that wasn't

[ Page 4648 ]

law at the time that the matter was before the Utilities Commission, they had to deal with costs, and they couldn't deal with it on the basis that there were going to be legislative changes in the future. Because they had not done that but had taken into account the legislation and the minister's direction, the matter was referred back to them to deal with.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: Do you have a microphone? I must say it's very nice, Mr. Chairman, to have the second erudite member for Vancouver here. I welcome him here from his bludge — his burgeoning law practice in Vancouver. It's great to have him.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: I don't know. Read last night's legislation.

Anyway, the policy change is clear in the section. The amendment is upfront. You disagree with it, and I understand that. I hear you. It won't affect the Alkali Indian band decision. The discretion is still with the commission in that case.

MRS. WALLACE: I can't believe what the Attorney-General just said. "It won't affect the decision of...." Of course it won't affect it, because the commission has decided on two different occasions that they won't provide funding. Why have they decided that? It was not because this legislation was already filed. That decision was April 27. This legislation wasn't down then. They decided it because the minister told them: "Don't obey the law, Don't give them funding, because we don't want them funded. We're going to change all that. We're not going to allow you to do that." That's exactly what that minister said. For the Attorney-General to stand up and say that it's because of restraint that they can't fund them, and that the minister may make a decision to fund someone.... Where is the minister going to get the money? Under the act the commission could direct the appellant to pay the costs. The only thing they can direct now would be to pay the costs of the commission. If the minister in his wisdom decides that he wants somebody to appeal, and wants to fund somebody, then it will come out of the government budget. What kind of restraint is that? That's absolutely backwards. As it is now the government wouldn't pay anything. As it's going to be, as the Attorney-General explains it, if the Minister of Energy decides to fund some body, and leave it to his discretion.... That's Big Brother watching again. Big Brother will decide who will go before the Utilities Commission. Big Brother will decide who will be paid.

I cannot believe that in this Legislative Assembly of British Columbia we're taking that kind of a measure. We've had legislation that provided fair and just opportunity for all sections of the community to be heard, but that's not good enough for this government. It might embarrass them; it might be a little awkward for them to live with. It might cause the Public Utilities Commission to come up with a decision as they did in the Site C case, which was a bit of an embarrassment to B.C. Hydro. They would have liked to have gone ahead and built that thing, no matter the cost, so they would have had more power to export. What a situation to find ourselves in, Mr. Chairman! It's beyond description.

MR. LAUK: I'd like to add my two bit's worth here, Mr. Chairman. This is the kind of thing that reflects the government's philosophy. There's no surprise to me. I'm not as surprised as the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat, but she's a person of positive disposition. Over the years I've grown to be negative-minded.

[5:00]

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: You've noticed that?

It's clear to me why this government has eliminated the opportunity for small citizens' groups and ordinary people in this province to adequately present a case. Unless these cases are fully funded, particularly when it has to do with environment, the funding of experts with some degree of sophistication.... They are swamped with the tremendous amounts of money that are invested by the huge corporations that wish to deface the countryside. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that section 67 is typical of the attitude of the government toward the democratic system. They clearly believe in a feudal system — that the lords of industry and the powerful in society should have access to justice, the courts and commissions and tribunals of this province, and that ordinary citizens should have every conceivable roadblock thrown in their way. So it's no surprise to me.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I know that the hon. Attorney-General, who is the helmsman of this bill, has the kind of attitude that says: "Oh, dear me. Well, I suppose this is not as democratic as I would personally like to have it. But I mean, after all, it's the position of the Attorney-General that counts. I'll guide these through. We're going through a very conservative period." But the Attorney-General is a man for all seasons, a man for all parties, a man for all philosophies — he just likes the office, Mr. Chairman. I've heard from former students of his at law school, where the Attorney-General taught law and jurisprudence, that he would bang his fist on the podium and say that rich and poor have access to the courts on an equal basis; and how he decried the fact that the very rich would have a better chance at justice than ordinary people. But you know, the power, the great medallion of office hanging around his neck — the chancellor of the law, the minister, the Attorney-General....

