[ Page 7193 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Cercomm Electronics lease. Mrs. Wallace –– 7193

Investigations into escort services. Mr. Lea –– 7194

Special enterprise zones. Mr. Williams –– 7194

Dominion Glass plant closure. Mr. Williams –– 7194

Financial institutions. Mr. Blencoe –– 7195

Esquimalt graving dock. Mr. Mitchell –– 7195

Disposal of government documents. Hon. Mr. Curtis replies –– 7196

Tabling Documents –– 7196

Ministerial Statement

Energy supply and cold weather. Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 7196

Mr. D'Arcy

Securities Act (Bill 37). Report

Third reading –– 7198

Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 45). Report

Third reading –– 7198

Capital Expenditures Miscellaneous Amendments Act, 1985 (Bill 54). Report

Third reading –– 7198

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 1985 (Bill 60). Report

Third reading –– 7198

Municipal Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 62). Report

Third reading –– 7198

Charter Of Rights Amendments Act, 1985 (Bill 33). Hon. Mr. Smith. Committee stage 7198

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Rose

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Hanson

Division

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 4), 1985 (Bill 70). Hon. Mr. Smith.

Committee stage –– 7203

Mr. Williams

Equity Investment Plan Act (Bill 73). Hon. Mr. Curtis

Introduction and first reading –– 7203

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 4), 1985 (Bill 70). Hon. Mr. Smith.

Committee stage –– 7204

Mr. Williams

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Lockstead

Third reading

Family Law Reform Amendments Act, 1985 (Bill 34). Hon. Mr. Smith. Committee stage –– 7206

Mrs. Johnston

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Reynolds

Notaries Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 47). Hon. Mr. Smith. Committee stage –– 7209

Third reading

Court Order Enforcement Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 57). Hon. Mr. Smith. Committee stage –– 7209

Third reading

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 1), 1985 (Bill 58). Hon. Mr. Smith. Committee stage –– 7209

Third reading

Foreign Arbitral Awards Act (Bill 67). Hon. Mr. Smith. Committee stage 7210

Third reading

Real Estate Amendment Act (No. 2), 1985 (Bill 66). Hon. Mr. Hewitt. Committee stage –– 7210

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Cocke

Third reading

An Act To Amend The Vancouver Charter (Bill PR402). Second reading

Mr. Parks –– 7213

Mr. Rose –– 7213

Mr. Parks –– 7213

Vital Statistics Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 44). Hon. Mr. Nielsen. Committee stage –– 7213

Mr. Cocke, Mrs. Dailly, Mr. Hanson, Mr. Lauk, Mr. D'Arcy

Third reading

Tabling Documents –– 7217

Appendix –– 7217

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1985

The House met at 2: 10 p.m.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, in my role as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Segarty) I address the House today on the passing of Mr. Bill Sands, who passed away on November 25, 1985. Mr. Sands was born in Kelowna 72 years ago. He organized and was union representative with the Fruit and Vegetable Workers' Union in the Okanagan, and he was a member of the Kelowna fire department for 19 years. He was made Deputy Minister of Labour by the late W.A.C. Bennett in 1952 and served in that capacity for 21 years, until he retired in 1973. Shortly after his appointment as deputy minister he was also made chairman of the B.C. Labour Relations Board. He was also made chairman of the Board of Industrial Relations. During his term as deputy minister he was active in the Canadian Association of Administrators of Labour Legislation; he was president for a number of years and was made an honorary member. He was a delegate to the International Labour Organization and was part of the Canadian government delegation at the Geneva conference. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that the condolences of the House be sent to the family.

MR. GABELMANN: May I just add a few words to those of the member for Vancouver–Little Mountain. I didn't know Bill Sands very well. He was deputy minister and then chairman of the Labour Relations Board. His last days in those jobs were just as I was beginning my first days in both politics and the labour movement. Along with a lot of other people, I had a lot of respect for Bill Sands. He had a very difficult job. Not to inject too much politics into it, Mr. Speaker, you'll remember that there were some very tumultuous days in labour relations during some of the years that Bill Sands was deputy minister. He managed, through all of that, to maintain his ability to deal with both sides and to continue to command the respect of those people who needed to rely, if not on the Minister of Labour of the day, then certainly on the Ministry of Labour. All of those people, and I too, will remember Bill Sands with some fondness.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, if it is the express wish of the assembly, the Chair will undertake the appropriate message on behalf of the assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: So ordered.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, an outstanding British Columbian, Pat Morrow of Kimberley, has recently accomplished what can only be described as an outstanding feat. He has now successfully climbed the highest mountain peaks on all seven continents. He is the second person in the world to have achieved this. I hope the House will agree to extend him our sincere congratulations.

MR. NICOLSON: In our gallery today we have Mrs. Arvid Schneider visiting us. I had the pleasure of teaching some of her children over the years. I wish the House to make her welcome.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, I know I extend your personal welcome to the guests I'm going to introduce today: Mayor Ernie Burnett, who has just been elected for his fourth term as mayor of Delta, and his wife Betty — also breeders of standard-bred horses; and long-time personal friends of mine and, I know, friends of yours, Mr. and Mrs. Ron Stewart. Ron Stewart is president of the Delta Social Credit constituency association, vice-president of the Delta Chamber of Commerce and a very active community person. Mr. and Mrs. Stewart and Mayor and Mrs. Burnett are attending the police awards ceremony this evening at Government House. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery, representing the industrious, productive Cowichan Valley, from the Cowichan-Malahat riding, I'm pleased to introduce Mr. Austin Fraser and Dr. Gavin Sutherland. Would the House make them welcome.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I'd like the House to join with me in welcoming two very dear friends from Victoria, Mr. and Mrs. Gaddes. I'd like the House to give them a very warm welcome.

[2:15]

MRS. WALLACE: I would just like to add my welcome, particularly to Austin Fraser, who has served our constituency very well as our economic development officer. I wish him well.

MR. PARKS: In the members' gallery, I notice that we have with us this afternoon M. Marc Roy, the immediate past president of La Federation des Franco-Colombiens. I would ask the, House to make him welcome.

As I looked up a moment ago, I noticed that I have two constituents also in the galleries: one of the lower mainland's most eminent trauma doctors, Dr. Herb Parkin from Royal Columbian; and I trust that is Mrs. Parkin with you, Herb. I ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. STRACHAN: In the members' gallery today is a renowned artist from the Prince George area and the west. I would like the House to welcome Mr. Bob Sebastian.

Oral Questions

CERCOMM ELECTRONICS LEASE

MRS. WALLACE: My question is for the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing in his capacity as Minister of Lands. I have in my hand a lease dated April 26 for a ten-year period. It is licence number 100831. It is a lease for Crown land with Cercomm Electronics of Nanaimo. I would like to ask the minister if he is aware that the purpose of this lease is to install a radio microwave station for the U.S. Navy.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'll have to take that question as notice and get the particulars.

MRS. WALLACE: A further question for the same minister, Mr. Speaker. Article 5(01) of the lease reads: "The licensee shall not assign the licence or sublicense any part of the land without prior written consent of the owner." I am wondering whether the fact that this land has been leased in

[ Page 7194 ]

this way and has, in effect, been subleased to the U.S. government means that this government is prepared to have on our shores radio microwave equipment sending signals to nuclear-carrying armed subs and warships, which will ply our waters for another ten years.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, I gather the member has taken the opportunity to make a speech on some point. As I said, I will take the question on notice, and I'll try to get the particulars back to that member as quickly as possible. I can only take for granted that she knows what she's talking about in these statements.

INVESTIGATIONS INTO ESCORT SERVICES

MR. LEA: I have a question to the Attorney-General in his role as chief law enforcement officer for the province of British Columbia. Would the minister agree with me that it is a gigantic waste of the taxpayers' money to spend tens of thousands of dollars, in some cases up to $50,000, to investigate escort services for prostitution?

HON. MR. SMITH: Tempting as it might be to answer an inviting question of that kind, I am mindful of the fact that a jury in this town is either out or about to go out. Therefore I will not answer the question.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I'm not talking about a specific case in front of the courts. I'm asking a general question about whether the Attorney-General feels it is a waste of money to spend tens of thousands of dollars investigating escort services. I know that there are many police officers and many politicians who believe that that may be the way to go. It gets prostitution off the streets, out of the neighbourhoods and puts it into escort services. Does the Attorney-General not agree that that's the general way we should go, and that it's a waste of taxpayers' money to investigate those escort services?

HON. MR. SMITH: I repeat the answer I gave previously.

MR. LEA: In order for a joint investigation between the RCMP and a local city police force to go forward, is it true that there has to be approval from the Attorney-General's ministry?

HON. MR. SMITH: The answer is no. That is not true.

MR. LEA: At any time during the last 18 months, has any investigation gone forward that the Attorney-General is aware of, where approval was received from the Attorney-General's department on a joint investigation into escort services?

HON. MR. SMITH: I take the question as notice.

SPECIAL ENTERPRISE ZONES

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Industry, Mr. Speaker. A year and a half ago the minister took forth a proposal to cabinet with respect to special enterprise zones, and six months ago we passed legislation in this House regarding those zones. Can the minister advise us how many jobs have been created to date as a result of this legislation?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, no zones have been established at this time. We're still in discussions with the federal government on some taxation matters.

MR. WILLIAMS: Taxation matters were dealt with by the budget, Mr. Speaker. Does that mean the minister is awaiting the next federal budget with respect to these zones?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WILLIAMS: Can the minister advise us how many zones are under discussion currently, at any rate, and whether any companies are lined up at the door? And what number of jobs does he anticipate in the immediate future as a result of this two-year effort on his part?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: In due course, Mr. Speaker.

DOMINION GLASS PLANT CLOSURE

MR. WILLIAMS: A further question to the Minister of Industry, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister advise us whether he met with Dominion Glass, the plant in Burnaby that announced closure just recently — another 300 jobs lost to British Columbia — or with representatives of the people who were laid off in that plant?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I've met with the people from Dominion Glass, yes.

MR. WILLIAMS: Could the minister advise the House whether any provincial changes might have improved the circumstances for Dominion Glass in terms of their reconsidering that decision?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, there were a number of changes in the March budget which helped all businesses in British Columbia. The elimination of the machinery and equipment tax would have.... I don't have a dollar figure, but it would have saved thousands and thousands of dollars for that company. The reduction of the school taxes would have saved thousands and thousands of dollars for that company, and the total $1 billion reduction of taxes over three years would have saved that particular company many hundreds or thousands of dollars as well.

MR. WILLIAMS: The minister is saying: "Nevertheless, the company is leaving." Is that so? The company is not staying in business despite your program. Is that correct, Mr. Minister? Could the minister advise us if he has met with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) with respect to policy on aluminium canning processes versus bottling systems, which was a factor in the closure?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I meet with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs almost every day.

MR. WILLIAMS: Would the minister advise the House whether he discussed the problems of Dominion Glass with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs with respect to liquor distribution and other allied problems?

[ Page 7195 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WILLIAMS: What are the results, Mr. Speaker? Despite this, the company closed, is that correct?

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The minister has virtually washed his hands of financial institutions that are in trouble in this province, and the minister must be aware of the widespread concern about the financial deficiencies in firms such as Victoria Mortgage Corp. and the Teachers' Cooperative. What steps has the minister taken to improve reserve requirements, liquidity requirements, inspection and regulation to prevent the loss of millions of dollars of hard-earned savings by B.C. depositors?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad the member mentioned B.C. depositors, because in place for banks and trust companies is the Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation, which ensures up to $60,000 of deposits of their customers and clients. Credit unions in British Columbia, under the Credit Union Deposit Insurance Corporation, have in place a fund which guarantees the deposits of the credit unions in this province. The two institutions that the member mentions, the Victoria mortgage and investment company — and I stress the word "investment" — and Teachers' Investment and Housing Cooperative, are strictly investment institutions and are not deposit-taking institutions. They are no different from people who may wish from time to time to invest personally in the economy of British Columbia or Canada or any other part of the world. It is an investment, not a deposit, and as a result they don't fall under the Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Credit Union Deposit Insurance Corporation. But I will tell the member that with regard to the Teachers' Investment and Housing Cooperative, I have met with officials of that cooperative. I compliment them on the action they have taken; they have protected their shareholder members to the best of their ability and are working on a restructuring program. They have access to my office, and we've advised them that for any assistance we may be able to give, within the purview of my ministry, our doors are open to them.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister is very aware that the legislation and the policy in these areas for these particular financial institutions is lax. There is very little consumer protection, very little inspection, very little reserve requirement. We need new policies to protect consumers. In view of the concern of the financial community in terms of very few protections for such investors, has the minister decided to get involved with such situations, and has he decided to introduce a preventive program so we can prevent this sort of thing in the future?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm not sure about that party over there, but I guess what they want to do is guarantee everybody a mediocre opportunity in life, whether it be in this province or anywhere else that they may get into power. But I would tell you that the investors who invest in the economy of British Columbia, Canada or any other part of the world benefit and have the right to make a profit on their investment, and they also accept the right and the possibility of losing part or all of their investment, because that is the marketplace.

Just to further clarify for the member, so that he is aware: both the Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Credit Union Deposit Insurance Corporation are funded by assessments from the member institutions. The credit unions in this province contribute a portion of their funds into the Credit Union Deposit Insurance Corporation's fund. It is not supported or assisted or subsidized by the taxpayers of this province, and that's the way it should be.

[2:30]

MR. BLENCOE: A final supplementary. The minister is aware that thousands of senior citizens in Victoria and Vancouver invested thousands of dollars in Victoria Mortgage Corp. The minister is aware that much of the advertising for that company was misleading and misled those senior citizens to invest thousands of dollars. He has a responsibility to introduce legislation to avoid that kind of situation. Is this minister abandoning those thousands of senior citizens? Will he not introduce a preventive program so at least those investors know what they're getting into?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, there are remedies to deal with misleading advertising. If there is evidence of misleading advertising, what can be construed and proven as misleading advertising, then necessary action can be taken by the individual who has been misled. In regard to the investment community, there are prospectuses that must be filed to state information. They must be factual or the party involved commits an offence.

Mr. Speaker, if the member across has evidence of misleading advertising, I certainly would be pleased to see it. I hope he wouldn't just refer to a brochure that he has advised is the misleading document. If that is the case then maybe he should ask the people involved who have a claim to make that an issue. That brochure has been referred to the superintendent of brokers for investigation.

ESQUIMALT GRAVING DOCK

MR. MITCHELL: My question is to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. I would ask him about one of the facilities that has been around Esquimalt longer than I have, and also is the heart of the industrial area of Esquimalt: the graving dock. The minister is aware that the federal government has given notice that they intend to privatize it or shut it down. Has the minister met with the federal government or any of their officials, or any of the employees of the drydock, to establish that this facility is going to continue to operate as the heart of both the defence and industrial area of Esquimalt? Has he met with them and can he assure the people of Esquimalt that that particular facility will continue to be in operation?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I haven't met personally with members of the federal government on that specific issue. I would undertake to find out whether any of my staff have. I would believe that they probably have, but I'll be happy to find out for sure and bring the member an answer later.

[ Page 7196 ]

DISPOSAL OF GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to respond to a question posed last week.

I will be as brief as I can in this regard. If I could refer you, sit, to Hansard, page 7029. The Leader of the Opposition in two questions with interjections in the interval asked if I would confirm that confidential documents on computer stock were stored on the back of an open truck at Allan Paper Stock Co. Ltd. on Tyee Road for a week prior to Allan Paper Stock disposing of that computer paper. Then the same question with slight variation was put again. I was absent on Tuesday and could not respond at that time.

Insofar as I have been informed and as I have been able to determine in the interval, I suggest that perhaps the information which was offered to the Leader of the Opposition was not correct. I make it clear I do not accuse the leader of misleading the House; rather, the information provided to him leading to the question may have been incorrect.

To briefly recite again: on Friday, August 10, 1984, at approximately 5:30 p.m. the paper removal commenced. I dealt with that at length in the statement on November 20. That work concluded in the early hours of Saturday. The new facility — the new storage area — was secured. Nothing occurred on August 12, 1984. Security guards were hired on August 13, 1984, remained in place on August 14 and 15, and on August 16, 1984, at approximately 8 a.m., Allan Paper commenced loading and finished approximately at noon. On Friday, August 17, 1984, Allan Paper Stock delivered two vans by the 7 a.m. sailing of the British Columbia Ferry Corporation out of Swartz Bay, with 19.8 tonnes of paper which were destroyed later that morning at Belkin Paper in the greater Vancouver area, and receipts are available for that paper destruction. The company verifies the times and dates.

Mr. Speaker, while there may have been a vehicle either owned by or leased by or somehow associated with the firm in question, there is nothing I have determined which would suggest that there was veracity to that which the Leader of the Opposition indicated, in terms of this paper sitting in an open truck for not one day, not several days.... Indeed, just to take one more moment, material was loaded into Allan Paper Stock vans, 40 feet and 26 feet in length. Those are closed vans. I hope that satisfies the Leader of the Opposition with regard to that question.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, this might be an opportune time to table a few reports: the Pacific National Exhibition report and financial statement, ending March 31, 1985; the thirtieth annual report of business done in pursuance of the Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Act, Part 2, for the year ended March 31, 1985; the B.C. lotteries branch annual report, 1984-1985; finally, but not least, the report on applications pertaining to the Public Service Labour Relations Act dealt with by the Labour Relations Board of British Columbia during the year 1984.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I wish to make a ministerial statement.

Leave granted.

ENERGY SUPPLY AND COLD WEATHER

HON. MR. ROGERS: For the first time in the recorded history of the province, the meteorological conditions in this province have required that the energy sector in British Columbia meet capacity demands that have never been met with before. I rise to report to the House how the energy sector in this province has been responding to the unprecedented demands placed on our electricity, gas and oil production, and delivery systems with this unusually cold weather.

I'm pleased to be able to assure the House and the people of British Columbia, who rely on these systems far more than they realize, that the energy sector is responding magnificently, and there will be light when you flick the switch, and there will be gas at the burrier tip. However, I have some additional information which the members opposite may find interesting before they adjourn for their afternoon coffee. B.C. Hydro has advised me that they are now depending on the capacity of the Revelstoke Dam, and have been for several days. If it were not for the Revelstoke Dam, we would have cut off all our exported power to the United States, now running at 960 megawatts and earning us about $800,000 Canadian a day. Not only that, we would have to buy a further 400 megawatts of electricity for domestic use, either from the Bonneville Power Administration or from Transalta in Alberta. It just goes to show that a little additional capacity is a very useful thing. Because of Revelstoke, B.C. Hydro was able to serve the province and continue to meet our export requirements.

I can also report that West Kootenay Power and Light is continuing to serve all of its customers without interruption, thanks in part to some additional electricity provided by B.C. Hydro and Cominco. Cominco deserves credit for adjusting its production schedule so that they could maximize the amount of power for deliveries in West Kootenay. I might also report that B.C. Hydro is buying power from Alcan and wheeling that into their system to meet our electrical demands. For those of you who are interested in statistics, during the peak hour 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. yesterday, B.C. Hydro set a record in electrical use of 6,715 megawatts. That's 600 megawatts higher than our old record of 6,102 megawatts, set December 22, 1983.

AN HON. MEMBER: What was the number again?

HON. MR. ROGERS: It'll be in the Blues, or if you can get your members to quiet down.... Or if you like, I can come over and give it to you privately later.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. ROGERS: Either you people keep it down so that he can hear, or he can read it in the Blues. It's as simple as that.

Interjections.

HON. MR. ROGERS: It's nice to see you here. We missed you for a long time.

Anyway, that's just a statistic, and behind the statistics there are some people. At the height of the snowstorms, B.C. Hydro had line crews working up to 16 hours a day repairing downed lines, during wind-chill factors in excess of minus 50 degrees.

[ Page 7197 ]

I'd like to talk momentarily about exports. Thanks to Revelstoke, we have been able to earn millions for B.C. Hydro while building up this province's reputation as a reliable energy supplier. For the first eight months of this fiscal year, B.C. Hydro has earned $173 million in electricity exports. That's almost as much as the total for last year of $182 million, and the heavy export months are still to be done. Last year, for example, March was our biggest export month for electricity exports, so we will obviously set a record.

In terms of gas, Mr. Speaker, there are some very interesting ramifications which the members may find of interest. Behind the scenes in the gas industry the gas utilities are scrambling somewhat to meet the increased demand, and doing it successfully. Bob Kadlec of Inland has reported today that demand is up and the system is at full nomination; all firm commitments are being met. Art Willms of Westcoast Transmission advises me that his operation is working flat out at absolute capacity and moving 1.5 billion cubic feet of gas a day.

Both systems, of course, have cut off interruptible deliveries and are concentrating on meeting only firm demand. However, interruptible customers are able to switch over to other energy forms such as residual fuel oil or biomass. No one in British Columbia has been sent home from the job because of lack of energy.

Every gas producer in the northeast that is connected to the west coast system has been called upon for every MCF that they can deliver. With the temperature there around minus 40 degrees, getting that gas out is no mean feat. Putting wells into production is a cold enough task that at the present time metal is cracking, and it is a difficult and dangerous job. I know the members will want to join me in paying tribute to those men and women in the frozen north who are providing the energy for the still-frozen south.

I also have to recognize and express thanks to our neighbours to the south. In a fine demonstration of international cooperation, Northwest Pipeline has been helping British Columbia meet its gas requirements. Because of that cooperation, B.C. Hydro has been able to draw more gas out of storage at Jackson Prairie, Washington, than is actually contracted for.

Again for the books, B.C. Hydro has moved nearly 600 million cubic feet of gas a day to its customers. The average for November is between 350 million and 500 million cubic feet a day. The system can continue to meet the demands being placed upon it, barring any unforeseen difficulties and breakdowns. I am advised by the petroleum sector that there are ample supplies and deliveries of both furnace and stove oil.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the report given by the Minister of Energy, and I certainly do commend all those utility companies who are acting like any prudent business people would when there is a sudden demand for their services, which are normally underutilized. They would do everything they could to deliver those services as a business as well as a responsibility to the public.

I would also like to remind the minister and the House, Mr. Speaker, that everyone in British Columbia is working hard to do their job at this time. I am talking about miners, loggers, marine workers, transportation workers, mailmen, health care workers.... It's difficult in the cold weather, and everybody, including Hydro linemen and B.C. Tel linemen, is working hard. So let's remember all of them.

[2:45]

I also want to perhaps remind the minister that it is excellent to know that the Revelstoke Dam is at last contributing something, even temporarily. But let's remember that we have thermal capacity in this province which is presently mothballed, whose operating costs, if it were running, would be substantially less than the finance charges and water taxes on the Revelstoke Dam.

I would also like to remind the minister that while it's wonderful that we have sold $170 million worth of export power — I'd like it to be $270 million worth of export power — the fact is that most of that export power, as the minister knows, could have been supplied through surplus capacity other than Revelstoke throughout most of this year, with the exception of the present time, here and now.

So while what the minister has said is correct and commendable, the fact is it's not the full story. So let's remember that, and let's thank heaven that we have in this province the kind of resources of natural gas and hydroelectric power which allow us to be so blessed in a time of great need for energy to both generate and deliver those sources to the people of British Columbia and the industries of British Columbia.

MR. ROSE: Well, we have been entertained by a series of lengthy and often provocative statements by ministers over the past week, and I'm a little bit concerned about this. I don't have every known source of parliamentary guidance here at my disposal, since I didn't intend to be speaking today, but I do have one source which I think has some validity here, and I quote from page 87, paragraph 262: "Statements by ministers have now been given a recognized place in routine proceedings. The standing order is specific but considerable latitude has been left to the Speaker to set limits on the participants. The Speaker has emphasized that both the government and the opposition contributions should be brief and factual. The purpose of the ministerial statement is to convey information, not to encourage debate." I recommend that citation from Beauchesne's fifth edition to the wisdom of the House in this regard, because I just think that perhaps the brevity which is suggested by this source has sometimes been transgressed — frequently transgressed.

MR. SPEAKER: The member makes a valid observation. The second member for Vancouver Centre seeks the floor on a point of order.

MR. LAUK: On the same point of order that's been raised, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Speaker could make discreet inquiries about whether or not both the speech of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and other ministerial addresses to this House could otherwise be given to the Rotary lunches that.... I know that it's been difficult for the ministers to get luncheon engagements these days, but to subject the House to this kind of after-dinner sleepytime nonsense is really too much — for the sake of Hansard, Mr. Speaker, if not for the sake of the rest of the members.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, while you're making your discreet inquiries, I was wondering if you could review the Blues on the ministerial

[ Page 7198 ]

statement made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources to see whether there was anything provocative in that statement, as was suggested by the member for Coquitlam-Moody.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, order, please. Numerous points have been raised regarding ministerial statements, and....

AN HON. MEMBER: He wasn't talking about....

MR. SPEAKER: I was though, hon. member.

Order, please, hon. members. The Chair would find it very difficult to determine on its own volition when or whether a statement exceeds the bounds of a ministerial statement. However, once a ministerial statement has been made and a considerable period of time has been expended, it is only reasonable to assume that that same amount of time could be expended in response to a ministerial statement. If members of one side or the other feel that a statement has been political or has brought forward points for discussion or debate...

MR. LAUK: Is there anything in there about boring or dull?

MR. SPEAKER: No, there's nothing in there, hon. members.

...then, of course, it is that member's right to reply in kind. I would ask members to give that some thought in response.