Do you remember the play about St. Thomas More, a great martyr not only to Christianity but to upholding the law itself? In that play, the man who turned him in, who gave evidence against him — and history, from at least one point of view, has it that the man perjured himself to convict Thomas of treason — was given the attorney-generalship of Wales. And Thomas says: "Richard, it profits a man nothing to sell his soul for the entire world. But for Wales!" I wish to draw the analogy. It profits a man nothing to sell his soul for the entire world. But for the attorney-generalship of British Columbia! For this little village council on the Pacific Rim!

Well, Mr. Chairman, the higher principle remains that if democracy is going to progress and work, ordinary people must have their say; indeed, they must even prevail. And one of the small ways in which one was partially able to do that through our democratic system was that an NDP government encouraged the awarding of costs to interveners in any of the kinds of commission hearings that we would sponsor. This is

[ Page 4649 ]

an example of further roadblocks. So it's no surprise to me — none whatsoever.

Section 67 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 17

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

Section 68 approved.

On section 69.

HON. MR. SMITH: I move the amendment as circulated, Mr. Chairman.

On the amendment.

MS. BROWN: I was hoping that the Attorney-General would have explained whether we were just cleaning up his grammar here, or if there was some other significance to the fact that he was going from the words "comes into force" to the words "came into force." I was hoping we would get some kind of explanation for that. Also, I wonder if he would tell me what "annuitant, " as defined by the Income Tax Act, covers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first question would deal with the amendment to section 70. We are on the amendment to section 69.

HON. MR. SMITH: I'm going to speak on this amendment, but do you want me to speak on some section we've passed as well?

MS. BROWN: No. Mr. Speaker, the amendment deals with a section that has been passed. I'm trying to figure out whether he's just cleaning up his grammar or making some other significant change. I'm asking for an explanation.

HON. MR. SMITH: I'm cleaning up the grammar of the transitional section. The advice of legislative counsel was that we should change the transitional provisions for these reasons. It will make clear the transitional requirements of the changes to the Income Tax Act annuity provision in section 19 that we passed. It will also parallel what we propose to do in relation to the RRIF. It shall be the same thing as we did here in relation to RRSP. It is transitional clarity and grammatical, not substantive.

MS. BROWN: All this has to do with the definition of "annuitant." I'm asking him to tell me what it is.

HON. MR. SMITH: That definition of annuitant is broadened so that it will allow annuitants under all registered retirement savings plans to designate beneficiaries other than by way of a will. You have a case where a beneficiary is not designated in a will but is designated simply in the policy or in some other way, and then a death occurs; because of that, the tax shelter provision of the RRSP that the beneficiary would receive is lost. You may remember back in January and February a number of trust companies were extremely concerned about this problem with the RRSPs and how they affected people who didn't designate their beneficiary specifically by testamentary instrument. So we have passed this amendment really in response to the industry, which wished to have the advantage of RRSPs for tax purposes apply where they are not designated in wills.

[5:15]

MS. BROWN: The thing I was a little concerned about was the benefit not being part of a person's estate. I understand that that hasn't been interfered with.

Amendment to section 69 approved.

Section 69 as amended approved.

On section 70.

HON. MR. SMITH: I move the amendment that has been circulated to section 70.

MR. ROSE: I can't tell what it means in legalese, but I assume it means what he said it was to mean, and that is that it would not be proclaimed until a legal opinion has clarified the concern expressed during the debate, and I thank him for that.

HON. MR. SMITH: That's absolutely correct: it's to empower me to do as I undertook to do.

Amendment to section 70 approved.

On section 70 as amended.

MR. NICOLSON: On the section as amended, or even before amended, it empowered the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to proclaim section 35, which is the Notre Dame or DTUC section of the bill. I would ask the Attorney-General whether, having listened to the debate, which he did over two days, he will also give any kind of an undertaking to the people of Nelson and also to the Notre Dame board that prior to proclamation they might sit down and engage in some negotiations and resolve matters, not just with the city but with the Notre Dame board, which is the legal entity involved in this agreement.

[ Page 4650 ]

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes, that only ingeniously arises on this amendment. I'm advised, hon. member, that that is exactly what they're doing this precise day. The minister's assistant deputy and staff are holding that meeting to deal with those very matters.