MR. LEA: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether you could also make discreet inquiries to see what it is that put the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree) to sleep.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 37, Mr. Speaker.

SECURITIES ACT

Bill 37 read a third time and passed.

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

FINANCE STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, on Bill 45, I don't have any indication from my book of bills that the bill is properly reported to the House. There is no indication on the government bill that it has been reported to the House as considered.

MR. SPEAKER: Page 16, hon. member, of Orders of the Day, should....

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is the bill?

MR. LAUK: The bill is to be given to each member as reported.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair has the specific bill. I'm sure if the member possibly.... It may have been misplaced in his book.

MR. LAUK: I apologize to the House. It was just pointed out to me.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, individuals are not above making the odd honest mistake from time to time. Once or twice it has happened to the Chair.

Bill 45 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 54, Mr. Speaker.

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS ACT, 1985

Bill 54 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 60, Mr. Speaker.

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 2), 1985

Bill 60 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 62, Mr. Speaker.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

Bill 62 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call committee on Bill 33.

CHARTER OF RIGHTS AMENDMENTS ACT, 1985

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

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

HON. MR. GARDOM: On section 2, Mr. Chairman, I would move the amendment standing in the name of my colleague the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. LAUK: This is an amendment to the section purporting to amend the Adoption Act, and I wonder if the committee couldn't be informed by the acting Attorney-General that the original proposed amendment.... "The parents or surviving parent of the child, but where the mother is unmarried at the time of her signing the written consent to adoption and the child has not previously been adopted, only her consent is required." The amendment proposes to delete "is unmarried at the time of her signing the written consent to adoption" and substitute "where the father and mother have never gone through a form of marriage with each other." This still doesn't resolve the problem, and I wonder what the

[ Page 7199 ]

government's policy is with respect to the rights of a putative father in the adoption of his child. This offends, it seems to me, the equality provisions of the Charter. Is not the Attorney-General anticipating a challenge to that section? Because it does not afford equal rights to the father of a child, except if there is a form of marriage between the mother and the father. It seems to me that that reflects....

The way I see the amendment is that you can dispense with the consent of a father for the adoption of the child, if there is no form of marriage between the mother and father at the time of the consent of the mother. Does that make it clear? In essence then, the putative father of any child, if he's not married to the mother, has nothing to say about whether that child is adopted. That's the way I read this amendment. Am I misreading it or not?

HON. MR. GARDOM: My understanding is that if there is no relationship between the two parents, the father per se is not requested for a consent. The purpose of the amendment deals with a situation where the female parent could have been divorced.

MR. LAUK: That doesn't answer the problem of dispensing with the rights of a putative father. Surely the Charter of Rights was not intended to eliminate the rights of a putative father. The amendment does that, and the proposed amendment to the amendment doesn't solve it.

What is the policy of the government? Does the government say that putative fathers have no rights with respect to whether or not their child, the child they sired, will be adopted or not? You see, the way to resolve that is: any adopting parents can go to court, or the mother can go to court, and dispense with the father's consent if it's unreasonably withheld. Why don't we leave well enough alone, and let a judge make a decision on all the facts? If the putative father wanted to adopt the child totally, or to care for the child, why shouldn't he have some rights?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Hon. member, insofar as the putative fathers are concerned, it's the maintenance of consistent policy at the present time. The new words are really a more accurate description of the old concept of illegitimacy in this context. That's the purpose of it.

MR. LAUK: The government seems to be relentless in this regard, but I want to point out that the way I read the section in relation to the other sections of the Adoption Act is that it's dispensing with the rights of the putative father to give or not give consent to an adoption.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: No, you'd have to get the consent of the putative father, or go to court and dispense with that consent. This would change that.

Amendment approved.

[3:00]

Section 2 as amended approved on division.

Sections 3 through 10 inclusive approved.

On section 11.

MR. ROSE: I would like to ask the Deputy Attorney-General the reason for the first amendment under section 11, the deletion of the words "on female and on male persons under the age of 7." I'd like to ask the reason for it. I think I know, but I want to make sure I do.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It is to eliminate the male-female discrimination aspect under the Charter. That's the purpose of the amendment.

MR. ROSE: I'm not sure it does that. As a matter of fact, I thought the minister was going to get up and say that it eliminates the age discrimination under the Charter.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It does that as well.

MR. ROSE: Well, I don't know that it does the former, but it probably does the latter.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: No, I've got it here. I think there's no point in wasting time on it, but I do have a concern expressed by the, president of the B.C. Barbers' and Hair Stylists' Association. My correspondent makes this point. He says: "Yes, it does these things, and there's no question that that sort of thing should be supported." You see, what happened in the past was that the barbers could cut hair for everybody because they were properly licensed, and they took courses. Their standards were relatively stringent. This now will permit the hairdressers, whose training I wouldn't say is any less, but it's different, to compete with the barbers. Certainly their training in things that are of real concern to the general public is relatively limited.

There are far larger numbers, in terms of hairdressers, than there are barbers. Barbers have dwindled in our society over the years, and I suppose I'm a prime example of it, if anyone were to look at me. I understand that short hair is coming back, and it may help them. However, this business of unisex and all the rest of it has, I think, given the hairdressers — I don't want the imagery— a leg up in this business, anyway.

I don't want to be accused of hairsplitting here, but I would like to quote from what he has to say: "This is giving the right to cut men's hair without having to show any ability or qualifications to do so." So what it is is we have two sets of training here, and because we want to change the nature to remove age discrimination, and also male-female discrimination, what has happened as a result is that a certain group of people operating under the Barbers Act and another group operating under the Hairdressers Act with quite different kinds of criteria and training are treated equally, and they aren't equal in terms of their training.

So perhaps there should be an amendment also to another act, or maybe the clause could be stood until this matter and the implications thereof could be investigated. It probably involves about 1,600 people in the whole of British Columbia, as far as barbers are concerned. Apparently their training courses are not the same. The health and sanitary standards and training are quite different. I think it bears some sort of investigation. The objection is not to the male-female stuff, but the fact that many of the hairdressers do not have to pass barbers' examinations. In other words, you can go through

[ Page 7200 ]

now a back door with a lesser kind of training program, and yet be entitled to do the same work. That is the concern.

I see the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Segarty) is getting a little fidgety. He probably has a number of other more detailed comments on this whole question. But I think that until the implications are examined.... With one stroke of the pen we give one group an advantage without similar public protection in terms of licensing. That's what my correspondent wished me to raise, and I've done it,

HON. MR. GARDOM: You've made some very valid observations, hon. member, but they're not really germane specifically to the amendment that's before the House this afternoon, which deals with the Charter.

Dealing with the overall issue, my colleague the Minister of Labour informs me that the ministry is having discussions with each group, and the issues you have raised are under consideration. I can remember myself that this statute is one of the older and hoarier ones in the province, and I think there is certainly a requirement to have it looked at. I'm sure that is going to happen, sir.

MR. ROSE: I don't wish to quarrel or argue with my hon. friend the assistant deputy minister, but he just said — or I thought he said — that this really has nothing to do with the Barbers Act, but amends the Charter.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's an amendment to the Barbers Act flowing from the Charter.

MR. ROSE: That's exactly what we are concerned about. The fact is, we wish to bring our laws a little past the three-year time in line with the federal Charter. In doing so, we put in jeopardy — or possible jeopardy — some group of.... I don't know what to call them; certainly they are tradesmen or professionals, whatever you want to call them. Until we can see the implications of it, unless we know what the amendments are going to be to the Barbers Act and the Hairdressers Act, then it might be prudent for us to stand the clause. That's what I am saying.

Section 11 approved on division.

Section 12 approved.

On section 13.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask whether section 13 opens the door to those multinational chains that do haircutting — discount shops and so on and so forth. I am just asking the question. It strikes me that one of the most imaginative ads I've ever seen was in a hair shop in my town which said: "We repair $6 haircuts." I thought it was rather imaginative. Sometimes one takes their life in their hands by going to some of these chains that whip across the country,

HON. MR. GARDOM: There doesn't appear to be any relationship to chains whatsoever. It's a certificate.

Section 13 approved.

Sections 14 to 22 inclusive approved.

On section 23.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move an amendment to section 23, and that would be to add 23(l). Yes, I have provided the clerk with a copy. It would be that section 2(l) be amended by deleting "19 years" and substituting therefore "18 years." That is to bring the voting age of the province of British Columbia into line with the federal Elections Act, which provides for voting in federal elections at 18 years of age. I think it is an injustice. We should unshackle the people who are 18 years of age in this province and allow them the full franchise as Canadian citizens — provide them the liberty of full citizenship, which they deserve.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The Attorney-General was discussing this in the House, I do believe in another issue, over the last couple of days. He articulated the government's policy that the amendment is not acceptable at this time.

MR. HANSON: First of all, Mr. Chairman, we did provide this amendment when we had before us the Election Act for the province of British Columbia, and the Provincial Secretary would not accept it. It would seem to me that the Attorney-General has an authority and a responsibility that goes beyond the other ministers to ensure that the statutes of the province of British Columbia — all legislation — comply with the spirit and intent of the Charter. That is, people should not be discriminated against on the basis of age, certainly with respect to the full citizenship rights granted to those citizens who are 18 years of age.

This seems to be a real anomaly, an anomaly that is unacceptable, and it really can't be justified in any way. People can belong to the armed services; they have the right to drive; they have the right to do all sorts of things in society. They should have the authority to take their place in a democratic society and vote for the government of their choice. Really, I would think that the acting Attorney-General would be making the kind of gesture that is in the spirit and intent of the Charter, and that to eliminate this kind of inequity would be most acceptable, certainly during International Youth Year. I don't have to remind the minister of the fact that this is International Youth Year. Why not grant the full right of citizenship to those citizens of Canada who are within the boundaries of the province of British Columbia, happen to be 18 years of age and have a full voice nationwide from here to Newfoundland, and yet cannot exercise their franchise within the province of British Columbia? Surely that logic holds. All the minister would have to do is accept this amendment, and we'd bring that voting age into line. It's a totally reasonable and rational suggestion.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 13

[ Page 7201 ]

NAYS — 27

[3:15]

Sections 23 to 26 inclusive approved.

On section 27.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 27 as amended approved.

Sections 28 to 35 inclusive approved.

HON. MR. SMITH: I move proposed new section 35.1 standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Proposed new section 35.1 approved.

Sections 36 to 78 inclusive approved.

On section 79.

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

Amendment approved.

On section 79 as amended.

MR. LAUK: This enables husbands and wives to sue each other for tort. Tort means a wrong committed — usually by way of negligence, but it could be assault and battery and so on. But really the purport of this change to the tort law is that where a spouse is a passenger in a motor vehicle driven by his or her spouse, he or she can sue his or her spouse for negligence and get redress for any injuries she or he may have suffered as a result of that negligence.

However, it is interesting to note that the government proposes to proclaim many of these sections and have them operate retroactively. However, in section 55(l) of the Law and Equity Act, the new section they're proposing, the last subsection indicates that it does not apply where the cause of action arises before this section comes into force. Now, ask yourselves why the government has done that. You see, the government is not playing fair, because the government owns and operates ICBC. Because they own and operate ICBC, there are a whole number of actions which have arisen, even in the last few weeks, months and years, where spouses have been seriously injured and have not had compensation from any source.

From a public policy point of view, the government is being very callous in cutting those people off from any compensation whatsoever, and they can take their time in proclaiming this section. Until it comes into force, no spouse can sue another spouse for negligence and receive proper compensation for injuries. There are spouses who are paraplegics and who are permanently and totally disabled, and who have to rely on the continued employment of their spouse; they have become totally dependent. They are not receiving the proper medical care or the proper rehabilitation care because this government is so callous and cruel.

If, out of public policy, the Attorney-General and the government wanted to draw a line, why couldn't they draw a line back a couple of years so that really old cases that have been obviously settled...? I would say retroactive five years would be reasonable, but at the very least the cause of action since April 17, 1985. Every other provision in these amendments to bring them into line with the Charter may be brought into force retroactively to April 17, 1985, when the equal rights amendment was proclaimed and brought into force.

This is the one section where they have taken great pains to avoid the extra cost that may be attributable to ICBC and have cut off people who are injured. You see, the Attorney-General this morning mentioned we have to protect the taxpayer, the premium payer and so on. What he fails to mention about ICBC is that payments out of our funds in ICBC for personal injury are a fraction of the amount of money that is expended by that corporation for fender-benders, for material damage and for the legal counsel that they hire. Millions of dollars they pay out for legal counsel to defend against these grasping, selfish people in wheelchairs who want compensation.

It's a callous act on the part of the government to have subsection (5) there. I completely oppose that. I think it should be exposed, and I'm going to talk to the full press gallery, who are here in force, and hopefully they will take the message — quite right, Mr. Chairman — that this government has callously cut off an opportunity for compensation. They have with the one hand pretended they are complying with the equal rights amendment, but they have callously brought in subsection (5) to try to avoid the cost. It's a niggardly, narrow-minded, penny-pinching, nasty, cruel thing to do to those people who are waiting in line to get compensation.

I think that the Attorney-General, on reflection, is going to stand up and withdraw subsection (5). It's totally not needed. The proclamation sections can make it retroactive, and I submit that at the very least the government should make the section 55(1) amendment to the Law and Equity Act retroactive until April 17, 1985. That's the fairest, most decent thing to do, and it even fits in with the Attorney-General's nineteenth-century utilitarian philosophy — the greatest good for the greatest number. Even he, with his silk handkerchief and snuff-box, can accept that proposal. It's only the decent thing to do.

[3:30]

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, that was a wonderful speech to the packed galleries, who hung breathless on every dulcet tone that fell from that member's lips. He does not, I guess, recall the memorable remarks that I made to this chamber on introduction, in which I said — and I know he was listening raptly because I saw his eyelids drooping — that

[ Page 7202 ]

I was going to make these provisions retroactive to April 17. That is the very reason why we have on the order paper the amendment to section 126, which will be 126(2). I can tell him yes, we are and always intended to make 79(5) come into force April 17, 1985. So I thank him for supporting me.

Section 79 as amended approved.

Sections 80 to 85 inclusive approved.

On section 86.

MR. LAUK: I've read the decision with respect to the striking down of the old section of the Motor Vehicle Act, Mr. Chairman, and there is a disagreement with respect to legal opinion on that decision of the court — and I forget the name of the decision — as to whether or not this amendment solves the problem. Is the Attorney-General satisfied that he's acting on the best legal advice?

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes, the Robson case is the case that dealt with this section. The basis upon which the old legislation violated the Charter was that it dealt with the language of "reason to suspect" that alcohol had been consumed, and the court of appeal felt that it was far too vague a basis on which to utilize this section. So we have replaced that with the language, which is really Code language, "reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the driver's ability is affected by alcohol, " which is in keeping not only with Code language but also with another subsection of our breathalyser legislation, which the court referred to as being okay. So we're really complying totally with the court of appeal's direction to us. Instead of appealing further and wasting court time, we're doing it this way.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Section 86 approved.

On section 87.

MR. LAUK: This section, as I understand it, Mr. Chairman, disallows non-Canadians from serving as elected municipal officials and school trustees, which some of us think is long overdue. Or am I jumping the gun here? Is it section 89 I'm talking about?

My understanding is that the effect of these amendments will disallow non-Canadian citizens from running in municipal elections. That's fine, but I want to know what provision has been made. What is the status of the non-Canadians currently elected when this section comes into force? Are they disbarred from office, and does that mean that there must be by-elections to replace them? A minister of the Crown over here says yes, that's true. Does the minister know how many non-Canadians there are who will not be able to run again because of this change? I mean, what is the work-up on this section? Am I just anticipating non-problems? How many non-Canadians hold office now? Will there be by-elections, or is there something to grandfather them in for at least the term that people have elected them for?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, I don't think it's a non-concern. We have a committee now with the Union of B.C. Municipalities that is looking precisely at that. It's not our intention to proclaim that section until we're assured that we're not going to evict someone from office by the operation of the statute.

AN HON. MEMBER: Regardless of political party are you going to put that in?

HON. MR. SMITH: Do I have to go that far? Yes, regardless of stripe. It is not the intention of this legislation to remove somebody presently in office. It is the intention of the legislation to make Canadian citizenship the sole test in the future, next time at the polls. This legislation has been expected and recommended by all sorts of people for some years, and it still has to be brought into force with a transition period. So we won't proclaim that section until we are assured that there are not office-holders still affected.

Sections 87 to 92 inclusive approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has some question as to whether the question was put on the amendment to section 79. The Chair would ask: was the amendment to 79 passed?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

Sections 93 to 119 inclusive approved.

On section 120.

HON. MR. SMITH: I'm happy to advise the member for New Westminster that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Segarty) warmly supported the deletion of section 120. Indeed, I think the member was right, that it was something inappropriate for a Charter bill. It had been slipped in here somehow as a staff wish-list thing which really had nothing to do with the Charter. So it is going out, and we're delighted you brought it to our attention.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, under those circumstances I gather the government will be voting against section 120. I would like to say, on behalf of a lot of widows, thank you very much for tolerating my speech.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: On a point of order, the amendment on the order paper is to delete section 120. Section 120 in the bill says section 6(11) is repealed. Is it in order to move the amendment, or is it necessary simply to vote against section 120 as printed?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment to section 120 is out of order, so there will be no vote to the amendment on section 120.

Section 120 negatived.

Sections 121 to 125 inclusive approved.

On section 126.

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

Amendment approved.

[ Page 7203 ]

Section 126 as amended approved.

MR. LAUK: I forgot to ask a question under section 126. Is the government enabled by that section to proclaim some sections and not others? Is that the interpretation of proclamation?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Bill 33, Charter of Rights Amendments Act, 1985, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Committee on Bill 70, Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 4), 1985

The House in committee on Bill 70; Mr. Ree in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved..

On section 3.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 3 as amended approved.

MR. WILLIAMS: This raises the whole question of tree-farm licences, and the abandonment of some parts of tree-farm licences in the province — or all of them. It begs the question of desirability and the question of obligation with respect to some of these matters. We have tree-farm licences in this province that have been grossly mismanaged. That has been documented. Independent foresters have reviewed the activities of both licence-holders and the ministry, and have concluded that there has been serious mismanagement and frequent breaking of the rules and laws with respect to management requirements on those lands. There clearly should be severe penalties and obligations and requirements in terms of the process. The Crown has granted significant public assets to these companies. We are talking about millions of acres of land. When these lands are mismanaged, that leaves a terrible obligation on the public, the Crown, the people of British Columbia, to clean up the mess.

That's precisely the case in the northwestern part of the province, on the tree-farm licence controlled by Westar, which is a subsidiary of B.C. Resources Investment Corp., a creature of this government. An independent forester, Mr. Herb Hammond, an RPF, studied what had happened to TFL 1. He concluded that there had been a high-grading pattern of development on that TFL. He said that Westar had harvested primarily the most accessible, good-quality timber and had left the poorer-quality timber behind. He said, further, that substantial amounts of merchantable timber had been left to deteriorate on the ground. He said that the annual allowable cut permitted by the Ministry of Forests had been manipulated to permit Westar to accelerate its harvesting of the good quality timber while at the same time ignoring the poorer quality and less accessible stands. He also said that reforestation obligations had not been fulfilled, to the extent that the process of regenerating much of the area which had been denuded was eight years behind schedule. Studies by the Ministry of Forests with respect to silvicultural activities on that tree-farm licence came to the conclusion that between 1970 and 1983 there were 4,100 hectares harvested but a modest amount planted — only 1,100 hectares, plus 500 hectares of natural regeneration, with the effect that 2,500 hectares were left denuded or NSR land. Sixty percent of the land that this corporation was responsible for managing was left in bad condition — non-satisfactorily restocked land, a legacy of weeds in terms of their activities, or non-activities, on that tree-farm licence. Is it any wonder that the ombudsman concluded, after reviewing that work and the files of the Ministry of Forests and their professionals, that it was doubtful whether in fact there was any economic value left with respect to significant parts of the tree-farm licence.

[3:45]

So we now face the prospect of having these lands returned to the Crown, to the most compliant minister in the history of this province — getting rid of their junk problems and their obligations. There are no satisfactory statute requirements for dealing with these matters. All of the options are essentially with the minister in terms of living with the denuded landscape and accepting the tremendous soil erosion and degradation problems in huge regions of the province, such as the Nass basin and elsewhere. The companies are able to run off and carry on investing in North Sea oil, or wherever else they might choose to do so, as BCRIC has done. The prospect is there, Mr. Chairman, of these companies having millions of acres of land available to them that they can high grade — abuse the standards, ignore the laws, not obey the rules, not reforest — and then dump them back in the public sector, with us having to deal with the mess. That prospect is there in that tree-farm licence in the northwest, and it's there elsewhere as well, It's not acceptable that there are no significant obligatory requirements in terms of this process, in order to save the public from huge future expenses resulting from abuse of the land by corporations which leave much to be desired in their managerial and business skills and, clearly, in their silvicultural and forestry skills.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

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

Introduction of Bills

EQUITY INVESTMENT PLAN ACT

Hon. Mr. Curtis presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Equity Investment Plan Act.

[ Page 7204 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Bill 73, Mr. Speaker, is an important component of this government's continuing commitment to economic renewal for the province of B.C. and for its citizens. The bill presents a program that will encourage British Columbians to make equity investments in companies carrying on business essentially in British Columbia. The program will also provide an impetus to the level of financial activity taking place in B.C. — activity which is growing quite significantly, Mr. Speaker — and provide better access by firms with a British Columbia presence to equity financing. This equity investment plan bears further witness to the government's commitment to enhancing the development of Vancouver as a leading financial centre, in fact the leading financial centre in western Canada.

The equity investment plan will provide investors with a cash payment of 25 percent of the cost of eligible newly issued shares to an annual maximum of $2,500. Each investor may earn these incentives on $10,000 of eligible equity purchases in each year the plan operates. The incentive is repayable to the government on a pro-rata basis when the investor sells his shares up to the limit of the incentive originally advanced. If share prices advance, individual investors will earn the profits and the full amount of the incentive will be repaid to the government. If the share prices fall, the government will share in the loss by forgoing repayment of 25 percent of the share price decline.

The plan will be available to firms that meet certain tests which will be very rigidly prescribed by regulation. These tests will ensure the new equity raised through the plan benefits British Columbia firms, investors and employment.

Mr. Speaker, I see that the light is on with respect to the time allotted for first reading comments. I look forward to second reading debate, but I move now that the bill be introduced and read a first time.

Motion approved.

Bill 73 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 7, Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 4), 1985

The House in committee on Bill 70; Mr. Ree in the chair.

On section 3 as amended.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister has some obligation to discuss this section and the problems or lack thereof as he perceives them.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'd be very pleased to discuss this section if the member would like to address some comment to this section.

Section 3 as amended approved.

Sections 4 to 7 inclusive approved.

On section 8.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, this is one of a number of sections handling certain finance proposals in the same way. Normally tax changes come into effect on midnight of the day that the budget is presented. These particular changes say that the tax change comes into effect the day after the budget was presented. I'm wondering whether it's correcting a mistake in drafting at the time the budget was presented and the legislation was introduced; or is it that the government didn't decide until the date this bill was introduced just when they intended these particular provisions to come into effect?

HON. MR. SMITH: I'm advised that these amendments were required as a result of a court decision, but mostly to validate assessments that were made before the budget. That's their purpose. They are assessments before the budget. They are not reaching back retrospectively; they're validating prior assessments.

MR. STUPICH: I know the Attorney-General is having a bit of difficulty with this. I just wonder why the original legislation which this is correcting did not specify the date at that time. Why did it take this long to decide what date we wanted these to come into effect when, as I say, finance legislation changes normally become effective on the day the budget is presented?

HON. MR. SMITH: Really, it was simply to correct a drafting error. The previous draft referred to "before the coming into force of this section" and we're substituting "subsection." We're not doing anything more here. There was a drafting problem arising out of a court decision, and we're not changing the policy or suddenly moving in a new direction.

MR. STUPICH: I suggested that one possibility for an answer is that it's correcting a drafting error, and that's fine. That's what the Attorney-General has intimated.

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

On section 10.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) is not here. I have a question under section 10, and section 10 does relate to highways. Perhaps the Attorney-General can deal with this briefly.

As I read it, this section would possibly — I'm not sure; this is why I'm on my feet asking the question — deny the public access to roads that are funded by taxpayers for construction purposes. While I have a quick look at this, I wonder if the minister could advise me. I'm very much aware that certain logging roads are declared open to the public at certain times — during the day usually, weekends, these kinds of things — when they're not in use or if they're not in a dangerous condition, even though they had been built by private companies but at taxpayers' expense through writeoffs under section 88 of the Forest Act. Would the public have access to and full use of these roads that are paid for by taxpayers' funds?

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, I guess it's true that that is one of the consequences of such an amendment, but the purpose of the amendment isn't to deny access, because there isn't access now in the sense that the member means it. There isn't

[ Page 7205 ]

the right of access on these roads, because they are now private roads. What it does is permit the government to spend money on the construction or improvement of private roads — resource roads, roads that will create jobs in your riding, hon. member, for logging or mining, or for other resource-industrial purposes. Once those public moneys are spent, that doesn't then convert them — if these amendments are passed — into public roads under the Highway Act. If they are converted into public roads, it means of course that the Crown then has to maintain them and has a liability to control and operate them. We want to assist in the opening up of mines and other industries without taking on the charge of maintaining these roads as public highways. I think it's almost axiomatic in this province that private users — certainly in most cases — do make these roads available after hours.