MR. NICOLSON: I am aware that a meeting is being held in Richmond, and I know the parties that are there. One of the parties that is not there, though, is the Notre Dame board. I would just like to know if I can have the same assurance from the Attorney-General that he will see that they not proceed with proclamation of this section, as he has also given the undertaking for some other sections in the bill such as 45 to 62. Will he not proceed with proclamation until he is satisfied that negotiations have gone at least as far as they can reasonably go and that agreements are reached?

HON. MR. SMITH: As my colleague the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Hon. Mr. Gardom) reminded me, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council never proclaims bills capriciously and always gives due consideration to matters such as: are the fine edges taken care of and is there some mechanism underway to deal with matters that are uncertain? I can't give you an undertaking that this bill won't be proclaimed. All I can do is tell you that I will draw to the attention of the Minister of Education the concerns that you and the other members raised in the House during the debate in committee on what I might call a number of loose ends arising out of that agreement between Notre Dame and the administration and that very strong representation was made that those matters have to be resolved. I will certainly do that, but I can't go any further than that, hon. member.

Section 70 as amended approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Bill 2 1, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1984, reported complete with amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 22, Mr. Speaker.

YOUNG OFFENDERS (BRITISH COLUMBIA) ACT

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege today to move second reading of the Young Offenders (British Columbia) Act. This is not a bill of very much mystery, really. It may be somewhat complex or prolix in its draftsmanship. I can assure the members that if they think it's prolix now, they should have seen it earlier.

Why is such a bill needed? Such a bill is needed because on April 2, 1984, against very good advice from, as far as I know, almost every Attorney-General in this country, with the possible exception of Manitoba's, and many law enforcement agencies and social agencies as well, the federal government proclaimed into force the Young Offenders Act of Canada. One of the main results of that was that the old Juvenile Delinquents Act was immediately repealed in Canada. The old Juvenile Delinquents Act used to provide for a mechanism for dealing with provincial offences as well as federal offences. It embraced both those within its orbit. But the Young Offenders Act of Canada doesn't. It only deals with federal offences. Provincial offences were left to the provinces. That means that the provinces have to pass some kind of companion legislation. Otherwise all juveniles, as they were formerly called — or young offenders, as they call them now — would be dealt with as adults in relation to provincial offences in those provinces. That is the basic reason why this legislation is here today.

I have tried in the presentation of the legislation to bear in mind a number of principles. One is that in almost every case we believe that young offenders should not have imprisonment as a sanction. Young offenders should have available, in dealing with them, more dispositions than are available to adults under the present Criminal Code, but would be available under proposed Criminal Code amendments which haven't got anywhere in Ottawa — more alternatives than would be available under the provincial Offence Act. This legislation provides for a wider range of dispositions. In accepting the fact, as we must do, that the federal Young Offenders Act has been passed, we were primarily disturbed by that legislation because of the excessively complex administrative procedures contained in the act, and particularly by those that relate to alternative measures, records destruction and separate confinement. Also of concern to this province are certain provisions relating to the availability of counsel and the authority of the court to appoint counsel — a requirement that, without negotiation, would have required the province alone to pay.

Many of the other provisions, however, of the federal act which were intended to ensure stronger judicial control over young persons under court order and due process in the operation of the law are ones which we find ourselves in support of — particularly the basic principle that young offenders are supposed to be accountable for their actions, and are not supposed to be dealt with simply as though they were children and have denied to them some of the due processes available to adults. Under the old juvenile delinquent procedure, for instance, there was no proper right of appeal for a juvenile who was found to be a juvenile delinquent. The only appeal was by special permission of the court.

Many of the principles of the federal Young Offenders Act federally are ones that we agree with. But we think that the legislation that was passed, when it was passed, was something laudable in another time, and the costs associated with it are excessive. These costs must be borne by the province and by its municipalities, and the federal government, in refusing to amend the act prior to proclamation to remove the excessively complex and expensive administrative requirements, has left us with very major burdens that we must carry out in its administration. We have been in negotiation for a cost-sharing arrangement, and those negotiations have virtually been completed. It is with regret that I must advise the Legislature that we have, at this stage, not been able to get any federal contribution to the cost of

[ Page 4651 ]

policing or to the additional prosecution costs that will arise; but we have been able to get reasonable cost-sharing — basically fifty-fifty — in all other areas. That includes confinement costs amortized on a leasehold basis, the costs of legal aid, the costs of additional records and other costs. Make no mistake that the implementing of this federal legislation over the next four years is going to cost this province about $70 million in additional expense — if you can imagine that kind of expenditure being necessary in present times. An equal amount of expenditure is going to be necessary from the federal treasury under the agreements that we've arrived at. We're talking about very major costs.

[5:30]

[Mr. Reid in the chair.]

And now to the other aspects of the legislation. Alternative measures have been provided for in the young offenders legislation. Diversion, police and Crown screening and formal referral of juveniles to available community programs have been practised in this province for almost a decade. We have maintained that, in having responsibility for the administration of justice, we have the authority to operate such programs. The federal government need not and should not legislate in this area.

The procedures relating to alternative measures in the Young Offenders Act are administratively cumbersome and unnecessary. We have used simpler procedures in our parallel legislation for provincial offences. The use of diversion in appropriate cases will continue in British Columbia, and provisions similar to those contained in the Young Offenders Act of Canada are not included in our legislation.

Destruction of records. The record-destruction requirements of the federal act are a veritable administrative nightmare. They seem to have been born out of an Orwellian fantasy that if one destroys the physical record of a conviction, one destroys the reality of it. We argued unsuccessfully that the federal government's objective of achieving clemency after a certain period of time could be more easily and readily secured through other means than the bureaucratic, systematic destruction of all records. The provisions of the federal act will mean an endless paper-chase into government and private files to expunge records which would otherwise never see the light of day in most cases.

Appointment of counsel. The legislation attempted to impose upon the province the requirement that it pay for the costs of counsel appointed by the court where a young person would not be otherwise eligible for legal aid or where a judge felt that a young person would be better served by another lawyer. The province supports the principle of the right to counsel in certain circumstances, but it does not support the notion of an unlimited right. The right to counsel must balance with the responsibility of the province to enforce the law. Though cognizant of that section, as I have said, we have entered into cost-sharing arrangements for legal aid. The legal aid as provided for young offenders under the federal legislation in this province will be provided for out of moneys additional to the existing legal aid budget.

The federal Young Offenders Act, which repeals the Juvenile Delinquents Act, is the law today. As I said, in the absence of this legislation, all our young offenders — that is, this year everybody under the age of 17, and in 1985 everybody under the age of 18 — would be dealt with as adults. In practical terms that means that since most young offenders under provincial legislation come before the courts on motor vehicle offences or liquor act offences, they would all be dealt with as if they were adults, without the knowledge of their parents, and on conviction they would be liable to the same level of penalty as would an adult convicted of the same offence, with the same publicity and everything else. It has been and remains a fundamental principle of the justice system that young persons should not have the identical accountability as adults for all offences. I believe that this bill balances the need for the state to hold young persons accountable for their behaviour where that behaviour is against the law of the province...but it prescribes a set of penalties which are more appropriate in the circumstances for the young.

In the area of motor vehicle violations, an area of particular concern to this government, young drivers will be liable to the same court-order prohibitions against driving, and administrative prohibitions imposed by the superintendent of motor vehicles, as adults. This was not the case under the Juvenile Delinquents Act. I believe that this change will encourage the police to enforce the traffic laws of the province where young drivers act in an irresponsible or dangerous manner. There is one exception to that in the bill, but that is generally the approach we have taken. As I have stated, the proposed provincial Young Offenders Act will make provincial statute offenders between the ages of 12 and 17 years — as of 1985 it will raise the age from 16 to 17 — subject to essentially the same procedures as are adults, with certain modifications. But those under the age of 12 are not dealt with under our provincial Young Offenders Act, nor are they dealt with under the federal act. They are persons whom the Young Offenders Act does not reach, so they are dealt with only in respect of a companion amendment in this bill to the Family and Child Service Act, which allows for a vehicle simply to deliver these children back to their parents or guardians. It does not create an offence or a machinery to deal with them as if they had committed an offence. Proceedings against young persons will take place in provincial court under the Offence Act and other relevant provincial statutes.