[4:00]

It's a resource-development initiative. There's a trade-off in it, isn't there? I mean, we want to have the industrial opportunity and encourage mines to open up. We're particularly interested now, for instance, in the Mount Klappan project, and in the Serem project as well. These projects require the borrowing of moneys to expend on roads and other public works, but we don't want to take over the operation and maintenance of them and have them forever as a public highway. It's a trade-off.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: On this same point, Mr. Chairman. I'm not quite satisfied with that answer, because we now have a situation, and my riding is a good example, where the public has access on roads where Highways are not liable, financially or in any other way, for maintenance or snow-clearing or anything — on logging roads primarily.

I may have misunderstood you, Mr. Minister, but I understood you to say that where public moneys are expended in a different way, such as your proposed mineral roads into the Klappan coal area, the public would not have access even though public funds have been expended. I strongly feel that the public should, since it is public funds, and the Ministry of Highways would in no way be liable for snow-clearing or maintenance or anything else, as in other roads of this nature.

HON. MR. ROGERS: In this particular section, if you look in the explanatory section, it says: "Consequential amendment to section 11 of this act." It should read: "section 12 of this act." That is a section that we will be coming to, and if you'd like, I will speak to you about that section. But the object of that section dovetails very nicely with this one. It's explained there. This part is consequential to it.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I accept the minister's explanation, but before we pass this portion.... Because we can't back up when we're dealing in committee stage with these acts — we can't go back to 10. What if I don't accept the explanation?

AN HON. MEMBER: You will. You're a very reasonable member.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, I'm trying to be. I'm not hollering or anything right now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Can we have assurance that when public money is being spent on public roads, the public will have access? I look forward to the explanation of section 12.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, you cannot have that assurance, but I'm glad that the minister who really has charge of this matter was here to draw your attention to section 12. The explanation of section 12 that he'll give, the reason why that's needed.... It is a requirement under section 9, if we're going to take that route to provide for financing of private road development for those purposes. I think there is a requirement that, consequentially, the immunity from being under the Highways Act with those obligations has to flow. We just do not have the resources to take over the responsibility for all these roads simply because of the provision of some funding — not the provision of funding to maintain them or for all the construction, but any funding provision under the old act would, as I understand it, render it a public road.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I think that we'll likely get some clarification when we get to section 12. Nonetheless, I would like to have it on record that I'm opposed to the spending of public funds for these purposes, if the public has no access on these properties and on these roads, because it is public money, Mr. Chairman.

Section 10 approved on a division.

Section 11 approved.

On section 12.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I undertook to explain to the member what this particular section is about. If you recall the gold property in the Toodoggone area proposed by a French consortium of a company by the name of Serem, that's the reason for this particular section more than anything else. When the company asked government for assistance on its various developments, we proposed — instead of giving them a grant, which would have been normal in some circumstances — to cover the taxpayers' investment in it by putting in a rather complicated formula which tied a payback to the price of gold. Where the price of gold accelerates, there is payback of this loan. Under the existing provisions, we didn't have the right to make a loan.

In terms of access to the road, the public isn't the big problem. The problem is: if I'm going to get one company to pay for the road, then we'll have to work out a formula. If somebody else discovers another property in the immediate area, why should the first company necessarily do it? So, it's a mineral access road, and it's our intention to allow mineral-staking people to go in there, people who want to go in on a recreational basis, but not on a commercial basis. If someone wishes to use it as a fuel-haul road for their mining development, then the other companies.... We're going to have to work out a little deal, because the money has been advanced by the first company.

Under this agreement with Ottawa we don't have the provisions to be able to make loans to companies for the road purposes, and that's what this section is for. It allows us to make a loan because it's repayable on that complicated schedule. I'll send you a copy of the schedule if you like. If you recall, as the price of gold goes up the rate of repayment

[ Page 7206 ]

comes back quite substantially. There was a floor in there of about $3.20 U.S. per ounce. So that's what it's all about. It's not our intention to restrict the use of the road by prospectors, or even by recreationists, but it is our intention to make sure that industrial people do it. So I think that explanation will assist you.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, I do accept the minister's response on sections 10, 11 and 12. It is on record, and I'm satisfied with that.

Sections 12 to 28 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Bill 70, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 4), 1985, reported complete with amendment.

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

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

Leave granted.

Bill 70, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 4), 1985, read a third time and passed.

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

FAMILY LAW REFORM AMENDMENTS ACT, 1985

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

Sections 1 to 11 inclusive approved.

On section 12.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, in section 12 it says: "For the purposes of locating and apprehending a child in accordance with an order under section 1, a peace officer may enter and search any place where he has reasonable and probable grounds for believing the child may be...." I'd like to know if I can have some type of definition that would cover "reasonable and probable grounds." Who would set those standards?

HON. MR. SMITH: The court in looking at the lawfulness of the seizure later would determine whether there were reasonable and probable grounds. If you were a person who had no contact with that child or with those parents and just happened to be in the line of fire, they couldn't enter your premises and start searching it for the child. But suppose there was information given by a neighbour that the child had been seen in your house, and that evidence had been given to the police; then that would be a reasonable ground to go and make search and seizure for the child. But the court would determine whether there were reasonable and probable grounds.

Unfortunately it's lawyers' language, and the rest of the world finds it hard to understand. Lawyers craft fees in trying to interpret it. But an example of how that language is used in another area is with the breathalyser. If I am a policeman, and you are driving your car home to your relaxing abode in Surrey, I can't just poke my schnozzle in your windshield and say: "I am going to give you a breathalyser because I feet like giving you a breathalyser." I would have to at least note that your conjunctiva was suffused or that you had a distinct stench of alcohol on your breath, or something like that, so I would have reasonable grounds then to say that I was making a demand on you to come down and blow in this little instrument. But I couldn't just do it on caprice. I can't just do it because I say: "There's Mrs. So-and-So. I don't like her." I have to have some reasonable and probable ground that there is a basis for it. But have I helped you or have I merely confused you?

[4:15]

Sections 12 to 16 inclusive approved.

On section 17.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, a case arising out of this kind of situation arose. I brought it to the attention of the Attorney-General's ministry. This was a case involving circumstances which I have been informed have since been resolved satisfactorily to the parties. But it arose when a Canadian couple who had been living in Seattle separated, and the wife returned to British Columbia with the children and sought an order for custody in our family courts. An order was granted by a judge.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

In the meantime, even though there was some evidence that the husband-father was aware that the order for custody in British Columbia had been made.... Even though the husband-father in Seattle had some notice, it was believed, that an order for custody had been made in a British Columbia court, he sought a divorce, and although he had evidence of his wife's address in British Columbia, he substitutionally served his wife and obtained an order for divorce custody of the children then with the wife in British Columbia. He crossed the border and went before the family court — a different judge — and obtained an order enforcing his Washington state order, and with the cooperation of the Port Moody and city of Vancouver police went to the address, scooped up the children and took them across the border to Seattle.

Now there are two problems there, and the reply I received from the Ministry of the Attorney-General is not in any way satisfactory. The first problem is: why isn't there some system in place so that judges of the same family court division are aware of previous orders? The offices of the court should have some kind of filing system that would have brought to the attention of the second family court judge that a previous order of that division had been made and that it conflicted with the Washington order. There's a provision for resolving that problem. The resolution of that problem does

[ Page 7207 ]

not mean enlisting the support of the police in carrying out the Washington order.

The second issue, just as grave, is that when the mother brought to the attention of the police and showed the police the order of the family court division granting her custody, they proceeded to enforce the Washington order in any event. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the Attorney-General should implement guidelines for the police in enforcing such orders. Where there is clear evidence of a conflict in the order, they should suspend their operation to enforce and seek guidance from Crown counsel or the Attorney-General's office or the family court division. As I say, this situation seems to have been satisfactorily resolved, but more serious situations can clearly arise, and I ask what the Attorney-General's policy is with respect to it.

HON. MR. SMITH: Not knowing this complaint or having seen this file, it's hard to give him a good response. In that case it seems that there was probably bare compliance with section 22 as to notice but that no notice was given to the wife. It also seems that the lack of a data system between various provincial branches of the family court has created a problem here and has alerted us to a problem. So I don't think that all those problems are solved by these amendments. I'm not even sure that the amendments particularly bear on those problems. They're problems of data gathering and problems of giving notice and proper enforcement. They're not so much legislative problems.

MR. LAUK: But seeing we're on the issue, what policy decision has the Attorney-General made to make sure that a similar situation does not arise?

HON. MR. SMITH: I can't say any more other than that I will personally look at it. It's never been brought to my attention before, and I would want to investigate the circumstances before I gave any assurances as to what we would do in future policy.

MR. LAUK: I'm hurt, Mr. Chairman. I thought that every letter of inquiry from an MLA was dealt with by the minister himself.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I sent it to the ministry, to the Attorney-General.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, along the same lines, and I'm not sure if the minister will recall. I know I had long conversations with the previous minister in that ministry. It was a similar case to the one my colleague referred to. In this particular case there was a divorce, the wife got custody of the child, she then married a member of the armed forces and moved out to British Columbia. The father went to the New Brunswick court and got another order for custody. He came out to British Columbia and went to the supreme court and had it endorsed. On that endorsement the RCMP went to the school and picked up the child and then they got on a plane and flew back. Parents do have a right to make an application for custody, but I feel that where the police or any authority comes in and seizes a child in another province, the child should at least be held somewhere so that the other parent can have an opportunity to review the facts and review the application that was made.

In this particular case that I'm referring to, when they went back to New Brunswick they found that the application had been falsely made, but it still cost that family $12,000 — $12,000 from a family that could not afford it — to fly back and forth and to take legal action within the courts in New Brunswick. I can understand two parents fighting over a child. But I feel that the courts and the Attorney-General's office and society as a whole must take some strong stand. If a child is picked up by the police from school, the parent who has custody of the child and who has been looking after it and sending that child to school should at least be notified before the child is allowed to be taken out of the country. The previous Attorney-General assured me that he was looking at that, and he was going to bring in something that he thought would stop that abuse. I can't see anything in the present amendments that is going to stop it.

We have the police getting involved in custody cases in which you really need someone to sit down and negotiate, a marital counsellor. These children are not runaways who should come under the jurisdiction of the police; they're not criminals. But they become footballs in a marital problem. I feel that there has to be some protection. It doesn't matter if it's a wife or a husband; when either partner has taken the responsibility of looking after that child in the jurisdiction of British Columbia, even if it has been done illegally, they should have a chance to review the information that is being submitted to get that order, so that the child is not just taken out of the country. I can agree with the Attorney-General that you can take that child back to the wife and say: "Now settle it out." But I feet that if the child is picked up on an order by the police, or any authority, the child should at least be held in some sort of holding-place until both parties have a chance to review it.

I feel that the whole issue — the costs, the emotional problems that occur within families and to a child who is plucked out of school.... He has gone to school with his lunch bucket full, and at 10 o'clock the police come in; they pick him up, turn him over to this father, and he's rushed out to Pat Bay and flown out of the province. This is something that's going to live with that child for the rest of his life. I feel that the ministry has a responsibility to look at this seriously, and come up with some protection for the children and the families involved.

Section 17 approved.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, aren't we going to have any answer from the Attorney-General? Has he...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member wasn't recognized. However, the Attorney-General may wish to reply. Section 17 has passed.

HON. MR. SMITH: I don't know what answer he expects. With all these jurisdictional problems on custody, where orders from one jurisdiction are brought in and children are swooped up, it really depends on.... There's legislation here now that should protect people who have the child here; but sometimes it doesn't. The only improvement I can suggest that I might make is to add the notice requirement under section 22 of the Family Relations Act, to include this new part that we're adding for extraterritorial orders, so that

[ Page 7208 ]

if you had the situation that the member for Vancouver Centre described — somebody comes down here to have a child scooped up on a Seattle order — it just could not happen without notice and the other spouse who had the child having a chance to have the matter contested in court. I will certainly put in for an amendment — if my friend on the other side will agree to leave for a floor amendment — which will make the notice provisions apply to the interprovincial, interjurisdictional sections we've put in now. It's probably a good idea. That will help somewhat. But there is still no substitute for vigilance, for courts being properly informed, and everybody doing their job. No legislation, I guess, can ensure all that. But the notice provisions might help. I'll be glad to propose that, if you agree.

MR. MITCHELL: I think that would be a step in the right direction. I can see that where either parent comes in and picks the child up on his own and flees, but where the courts, the police or some authority have been involved, there should be something in the notice — before they give up jurisdiction. If the police have picked up the child, before they give up jurisdiction they should hold that child in the name of the parent until the other parent is notified.