The Young Offenders Act of British Columbia adopts, for proceedings involving young persons, many provisions of the federal act: the authority of the court to order the attendance of a parent — but we have tried to modify and present more workable procedures for doing that; a prohibition against the publication of the name of the young person or child involved in an offence, of a young offender, witness or victim; the authority of the court to exclude persons from proceedings involving young persons; and a number of evidentiary provisions involving proof of age, admissions and the giving of evidence by a young person or a child. We have made some modifications there, again to try to deal with it more efficiently and realistically, but we have incorporated those principles from the federal act into ours. The Young Offenders Act of British Columbia does not include provisions relating to the right of counsel and to alternative measures or records destruction, provisions which are obtained in the federal Young Offenders Act and to which the province has objected.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

In addition to the provisions adopted from the Young Offenders Act, the provincial act will provide for the issuing of notices to parents where a court appearance is required for

[ Page 4652 ]

provincial statute offences; it will provide for the continuation of the preparation of predisposition reports at the discretion of the court or where custody is to be ordered; and it will provide for a set of dispositions available to the court where a young person is convicted of a provincial offence. The availability of custody, as I've said, is limited to those Motor Vehicle Act offences for which an adult, on conviction, would be liable to a minimum term of imprisonment. The act establishes maximum fines of $1,000 and provides for orders of probation, restitution and community service. A mechanism is provided which also allows a court to review and vary dispositions under certain circumstances, and it also ensures that the proceedings are not jeopardized where there has been an error regarding the age of the person or where the status of the person changed because of a rise in the maximum age of young persons to less than 18 years on April 1, 1985. We've also provided in here, Mr. Speaker, for a number of amendments consequential to the repeal of the Juvenile Delinquents Act and the proclamation of the federal Young Offenders Act.

Mr. Speaker, we would have preferred to have introduced this legislation earlier so that it could have been proclaimed at the time of the proclamation of the Young Offenders Act of Canada, but it was not until March 16 that we received final word advising us that the Young Offenders Act of Canada would be proclaimed on April 2. We are fortunate, however, that this province has had in place for some time a full array of youth programs run by a corrections branch, including restitution, community services, attendance centres and probation supervision. It's been part of our goal for 15 years, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that we have a wide range of justice options and that we use custody only as a last resort. I am proud that we have made substantial progress in that regard, and that will assist us in implementing the Young Offenders (British Columbia) Act. In short, Mr. Speaker, we believe we've developed new legislation that will effectively and efficiently deal with young offenders in this province for provincial offences.

I now move second reading.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the Attorney-General and his government have been dragged — kicking and screaming — into producing and introducing this piece of legislation, but I still have to say how disappointed I am that in his introduction to the bill he didn't talk a little bit about the young offenders — who they are; the kinds of offences they are guilty of; the kinds of treatment that they've been receiving before the courts at this time; and, certainly, the facilities which exist or do not exist in terms of dealing with them.

My colleague for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lank) is going to be speaking on this legislation too, and it's quite possible that what you will be hearing will be two completely different points of view, because we have two different perceptions. I tend to see the young offenders, to a large extent, through my eyes as a social worker. Having worked with them, I'm coming with that kind of bias, and I realize that my colleague for Vancouver Centre, as a practising lawyer, is probably coming with a different kind of bias.

The old Juvenile Delinquents Act, which this piece of legislation replaces, was really quite outmoded and very outdated and was not doing the job. I don't think there's any question that that act needed to be amended and brought into the twentieth century. When the federal government took the initiative and introduced its young offenders legislation, I know the NDP caucus in Ottawa voted against that piece of legislation in second reading, because they recognized that it had a large number of shortcomings. However, after debate a number of amendments were introduced and the act was greatly improved, so they supported it on third reading.

The provincial government — quite rightly so, I think had an argument with the federal government about who was going to be picking up the tab for the additional services which the act would be introducing. I recognize that part of the reason why this bill is so late in being introduced is that the negotiations were taking place.