[4:30]

If the minister can give me assurance that somewhere in the regulations, where other authorities are brought in, notice and that information have to be passed on to the other parent, so we just don't have someone scooped out of the country.... Then, you know, all the legal and emotional problems, and the costs that go to families — they just can't afford it.

In my particular riding I do have a lot of armed forces people who travel back and forth from one coast to the other. They have the same problems with domestics as the rest of the community. Seattle is close compared to Nova Scotia. I'd like some assurance that this is seen as a problem. Could the minister do it with regulations or instructions or memos? Both parties should be notified in all cases where authorities are brought into it.

Sections 18 to 23 inclusive approved.

On section 24.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 24 as amended approved.

Sections 25 to 28 inclusive approved.

On section 29.

MR. REYNOLDS: I just wonder if the Attorney-General could explain. It says: "Arrears of payment under a maintenance order, in an amount not exceeding one year's maintenance at the current rate, have priority over other judgment debts...." Can he explain that to me in simple language and not the legal language?

HON. MR. SMITH: It simply gives the one-year default of arrears top precedence that we're able to give it in terms of a debt under provincial law. It wouldn't take priority over the trustee in bankruptcy in federal legislation, but it would take precedence over other forms of secured creditor, unless it was a statutory secured creditor under the Parliament of Canada's legislation. Garnishing orders and anything else would all be second to that 12-month arrears. That is predicated on the notion that was in the common law for a long time: that you shouldn't be enforcing these arrears beyond 12 months. You shouldn't be reaching back to wipe somebody out; 12 months is as far as you should go. So I think it's reasonable that the debt priority, in any event, reaches only 12 months.

MR. REYNOLDS: I'm just wondering if the Attorney-General could tell me what research has gone into seeing how this will really work in practice. I'm thinking of a lot of cases where the woman or the man who is receiving maintenance needs the money, and it's a problem. There are a number of cases where maybe they don't need the money, where both parties have their own means. I'm wondering what effect that's going to have on people when they go to get credit, if you're a separated person. This can be used against anybody wanting to lend you money.

It may make it a lot more difficult for those people to borrow money if they know that their debt is not secured. A maintenance payment gets a first claim against it and even if it's only a year, if it's a $300-a-month payment, that's $3,600 that's going to go to one party before any other debtor can be looked after.

HON. MR. SMITH: I think that's true, that it would to that extent. But in the case that you mentioned of arrears that aren't justified or aren't needed, you can under this act apply not only to vary the maintenance order but to vary the maintenance owing in arrears on the grounds.... Say the wife's status completely changed and you had no notification of that change of status. Say instead of needing $500 a month, she now needs only $100 or $200 because her status has changed totally — remarried with a job — and she hadn't disclosed any of that, and you were in bad straits or your family budget was stretched. You could then make this application on the form to enforce the arrears or you could answer it there or you could go in yourself and endeavour to vary that 12-month arrears on the grounds that that order never should have been made against you, that it should be wiped out or should be reduced considerably. It is true that it can form a charge over other unsecured debts.

MR. REYNOLDS: If a person wanted to do that, does the Crown support him with legal aid in any way? I know at one time the first party that wanted to claim used to get free legal help, and the other side didn't. I'm wondering if that's still taking place.

HON. MR. SMITH: That would depend on your meeting the needs criteria. If you were a male spouse in straitened circumstances, I am happy to say you would still have the same rights to legal aid as the female spouse. If you met those eligibility requirements, you could get legal aid.

Section 29 approved.

On section 30.

[ Page 7209 ]

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

Amendment approved.

Section 30 as amended approved.

Sections 31 to 33 inclusive approved.

On section 34.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 34 as amended approved.

Sections 35 to 37 inclusive approved.

On section 37.1.

HON. MR. SMITH: On section 37.1, I would move the amendment that you have notice of, which amends section 22(2) of the Family Relations Act by striking out the words "this part" and substituting "this part or part 2. 1" This would have the effect of making the notice provisions available in those cases involving enforcement of custody orders under the uniform custody jurisdiction part of the act; that is, from other provinces.

Amendment approved.

Section 37.1 as amended approved.

Sections 38 to 40 inclusive 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.

Bill 34, Family Law Reform Amendments Act, 1985, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Committee on Bill 47, Mr. Speaker.

NOTARIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

The House in committee on Bill 47; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 10 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 47, Notaries Amendment Act, 1985, reported complete without amendment.

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

HON. MR. SMITH: With leave now.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

Bill 47, Notaries Amendment Act, 1985, read a third time and passed.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I heard the minister request leave. I didn't see any amendments to that bill, and I was just wondering why he requested leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave was not required.

[4:45]

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call committee on Bill 57.

COURT ORDER ENFORCEMENT
AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

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

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Bill 57, Court Order Enforcement Amendment Act, 1985, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT (No. 1), 1985

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

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

HON. MR. SMITH: I move the amendment section 3.1 standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Section 3.1 approved.

[ Page 7210 ]

Sections 4 to 7 inclusive approved.

HON. MR. SMITH: I move first of all, the amendment section 7.1 standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Section 7.1 approved.

HON. MR. SMITH: I also move the second amendment, wrongly numbered 7.1, which should be numbered 7.2, standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

I'll read that out for clarification. The second amendment I'm moving will be 7.2, reading: "Section 220.2(l) is amended by repealing paragraphs (a) and (b) and substituting 'within the preceding two hours committed an offence under section 220.1" That amendment will correct the court decision that struck down the provincial breathalyser legislation.

Section 7.2 approved.

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Bill 58, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 1), 1985, reported complete with amendments.

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

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

Leave granted.

Bill 58, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 1), 1985, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 67, Mr. Speaker.

FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARDS ACT

The House in committee on Bill 67; Mr. Ree in the chair.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

Schedule approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Bill 67, Foreign Arbitral Awards Act, reported complete without amendment.

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

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

Leave granted.

Bill 67, Foreign Arbitral Awards Act, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 66, Mr. Speaker.

REAL ESTATE AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1985

The House in committee; Mr. Ree in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. MITCHELL: I have a concern about this, Mr. Chairman, and it's the idea of getting rid of the prospectus and substituting a letter. I'm quite sure the minister is aware of the problem I'm going to bring to his attention.

Where a prospectus has been issued and people have bought property and built homes, then would the prospectus, even after it has been vetted and endorsed and stamped by the real estate section of his ministry.... If the company goes broke, goes bankrupt, then that prospectus, even when it has been checked out, is unenforceable. People have bought property, have built their homes — these homes are anywhere from $100,000 to $200,000 — and access that was guaranteed in the prospectus was never lived up to.

What I'm really worried about is that we're even getting away from the prospectus. The developer can file a letter, but when it's stamped.... I quite believe it's going to be stamped; that neither the superintendent of insurance nor any other authority of the government of the province of British Columbia has in any way passed on the merits of the matter dealt with in this disclosure statement. This disclosure statement has been filed with the superintendent of insurance, but he has not determined whether or not it complies with part 2 of the Real Estate Act. From a legal point of view, that may be excellent for getting out of something, but what happens is that when people receive a prospectus, they still want to believe what the real estate salesman, or the person who was looking after this particular sale, has told them. I can understand the need to speed up the various red tape that goes into opening up a piece of property. I can understand something of this nature where it's a small subdivision in an area like a municipality or a city where all the services are in — roads, sewers and power. But in a general rural area such as my riding encompasses, there is danger in not having some protection for the consumer. It's the consumer who buys the property because he has been told that certain things will come into effect. He eventually receives a prospectus, but does this prospectus give him the real protection of the prospectus that was filed before, endorsed and stamped and given approval by the ministry?

[ Page 7211 ]

This is the part that bothers me. If it was to be used for small subdivisions in areas within a city and was done to speed up the procedure, I could understand it. But I have real reservations that this will become the norm and people will get a prospectus that can say nearly anything, but if they don't read all the small print, they are going to be left with something without the enforcement or the assurance that the ministry's stamp of approval used to give it.

I understand; it's a good legal out. But can we afford legal outs when we're protecting consumers? I would ask the minister if he would comment on it. The other section later on is the section dealing with the three days for the prospectus.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the member's concern. Perhaps without going beyond section 2, I would say that if you're concerned about consumer protection, there is a notification on the disclosure statement advising the consumer that the disclosure statement has been received and filed but not vetted. So that's a warning, if you will, to look closely before you sign. Secondly there is a recision period that was not there before, which allows the consumers three days to, let's say, consider or reconsider the decision with regard to this real estate transaction, and advise the vendor that they're not prepared to go ahead. And finally, of course, the penalties have been increased substantially to those people who commit an offence, which would be in effect filing a misleading statement which misled the purchaser. If they do that they have committed an offence, and the penalties, as you will see in another section, are fairly severe.

In most cases we find that because of the delays in vetting all these prospectuses that we have — in many cases other approving authorities are there now with regard to subdivisions within municipalities, etc. — we see great delays and lost opportunities for financing, and as a result this allows for speeding up the transaction to get the properties available for purchase and still notify the consumer what the development entails. This disclosure statement is available to them.

I give you those three things that make the consumer aware: one is the notification on the disclosure statement that it has not been vetted but received and filed; another is the recision period to give them an opportunity to reconsider; and finally the penalty should the developer mislead the consumer.

[5:00]

MR. MITCHELL: Yes, I understand.... The only thing I can really say is that the penalty has been greatly increased. But a lot of this property is recreation property. People get out and look at some property beside a lake or beside a stream or even, if they're lucky enough, on salt water. They want that. They can see all these wonderful opportunities. The prospectus doesn't always come up to what the person who is selling it.... It's not always real estate firms, Mr. Chairman; a lot of the biggest offenders are private developers who have 100 acres that they want to chop up into lots and make a quick buck on. The average person, when he goes out, remembers what he's told. But he reads all this legal garbage that will be stamped.... Again, I don't know what size it will be on the prospectus — it may be in small print at the bottom of the page. One should also have in there in large type: "Read it — read it two or three times. This is the final document." Now the minister spoke about the three days. That comes under section 7. Would it be better if I waited until section 7 and dealt with that section? He brought it up.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: Well, he brought section 7 up, not me.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond so the member will have.... I think he has raised his concern, and I just want to give him some information that may put his mind a little more at ease.

We are the only province in Canada that requires a real estate prospectus to be filed. In many cases, all those other approvals that you go through with regards to a subdivision and putting it on the market are the check and balance that is required across Canada. As I say, here we are finding delays that in many cases are unnecessary and cause further problems for both the developer and potential purchasers.

The other concern that the member mentioned, I believe, was small print — consumers not being able to understand the disclosure statement that is available to them. A standard form will be prescribed by my ministry so that there will be no fine print or documents that are difficult to read. It will be a standard form that all developers will have to file with us.

Sections 2 to 6 inclusive approved.

On section 7.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, I also have concerns about the three days after you receive the prospectus. Now the seven days that you have after signing the agreement and after listening to the salesman, whoever it may be, does give you a certain amount of time to digest what you've done. But what happens is that you receive a prospectus, and, even if it is sent out on Monday, by the time it is mailed and hits the post office, you're lucky if you get it by Wednesday. The average person gets a prospectus, he comes home from work, he reads it, and in many cases he is still excited about buying this property. By the time he reads the prospectus and understands that maybe what is in the prospectus is not what he was told when he was out looking at the property.... By the time he understands that and contacts a lawyer, if he has read it Wednesday night, it's Thursday by the time he gets an appointment with the lawyer, and the three days are up.

Why cut it down to three days? Why not leave it at seven days? It gives a person a chance to sit down in the quiet of his home, to read the prospectus and to understand it. If he feels that there has been some discrepancy between what he was told out on the property and what is in the prospectus that he may receive three or four weeks later, the three days really doesn't give a person a chance to go over it. I don't think another four days, a whole week, is going to stop any development. It is not going to stop any financing. It is just going to give that extra protection to the consumer that three days does not give.

As I say, I'm saying that he gets it on the Wednesday. If he gets it Thursday or Friday, by the time he goes through it and gets a lawyer to explain what he has signed.... I know if I made an amendment, the minister wouldn't accept it. I sincerely ask the minister to look at that section and consider making it seven days for everyone's protection. I think it gives a person a chance to review what he has been told and to

[ Page 7212 ]

understand it. I just don't want to see any consumer caught out on a limb because of the three days.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, for the record, although the member kept referring to a prospectus, I think he really meant the contract. The prospectus, that's just information. The recision period deals with after the contract is signed, when he then has second thoughts. He has already read the disclosure statement; he's made his decision to buy; now he has second thoughts. He has three days from then. And that's the difference. It's not the prospectus we're talking about; it's if he enters into an agreement — a signed document. It is a contract now; he has three days in which to change his mind. Under the present real estate legislation he has no dates. There is no recision period at all for transactions taking place inside of British Columbia. The seven-day cooling-off period, or recision period, that he has now deals with time-share and off-shore subdivision; that section still applies, Mr. Member.