You can't get away from the reality the situation, which is that we now have a piece of legislation which will permit the government to treat and to relate to young offenders as young adults without in fact having the resources to do so. All you have to do is look at the annual report each year for corrections that talks about such places as Willingdon, the Chilliwack camps and others. Whether it's the 1977, 1978, 1980 or 1981 annual report — which is the only one I brought into the House with me — they all say the same thing: they refer to the fact of chronic overcrowding. They cannot deal with the young offenders they now have. In addition, when we look at this year's budget we find that the section of the funding from the Attorney-General's ministry dealing with probation, family services and services to young people has experienced a 6 percent cut. At a time when there are going to be more young people coming into the system and needing services and resources, the Attorney-General's ministry is budgeting for less cost.

Part of what I did in my responsibility as the critic on this area was to visit the Willingdon Youth Detention Centre, to meet and speak with some of the people there. They talked about the fact that that detention centre has the capacity to care for 75 young people. In fact, in 1983 there were 112 young people already in that institution. They anticipated that with the introduction of the Young Offenders Act they would be called upon to care for somewhere between 125 and 130. This information is coming from Mr. Gordon Hogg, the director of the Willingdon Youth Detention Centre. These are not figures created by me. What plans — what provision — has the Attorney-General made to do something about the situation? Is there any plan afoot to deal with the serious overcrowding and lack of resources for this group of young people? If that is the case, how is this going to be achieved with a budget which has a 6 percent reduction in it? This part of the budget which deals with probation.... The same probation workers are now going to be designated as youth workers. They're the people who will be preparing the presentence reports and supervising these young people. Of course, the resources, whether it's the Chilliwack camp or the Willingdon centre, all of these places which are presently facing overcrowding, can look forward to an exacerbation of that situation.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The Attorney-General's ministry used to be able to rely on the Ministry of Human Resources in terms of using some of their resources. But we find that that's not possible any more, because the Ministry of Human Resources is also closing some of its vital institutions, such as Holly Cottage — the one which deals with intensive child-care resources. It's the place where some of the more serious of these young

[ Page 4653 ]

people could have been sent. That resource is no longer going to be available to them. What plans does the Attorney-General have to deal with this? As I said before, I am greatly disappointed to find that in introducing this piece of legislation, the Attorney-General did not outline for us some ways in which he was actually going to make the act work, to make it relevant.

[5:45]

Are we going to get more of these letters going out from Crown counsel to juvenile first offenders telling them that the case is going to be dropped because there are no resources to deal with it? These caution letters, as they're called, which say, "We've decided to take no further action," apparently go out when the detention centres reach their capacity, are overflowing, and there is nowhere else to put them. The kids get a caution letter, and they're not dealt with.

We find that the diversion programs which the Attorney-General talked about are in jeopardy. They are continually on the verge of being terminated due to lack of funding, Mr. Speaker. Yet the Attorney-General did not make any comments about enshrining and protecting those diversion programs which he tells us he's going to have to call upon.

I support completely his position that our goal should not be to lock up kids. I agree with the stated goals of the federal act that what we're talking about is young people taking more responsibility for their actions. There isn't any question with that. I also accept the stated goals of the federal act that we're dealing with the fact that society has to be protected against some of the illegal behavior and illegal acts and criminal conduct of young people. But I also recognize, as the federal act stated, that young people have special needs and that they also have rights which have to be protected by the due process of law and fair and equal treatment. I don't see that that's going to be possible under this act, nor certainly under circumstances as they exist in the province today.

The most important section of the federal act, Mr. Speaker, section 11, which guarantees young offenders legal counsel, has been deleted from this piece of legislation which the Attorney-General is introducing. Mr. Speaker, section 11 of the federal act states, and I want the record to show it: "A young person has the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay at any stage of proceedings against him and prior to and during any consideration of whether, instead of commencing or continuing judicial proceedings against him under this act, to use alternative measures to deal with him."