MR. MITCHELL: No. Maybe, Mr. Chairman, you can confirm.... The way I read it, he has seven days after he's signed the contract, or he has three days after he receives the prospectus, whichever comes later. He signs the contract when he goes out; he's shown the land, and he wants it. He's happy. He signs the contract to buy it. He has seven days to get out of that. But then if he gets a prospectus, which often comes in the mail later on, he only has three days. He has three days after he gets that to decide if what he was told at the site is not exactly what is written in the prospectus; but he only has three days. As they say, it could be three weeks or a month later. I mean, there's seven days for changing his mind on the contract. Because he believed everything he was told, he's quite happy with the contract. But when he gets the prospectus, then he has three days from that date to change his mind, if he's not happy with what he reads in the prospectus. This is the part that bothers me. I don't think three days is enough, unless I'm reading it wrong.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, if you're looking under (d) of that section: when he received the copy of the prospectus.... So he has it in his hand; he has three days from then. As I said earlier, for land subdivided within the province, at this particular point he has no time at all. Because we've moved from the prospectus to a disclosure statement, we've added the protection of three days cooling off for the purchaser, because the document has not been vetted. But I can assure the member: if that is going to cause a concern after we put this legislation into place, we may consider moving it to a longer term. But at this point in time we were looking at the fact that there is nothing there now, and three days would be enough time for the person to reconsider if he so desires.

MR. MITCHELL: The minister seems to have missed the main point. Before, when you went to buy some property, they had to provide you with a prospectus before that land was allowed to be subdivided — before they could sell it. When you went out and you met with the real estate person, or anybody else, you were given a prospectus. Well, with the new procedure to speed it up, they can sell the land without a prospectus. All they have to do is file a letter; it's not vetted, it's not checked or anything else. But then the prospectus comes out after you have purchased. This is the part where the minister says that, yes, you don't get a prospectus afterwards, but you're provided with one before you purchase, under the present legislation. But with these amendments, you're not provided with that, because they are taking a shortcut. But then when you do get that.... I mean, it's good that at least you've got three days. But I don't think three days is enough, judging from some of the examples and some of the problems that come through my office. If you're going to give that protection, give it for long enough so that a person can sit down and digest it and can go and get their legal advice, and not get caught in three days. I don't think an extra four days will stop anything in this province. I ask the minister to give it consideration.

MR. COCKE: I just want to ask the minister a question. It strikes me that the three-day cooling-off period may give the.... Who's to say? But it strikes me, the way I read it, that the purchaser has the advantage, and the vendor is at a disadvantage, because, as the vendor, once having signed, you're done. The purchaser, on the other hand, has the advantage of the three-day proposition. So what was the feeling about that?

HON. MR. HEWITT: The member for New Westminster is correct. Under the present legislation there is no time for reconsideration. This was put into place because of moving to a disclosure statement.

At the present time — to try to get back and put the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew's mind at ease — if I'm given a prospectus now, I look at the prospectus, a very wordy document. I look at the land. I'm satisfied; I sign; I'm now committed, under the present system. Under these amendments I receive a disclosure statement, which meets a standard form by my ministry. It's certified to be true and correct, and if it is not, the developer may suffer the consequences, under the offence section. You would end up by receiving that disclosure statement, setting out all the same material that will be in a prospectus under the current system.... You end up by entering into the contract. Now we've said to protect the consumer, we're giving him three days to have an opportunity to reconsider should he so desire, which he doesn't have now. So I think if you were to look at this section, with the exception of what is vetted as opposed to what is not vetted, this is a greater protection for the consumer in getting out of the contract, should he have second thoughts, than the present act allows.

[5:15]

MR. COCKE: The only thing that I see that's a little bit hurtful here, or at least it could be, is that I'm the vendor and now they know what my price is. The consumer backs off and I'm stuck: you know, the whole world knows that there was a contract out there. So if you're selling a piece of property and you sign on the dotted line, you're committed; the consumer can back away from it, and everybody in the world knows that I took a $5,000 or a $10,000 drop on my.... Having lost a few dollars in that particular arena over the years — having gained a few, too, once in a while — I can see the timidity of a vendor in this situation.

MR. MITCHELL: I think everybody's losing track and thinking of their one little lot, but what we're looking at here is a subdivision. A subdivision in many cases.... Now maybe in New Westminster all the wild land is built on, but

[ Page 7213 ]

when you're putting in a subdivision, at the present time you have to have a prospectus. The person reads the prospectus and he understands what he is going to buy, and then he sells the contract. But here, with the changes, you do not have to provide the prospectus to rush through.

Now, I think it's important that the prospectus has to conform to what you are told by the super-salesman. The super-salesman could be the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), but it still has to conform with it. I say if it doesn't and it turns out, I think you need more time to.... If you're not going to give it to him first, which I agree with, the present principle....

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: I wouldn't buy off the member for New Westminster.

That is my concern, that you're changing the subdivision procedure. It's not a piece of property that we may sell as an individual.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I may comment so the member will know that we gave this considerable thought. You can see the division we have on the opposite side. The member for New Westminster recognizes the impact on the developer — the subdivider — should the consumer back out of a transaction, and the other member is concerned about the consumer. I can tell you that the industry was consulted in our deliberations on this, and we said to them in moving to this system we wanted to give the consumer some protection because of the prospectus system being dropped, and as a result they concurred and have accepted that type of approach.

Sections 7 to 12 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Bill 66, Real Estate Amendment Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill PR402, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE VANCOUVER CHARTER

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, this is a very straightforward piece of legislation. It has in essence been requested by the city of Vancouver. By and large they are administrative or housekeeping amendments. The one notable exception to mere housekeeping amendments would be with respect to the human rights enhancement of section 272. I don't think there's anything controversial there.

I move the bill be now read a second time.

MR. ROSE: I believe that our party has no difficulty in supporting the charter amendments. I too would like to call some attention to section 272(q) because I was just looking over the committee debate and I was looking for a resolution within the committee minutes that would indicate the dropping of the four final reasons for discrimination, or refusal of a business licence on the grounds thereof. I thought the four, courtesy of Your Honour, had been deleted. I find that now all my arguments have sort of gone out the window, and I'm put in a position of congratulating the committee for their wisdom of extending the rights beyond the B.C. Human Rights Act. So with great pleasure I support this particular amendment in section 5.

MR. PARKS: I move second reading.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Coquitlam-Moody on a point of order.

MR. ROSE: Before this is put.... Are we still in committee stage?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, we....

MR. ROSE: I can deal with it when it comes around to committee stage...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, and with the greatest respect....

MR. ROSE: ...however, apparently I was pointed out the wrong section. There was in fact an amendment which did not extend the rights of individuals against discrimination that there had been an amendment in the committee....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, there is no opportunity for a member to speak twice during second reading. Further, clearly what you're referring to is best decided in committee.

The question is second reading of Bill PR402.

Bill PR402, An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Interjections.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Are you burning to have 44?

Interjections.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I am prevailed upon, Mr. Speaker, to call committee on Bill 44.

VITAL STATISTICS AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

The House in committee on Bill 44; Mr. Ree in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the member for Burnaby Edmonds (Ms. Brown) has an amendment to section 2 on the order paper. Since she is not available, I would move an amendment to section 2, and the amendment which I will

[ Page 7214 ]

hand you is exactly the same amendment as is on the order paper — that is, delete "and her husband" after the words "by the mother" in line 7, 6(a)(ii). I gather that my colleague feels that there is a great advantage in doing this, and I would like to know whether the minister accepts that amendment, and if not, why not.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, no, I would not be prepared to accept the amendment. If I could just run over the circumstances as they exist at the present time and what this amendment to the Vital Statistics Act accomplishes, at the present time a child born to a married woman is required to be registered in the name of the husband or the father — let's say the husband to keep it easier. The amendment says that, where the wife and husband agree that the child should be named with the mother's name, that then would be permitted. The amendment as proposed by the member for New Westminster would eliminate the need for concurrence by the husband and would permit the mother to, on her own unilateral action, name the child after her. So what we would be doing, if we were to follow that amendment, is going from a compulsory situation now, where the child takes the name of the father, to a unilateral opportunity for one of the two, the mother, to have the child named after her without the concurrence of the husband. We would really not be farther ahead than where we are today, because it would then be the female spouse who would have the opportunity to make that unilateral decision.

At the present time it is the law that makes that decision unilaterally. As the amendment of section 2 now stands, I think it is a step forward and does provide the opportunity. Surely I would hope that if a child is to receive a surname, it is by agreement of the parents. So I couldn't accept the amendment as proposed.

MR. COCKE: Beautifully done. Well-expressed. But I would think probably that the idea behind this amendment is that it is maybe their turn.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 2 to 5 inclusive approved.

On section 6.

MRS. DAILLY: I'd like to canvass again with the minister an area that I know from checking over his remarks in Hansard on the second reading debate that he was very adamant about — that is, the whole area and matter of hyphenated names. I just want to say to the minister that I hope he had a good night's sleep and would maybe reconsider what I consider to be a somewhat obstinate stand — may I dare to say to the minister — on this matter of the hyphenated name.

I want to give you an example of what MLAs find themselves up against because the minister refuses to allow this. I've had people come into my office in Burnaby who have registered their first-born with a hyphenated name, say, in Alberta, where it's allowed. They come to British Columbia and they can't name their subsequent children with the same surname because it's hyphenated and is not going to be done according to the minister in British Columbia.

I know some of his reasons are fairly valid, but on the other hand, considering the distress and concern that this could cause a number of people. It seems a bit ridiculous to me when in one province you can go and have the child's name hyphenated and in another you can't. I was wondering if the minister would seriously give consideration to this. These people are saying to me: "I guess I won't even have my baby born in British Columbia. I'm going to go to Alberta and have the child born there." If it means that much to them, why are we making such a thing about insisting that we will not allow the hyphenated name?

[5:30]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, it is an area of argument, and there are strong opinions put on both sides of the argument. At the present time in British Columbia, we simply do not accommodate the hyphenated name.

What I will say to the member and others is that I will listen to the petitions I may receive over the next period of time, and if the case seems to be strong enough we can give consideration to perhaps considering that sometime in the future. But I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman; I have not been convinced by anyone that we have this need to permit hyphenated names.

AN HON. MEMBER: One hyphen? What about one?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Why not two hyphens?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no, now you're going too far.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Now we're going too far.

It's an issue among some people, but it is not a great issue that needs an amendment to the act at this time. But we will give it further consideration if.... We get so few people, I suppose, who consider it to be a problem. Some of the arguments on the other side seem to suggest that the system we have works quite well. I know that other provinces accommodate people in other ways. Perhaps the other provinces are in error. No? But no, I just will not accede to that at the moment.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, it really does seem quite incongruous that the government would want to take this authority unto itself, or to delegate it to the superintendent, because in a multicultural society.... There are languages in this province, for example, that do not even have vowels; there are just consonants in the languages. Yet someone is going to sit in judgment....

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: I'm talking about Indian languages. Registering the name in the parent language the way it sounds phonetically — you're putting it into the superintendent's hands to make a judgment. I heard the minister give the example of a religious name or some kind of a religious statement that was being submitted as a name for a child. What I'm saying is, why would you want to take this authority unto yourself? Surely the obligation is on individuals to name the child as they wish and to have that registered. I can't understand, in a multicultural society.... I mean, there would be Urdu names that are translated phonetically. It really just seems ridiculous.

[ Page 7215 ]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I can assure the member that it is not the intent of the government or the officials to refuse to register a name that is not offensive or not likely to create embarrassment for the child. We do not name the child; this is a matter of registering the name legally. If what is put forward as a name.... If the name were pronounced phonetically, or perhaps had an odd appearance to it in the combination of letters, that is not offensive. But if somebody attempts to produce a statement that could be offensive or embarrassing to the child, it's our opinion and the registrar's opinion that it is improper to impose that upon the child — it is only in the event that it is the opinion of the registrar that it would be embarrassing to the child or might cause some serious problem for him. If it is then refused, they can appeal. That appeal can be heard again if it's a name or a phrase or a statement of some kind that could be very embarrassing.

Not all parents are as responsible with respect to the rights of the child as our society would perhaps expect. There are some dreadful examples that could be given. Well, I don't want to give you the dreadful examples.

AN HON. MEMBER: Like what?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: It would be very unparliamentary, but you can imagine what some person may decide — let your imagination fill in the blanks. Let's say a child is born to a couple and the father disputes parenthood of that child and chooses, rather than give it a normal name, to identify it in derogatory terms and say: "That's the name I want for that child...."

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Oh, I'm sorry, it would never happen. If we do not have some authority, it can happen, my friend. The names that have come forward by application would curl what hair remains on your head — no offence. I do think that we have to have some degree of control over what we determine to be grossly derogatory or embarrassing to the youngster. It's a little bit tough for the youngster to walk through life carrying this dreadful derogatory term as a legal name. I think we do have some opportunity to intervene, and we intend for this time to retain that. But I can assure you that no one is going to be subject to the circumstances the other member was discussing. That is not the intent at all.

MR. LAUK: The Minister of Health is not reporting to the committee the real underlying policy for this proposed amendment. The cases that come before the authorities with respect to the naming of children have all been — or mostly been — related to religious choices.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not all — mostly.

MR. LAUK: Mostly — and that any derogatory name is automatically rejected. Under the old provisions you could reject it. The case that was decided was.... Five children were named. I forget the name of the actual case, but I can remember some of the names. The first name, child number one, was Praise the Lord. Child number two was named Repent or Be Damned — something like that — right up to the fifth name, which I think was God is My Judge.

You and I may not want to name our children in like manner, but in a free democratic society people are entitled to name their children in accordance with their family and religious values. And to have some myopic bureaucrat reject names on the basis of this kind of legislative power is a completely unwarranted interference in the democratic freedoms of that family. It is the opening in the door for bigotry on the part of the government and its bureaucracy. We can't afford to allow any government of today or tomorrow to express its bigotry in the enforcement of such a provision.

You're going to have abuses of this kind of power. You know it as well as anything, because if you give bureaucrats this kind of power, they're going to use it. They're going to make the bureaucratic judgment: you can't name your child in an unusual manner. As far as a derogatory term, those never come up. You can't register using a foul or profane name. That's always been the law in this province.

The judgment that this amendment is trying to get around was a fair judgment. It was Mr. Justice Toy, who is a very fair-minded judge. Simply because you would not name your child in the way someone else might does not give you the right in a free democratic society to intervene. I think it's arrogance and it's contempt for the democratic system and lifestyle that we have in British Columbia.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The only response I would have to him is that I am distressed with his opinion about those who take on the responsibility within the bureaucracy. I certainly believe that the director is neither myopic nor overly bureaucratic. I think he's a very responsible gentleman. I think he takes his job most seriously. It is the interest of the child that he will take into consideration with respect to the registration of a name.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Well, perhaps that member feels there should be no restrictions upon any people in society in the name of a right or a freedom of some kind. The member, in his practice, recognizes precisely that's what he's involved in every day.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The director, I believe, is a most responsible person. Those who have held that position have taken their job most responsibly. And I think it is a reasonable provision to provide for.... Perhaps the member doesn't care about the right of the child, but I happen to think that is a very important consideration. I don't think that parents, because they have rights, necessarily have the right to subject a child to embarrassment, harassment and possibly psychological damage through their life until they are 19 years of age, when they can legally change the name. I don't think parents have a right to impose that on a child. The child has a right as well, in our society. There are many so-called rights that simply do not exist in our society. There are certain obligations as well.

I'll get the director's eyesight checked, but I don't think he suffers from that problem.

[ Page 7216 ]

MR. LAUK: I was referring to the generic term, as a bureaucrat. I don't know who the current bureaucrat is that's making these judgments. It could be he's a wonderful gentleman who believes in democratic freedoms, and if so, he doesn't need the power. The power is a completely unwarranted interference in the freedoms of the family. There are all kinds of examples. Our ancestors that came to Canada had huge long Polish names. I remember, one of my great-uncles' names was Klukowski. He changed his name immediately to Clark; his grandchildren changed it back to Klukowski.

Part of the process of growing up in a country like Canada, and part of the character-building process, is living with the family values, and dealing with them daily. The minister's remarks about whether the child is going to go through some sort of pressure in school.... His examples were excessive, but I'll grant you that there may be some examples where you're being made fun of because you have a Polish or a Jewish or a Chinese last name. But it's important in a country like ours, and in a free democratic country, that that sort of social engineering take place. It's character-building. We're not talking about the excessive types of things where children are named in a derogatory fashion. It's not done; it wasn't done before, and this amendment is not built to meet that. If it was built to meet that, then the Legislature should state so, and not have this broad, sweeping power that will reject on religious, racial bigot lines and everything else. I've read the act. It gives the power to the director of vital statistics to do darned well what he wants, and it gives a wide judgment to a bureaucrat that this Legislature should be loath to pass along.

It is an unwarranted interference, and it's a humiliation to have the government in its arrogance, in a free democratic society, say: "I will tell you how you shall name your child, not you. We're taking that right from you." What's next? Are you going to tell us what to wear, what our children should wear? Is that what you're going to tell us next? If it's offensive to some bureaucrat, we're not supposed to wear a certain type of clothing? One of the reasons Canada is the greatest democracy in the world is because we've stood up and prevented these little humiliations that governments in their arrogance and thoughtlessness are trying to impose on ordinary people.

[5:45]

MR. HANSON: I have a concern about this issue of the hyphenated name. There's a growing interest on the part of many women, because of the tradition in our society of the male name, the patrilineal handing down of the surname, and because of their pride in their own family.... Some want to retain the surname of their own family, which is a growing trend. It seems to me that this particular prohibition against utilizing the double name is a direct obstacle to women retaining the name of her own family at their choice. That is the way I read this statute. It is a prohibition against a woman using the patronym of her own family, and joining that with the name of her husband. I would like to have the minister respond, because on the face of it it clearly looks to be a very male, sexist approach to naming.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, if a woman marries today she can retain her family name if she wants....

AN HON. MEMBER: What if she wants both?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Just a moment. She can retain her family name if she wants. Her name can retain her family name and the spouse's name. She can provide that name; we're just not putting a hyphen in. That's the only thing we're discussing — the hyphen.

MR. HANSON: What do you do? There's no space — it's just one word?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No. It's not uncommon — we've had this discussion before — for people to retain, as part of their name.... Frequently the mother's maiden name is the child's middle name, or third name or fourth name. That is very common. So the child does have the full family background by way of names, without the hyphens. As my colleague said earlier, hold it down to one hyphen. I think the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) referred the other day to someone with two hyphens. Is one enough, two enough, three enough, four? And what is the point of it all?

The woman can retain her maiden name if she wishes to; that's not uncommon in Canada today. Or add a name; that's not uncommon in Canada. The hyphen is the only thing that's missing. I said to the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly)....

AN HON. MEMBER: Get rid of the hyphen!

HON. MR. NIELSEN: We have no hyphen at the moment, We're short of hyphens.

We'll consider it as a possibility at some time in the future, but right now we're going to stay as we have been for so many years — without the hyphen.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, on the question of registration of the first names....

HON. MR. NIELSEN: There's an apostrophe in yours.

MR. D'ARCY: That's correct, and it's registered on behalf of my children.

Mr. Chairman, what I don't understand.... I don't want to canvass all the arguments against giving the state these powers, which they don't need. I think it has been demonstrated that you don't need them. However, granting that the minister may be correct that there may be the occasional, in our view, flaky parent who wants to give a series of unreasonable names to a child or children, why should it be the responsibility of the free citizen, the private citizen, to have to prove their case through appeal? Why should not the onus in such a case be on the government, the bureaucrats, the ministers, to conduct an action as to why Firbough, or whatever it is, should not be considered an acceptable name in the view of the state? Why should the onus be on the individual citizen? Why should it not be on the government? A simple arbitration procedure before a judge; something like a small debts action, where the loser pays the costs. But make the responsibility for the action rest with the government, not with the private citizen — if indeed the minister is so worried about this problem in one in a million cases.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: In response, it is the citizen who makes the application to register the name. The legislation would provide that the director, for certain reasons, may choose not to register the name. The individual then has the

[ Page 7217 ]

opportunity to appeal. If the appeal fails, the individual has access to the court. That's the way the system would work now. You're suggesting it be reversed somewhat, to a tribunal. We don't have such a tribunal at this time. We do have a court system. That has been the manner in which these cases have been dealt with previously, and it is being retained.

MR. D'ARCY: The point is, Mr. Chairman, that it's the Crown which is creating the problem, or alleging that the problem exists, not the individual. Therefore it should be up to the Crown to prove its case, not the individual. The onus should be on the Crown to prove its case, and to pay the costs if indeed they lose.

Sections 6 to 24 inclusive approved.

Schedule approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 44, Vital Statistics Amendment Act, 1985, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. Mr. Schroeder tabled the annual report of the Provincial Agricultural Land Commission for the year ending March 31, 1985.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:53 p.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

BILL 33

The Hon. B. R. D. Smith to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 33) intituled Charter of Rights Amendments Act, 1985 to amend as follows:

SECTION 2, by deleting "is unmarried at the time of her signing the written consent to adoption" and substituting "and father have never gone through a form of marriage with each other".

SECTION 27, by adding ", and substituting 'who is a Canadian citizen or permanent resident of Canada, and'" at the end.

SECTION 35.1, by adding the following heading and section after section 35:

Family Relations Act

35.1 Subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (b) of the definition of parent in Section 1 of the Family Relations Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 121 is repealed.

SECTION 79, in the proposed section 56 by deleting "Section 11 of the Adoption Act, " and substituting "the Adoption Act and Family Relations Act, ".

SECTION 120, by deleting section 120.

SECTION 126, by deleting section 126 and substituting the following:

Commencement

126. (1) This Act comes into force by regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

(2) A regulation made under subsection (1) may be made effective retroactive to April 17, 1985, and where made retroactive, shall be deemed to have come into force on that date.

[ Page 7218 ]

BILL 34

The Hon. B. R. D. Smith to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 34) intituled Family Law Reform Amendments Act, 1985 to amend as follows:

SECTION 24,

(a) by deleting "or" at the end of the proposed section 63.2(4)(a),

(b) by deleting "counsellor" in the proposed section 63.2(4)(b)(ii) and substituting "counsellor, or", and

(c) by adding the following paragraph to the proposed section 63.2(4):

(c) information the disclosure of which is forbidden by section 9(1)(b) of the Statistics Act.

SECTION 30,

(a) by deleting from the proposed subsections (2. 1) and (2.2) ", whether or not the person in default is present, ",

(b) by renumbering the proposed subsections (2.3) and (2.4) as subsections (2.4) and (2.5) respectively,

(c) by adding the following after the proposed subsection (2.2):

(2.3) An order may be made under subsection (2. 1) or (2.2) in the absence of the person in default if, under subsection (1), he was served with a summons or was apprehended under a warrant., and

(d) in the proposed subsection (2.5) by deleting "subsection (2.3)(a) and (b) do not apply" and substituting "neither subsection (2.4)(a) nor subsection (2.4)(b) applies".

SECTION 34,

(a) by adding to paragraph (b) of the definition of "respondent" in the proposed section 70 "by or on behalf of a claimant" after "is commenced",

(b) by adding the following subsection to the proposed section 70. 1:

(8) Where an order purporting to be a final order is made by a court in a reciprocating state and the order is not enforceable in the Province under the conflict of laws rules of the Province, the court in the Province may, in its discretion, deem the order to be a provisional order and deal with it under section 70.21.,

(c) by deleting paragraph (b) of the proposed section 70.11(3) and substituting the following:

(b) a certified transcript of the evidence given in the proceeding or a sworn document setting out or summarizing the evidence given in the proceeding,,

(d) by adding to the proposed section 70.11(5) "a certified transcript of the evidence or" after "the reciprocating state",

(e) by deleting in the proposed section 70.21(2) everything after "into consideration" and substituting "a certified copy of the evidence given in the proceeding in the reciprocating state or a sworn document setting out or summarizing that evidence.",

(f) by deleting paragraph (b) of the proposed section 70.31(7) and substituting the following:

(b) the claimant who initiated the application for variation or rescission in a reciprocating state is ordinarily resident in the reciprocating state,,

[ Page 7219 ]

(g) by deleting subsection (9) of the proposed section 70.31 and substituting the following:

(9) A registration court may make a confirmation order for the variation or rescission of a registered order where

(a) the respondent who initiated the application for variation or rescission in a reciprocating state is ordinarily resident in the reciprocating state,

(b) the claimant is ordinarily resident in the Province,

(c) a certified copy of a provisional order of variation or rescission made by a court in the reciprocating state is received by the registration court through the Attorney General, and

(d) the claimant is given notice of the proceeding and an opportunity to appear., and

(h) by adding the following subsection to the proposed section 70.6:

(3) For the purposes of this Part, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is established, that procedures taken in a reciprocating state have been regular and complete, that the court making an order in a reciprocating state had jurisdiction to do so and that the jurisdiction is recognized under the conflict of laws rules of the Province.

BILL 58

The Hon. B. R. D. Smith to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 58) intituled Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 1), 1985 to amend as follows:

SECTION 3.1, by adding the following section:

3.1 Sections 90(3)(a), 92(3) and 92.1(5) are repealed.

BILL 70

The Hon. B. R. D. Smith to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 70) intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 4), 1985 to amend as follows:

SECTION 3, in the proposed section 13.1 (2) (c) (ii) by deleting "not surrendered" and substituting "surrendered".