Now the Attorney-General stated in a press statement in the Times-Colonist on April 6 of this year that juveniles charged with a crime under the federal act would be guaranteed legal counsel. That would be supplied to them if they fell under the federal act. However, a provincial act has been introduced, and lifted almost verbatim, in many instances, from the federal act, but there is no guarantee of legal counsel for a young person who finds himself or herself up against the system. I recognize the reason for that, because, as you may know, Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General is in the process of gutting the Legal Services Society's funding. They can't even meet the basic, minimum requirements of people in our province who need legal counsel but find themselves unable to pay for it, so that Attorney-General has decided that one way of dealing with that is to deny young adults who offend against the law this guarantee of legal counsel. I don't think that's good enough.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: The House Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom) keeps asking me....

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, I do not. This is the first time.

MS. BROWN: Okay.

I think it's more important to talk about the act in terms of what it does that's good and where its shortcomings are. I think that is much more important. You weren't here, Mr. House Leader, when I said I was disappointed that the Attorney-General, in introducing the act, didn't talk to us a little bit about the fact that we're going to have young adults in our system who are going to be up in the courts without having access to legal counsel, because that is one section which has been deleted from this act. I was under the impression that that was a basic right, something that we all felt that we were entitled to. In fact, what happens is that you come up in the courts against trained legal experts. The prosecutor, the judge and everybody who is arrayed against you is professional and knows the law, but here you are as a victim standing before the court without benefit of legal counsel. I think that the act falls short in that respect. This is a major shortcoming, and I think it's something which the federal act guaranteed and which the provincial act should have guaranteed as well.

I want to quote from the federal statement underlining the rights of young people. It says: "Young people have the same rights as adults to due process of law and fair and equal treatment, including all the rights stated in our new Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and in the 1960 Bill of Rights. In order to protect their rights and freedoms, and in view of their particular needs and circumstances, young people should have special rights and guarantees." It goes on, therefore, to talk about their right to legal counsel. They should never have to come into the courts at any time without having access to legal counsel, whether they can afford it or not. The Attorney-General made a commitment and a guarantee that legal counsel would be available to young people who were contravening the federal act; I think that same right should have been extended to young people at the provincial level as well.

Ms. Brown moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:56 p.m.

[ Page 4654 ]

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

21 The Hon. B. R. D. Smith to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 21) intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1984 to amend as follows:

SECTION 63, in the proposed section 2(3) by deleting "exclusive" and substituting "increased by the amount".

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

33 Mr. Mitchell asked the Hon. the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing the following questions:

1. What has been the estimated budget of the ecological reserves unit for 1983?

2. What has been the amount expended from the budget for the ecological reserves unit for 1983?

3. How many ecological reserves were created in 1982 and in 1983?

The Hon. A. J. Brummet replied as follows:

" 1. Ecological reserves budget was part of the Land Programs Branch budget. There was no separate budget for ecological reserves.

"2. Expenditure 1983:

"3. 1982, 2 reserves–Robson Bight and McQueen Creek near Kamloops; 1983, nil."

34 Mrs. Wallace asked the Hon. the Minister of Environment the following questions:

For the calendar year 1983–

1. How many violations to pollution control permits were (a) reported to the Ministry, and (b) detected by the Ministry?

2. How many amendments to pollution control permits resulted from these violations?

3. Were any individuals or companies charged as a result of these violations?

4. If the answer to No. 3 is "yes", (a) what are the names of those companies or individuals, (b) how many fines were levied as a result of these violations, and (c) what was the total of these fines?

The Hon. A. J. Brummet replied as follows:

" 1. This information is not available.

"2. This information is not available.

" 3. Yes.

"4. (a) The names of companies or individuals charged are on the attached list, (b) and (c) the fines levied are shown on the attached list.

[ Page 4655 ]

"1983 COURT ACTIONS

35 Mrs. Wallace asked the Hon. the Minister of Environment the following questions:

During the fiscal year 1983/84–

1. What pesticides did the Ministry purchase in each year, in what quantities, and at what cost?

2. What quantities of each pesticide were used in each year, for what purpose, and what was the total cost of each program?

3. What amount of each pesticide remained in storage or was disposed of at the end of the year?

4. What pesticides, in what quantities, are presently in the possession of the Ministry?

The Hon. A. J. Brummet replied as follows:

"The Ministry of Environment has utilized pesticides for two purposes in the 1983/84 fiscal year. Rotenone is used for coarse fish control in fisheries enhancement projects. 1080 is used for reactive predator control.

"FISH AND WILDLIFE BRANCH

"Fisheries Enhancement Program

" 1. (1983/84) 375 U.S. gallons (1 420 litres) Noxfish Fish Toxicant, unsynergized rotenone, emulfiable liquid. Active Ingredients: Rotenone 5%, other cube extractives 10%. Inert Ingredients: 85%. This product fully registered for use as a pesticide in Canada: Pest Control Products Act Registration No. 14558. Obtained from Penick Corporation, Lyndhurst, New Jersey. Cost (including customs and freight): $8,666.22.

[ Page 4656 ]

"2. In 1983/84, the only piscicide applications were on Kwtzil (gravel pit) Lake in the Omineca-Peace Region (Prince George Area). This lake was originally treated in June 1982 (outlined in previous response to Mrs. Wallace, July 18, 1983). Unfortunately, groundwater spring activity in this lake hampered the effectiveness of the treatment, and re-treatment was scheduled in 1983/84.

"A. Sept. 19, 1983-Kwtzil Lake (located 40 km west of Prince George) was retreated. 5 U.S. gallons (approximately 19 litres) of Noxfish were used to remove remaining redside shiners and lake chub so that a pure culture rainbow trout fishery could be restored. Post-treatment results indicated that a further application was required.

"B. October 24-27, 1983-final treatment of Kwtzil Lake. 18 U.S. gallons (approximately 68 litres) of Noxfish were applied. A complete kill was confirmed, following this treatment.

"Summary: total chemical applied to Kwtzil Lake 1983/84-23 U.S. gallons (87 litres). Product: Noxfish, 5% rotenone unsynergized. Rationale for repeat treatments: Despite treatment difficulties (necessitating repeated applications), the decisions to retreat were based on (1) the relatively low cost of the treatments due to the lake's small size (0.8 ha), (2) close proximity to Prince George and excellent access, and (3) past success with trout production from the lake. Total 1983/84 project cost (two treatments): approximately $2,000.

"3. Piscicide inventory in storage in Kamloops at end of 1983/84 fiscal year. Same as indicated in July 18, 1983 response to Mrs. Wallace, with the addition of the following: 352 U.S. gallons (approximately 1 332 litres) of Noxfish. 55 U.S. gallons (approximately 208 litres) of Chemfish (barrel of old chemical awaiting disposal).

"4. Same as for No. 3.

"Predator Control Program

"1. No chemicals purchased in the 1983/84 fiscal year.

"2. 4.1 g 1080 used in reactive control of wolf and coyote problem animals in the 1982/83 fiscal year. The baiting program was conducted by regular Ministry staff. There was no additional cost in excess of normal wages and normal support costs.

"3. Stored at this time are 50 g of sodium cyanide and approximately 2.5 lb. of 1080.

"4. As in No. 3.

"WATER MANAGEMENT BRANCH
"RESOURCE QUALITY SECTION

"1. No pesticides were purchased in F Y. 1983/84.

"2. 90 kg of Aqua-Kleen® containing 2, 4-D butoxyethanol ester were sold to H. M. Larrett Aquatic Consulting Ltd. of Kelowna for treatment of aquatic plants in private ponds.

"3. 22.6 kg of Aqua-Kleen® were disposed of from a broken bag; 3 975 kg of Aqua-KleenO remained in storage.

"4. 3 975 of Aqua-Kleen® are presently in the possession of the Ministry."

36 Mrs. Wallace asked the Hon. the Minister of Environment the following questions:

For the calendar year 1983–

1. How many pollution control permits were issued, and how many amendments to pollution control permits were issued in each year?

2. What amount of revenue was generated by the Province through the issuance of pollution control permits in each year?

The Hon. A. J. Brummet replied as follows:

"1. For the calendar year 1983 a total of 184 permits were issued and 261 permits were amended.

"2. There are no fees."