[ Page 5287 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Family Relations Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 48). Hon. B.R. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 5287

South Moresby Implementation Account Act (Bill 57). Hon. Mr. Parker

Introduction and first reading –– 5287

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1988 (Bill 36). Hon. B.R. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 5287

Dual Elected Office Prohibition Act (Bill M208). Mr. R. Fraser

Introduction and first reading –– 5287

Oral Questions

Conflict-of- interest guidelines. Mr. Clark –– 5287

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Harcourt

School Canadiana. Mr. Harcourt –– 5289

Nissi Technologies Inc. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 5290

Military research. Hon. Mr. Dueck –– 5291

Motions on Notice

Motion 74. Hon. Mr. Veitch –– 5291

Mr. G. Hanson

Mr. Rabbitt

Mr. Rose

Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities Act (Bill 42). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Veitch) –– 5293

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Mowat

Ms. Marzari

Transportation and Highways Statutes Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 34). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Rogers) –– 5296

Mr. Lovick

Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 38). Committee stage.

(Hon. L. Hanson) –– 5297

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Barnes

Credit Union Amendment Act (No. 2), 1988 (Bill 47). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Couvelier) –– 5303

Small Business Venture Capital Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 51). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) –– 5304

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Rose

Municipal Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 32). Committee stage. (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) –– 5306

Mr. Blencoe

Municipal Finance Authority Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 41). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mrs. Johnston) –– 5307

Mr. Blencoe

Resort Municipality of Whistler Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 49). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mrs. Johnston) –– 5307

Mr. Blencoe

Law Reform Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 27). Committee stage. (Hon. B.R. Smith) –– 5308

Mr. Sihota

Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act (No. 2), 1988 (Bill 54).

Hon. Mrs. Johnston

Introduction and first reading –– 5309

Victims' Rights and Services Act (Bill 31). Committee stage. (Hon. B.R. Smith) –– 5309

Hydro and Power Authority Privatization Act (Bill 45). Second reading

Mr. Harcourt –– 5309

Appendix –– 5312

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. LONG: Mr. Speaker, in the House today we have a previous member for the Mackenzie riding who is now the mayor of Powell River, Don Lockstead. I'd like to make him welcome.

MR. VANT: Today is a special day. Seventy-two years ago today, on June 22, 1916, John A. Fraser was MLA for Cariboo. Seventy-two years ago today Alexander Vaughan Fraser, the hon. first member for Cariboo, was born right here in Victoria. He is in the precincts but is unable to be in his seat. I know both sides of the House will join me in expressing best wishes to Alex Fraser on his seventy-second birthday.

HON. S. HAGEN: We have in the House with us today the mayor of Parksville, Paul Reitsma. Would the House please make him welcome. He, of course, was the recent host for the western Premiers when they had their conference in Parksville.

MR. PELTON: Hon. members, visiting with us today in the galleries is Eric Ustad, who is with Wang Canada working out of Vancouver, and Mr. Jared Clark of the Wang Laboratories in Lowell, Massachusetts. Would we please offer both these gentlemen a warm welcome.

MR. CLARK: I have the honour and privilege today to introduce to the House my wife, Dale, and my son, Reid, who is visiting for the day. I ask the House to make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

FAMILY RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

Hon. B.R Smith presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Family Relations Amendment Act, 1988.

HON. B.R. SMITH: In moving that this bill be introduced and read a first time, I would just say that it is a bill that expresses the strong intention of this government that unmarried mothers be treated with dignity and that they have the same rights as all parents have before the law who are married. It removes those elements of child paternity and support legislation that were both protective and paternalistic, which established support for mothers on the basis that they were unmarried. It is now this government's intention that support should be based on need and not on marital status. All the support protections that were in that old act will be brought into the Family Relations Act, but the stigma and the status of going with cap in hand to the courts in an unmarried status against some putative father will be eliminated.

It's with great pleasure, then, that I move first reading of this bill, Mr. Speaker.

Bill 48 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.

SOUTH MORESBY
IMPLEMENTATION ACCOUNT ACT

Hon. Mr. Parker presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled South Moresby Implementation Account Act.

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, this establishes the South Moresby implementation account and two sub accounts, the forestry compensation account and the forest replacement account.

I move the bill be introduced and read a first time.

Bill 57 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.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 1), 1988

Hon. B.R. Smith presented a message from his Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1988.

HON. B.R. SMITH: This bill contains long-awaited far-reaching housekeeping amendments to some 20 statutes. Every member in this House will read this bill closely and will see how progressive it is. It is so varied, so wide-sweeping and so progressive that to enumerate it would take away from the intent of the legislation, so I will introduce it and move first reading.

[2:15]

Bill 36 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.

DUAL ELECTED OFFICE PROHIBITION ACT

Mr. R. Fraser presented a bill intituled Dual Elected Office Prohibition Act.

MR. R. FRASER: The purpose of this bill is quite simple. I think we should make it very clear that while historically it has not been unrealistic to hold one office and overlap for a short period of time, we should make it definitely out of order, and I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

On a motion by Mr. Fraser, Bill M208, Dual Elected Office Prohibition Act, 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.

Oral Questions

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES

MR. CLARK: A question to the Premier. The Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis) has clearly violated section 7(b) of your conflict-of-interest guidelines. What action have you decided to take in this regard?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: As the member said, these are my guidelines with respect to members of cabinet. As they are my guidelines, I will certainly review the

[ Page 5288 ]

situation to determine what the impact of whatever it is the member has suggested was done and determine later what, if anything, needs to be coming forth out of my office with respect to this.

MR. CLARK: A supplementary to the Premier. These are your guidelines. You are the sole judge, jury and executioner, so to speak. Can you give us some assurance that these guidelines are being followed and are not being broken on a regular basis?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Guidelines are there to provide guidance to members, and it is not a matter of law or anything that is dealt with by the Legislature per se, but I am satisfied that the guidelines are a help in guiding members of cabinet with respect to their activities.

MR. SIHOTA: A supplementary to the Premier. The Premier says that he is satisfied that the guidelines are a help in guiding ministers. He is not indicating whether or not the guidelines are being complied with.

It has come to my attention that the Attorney-General's ministry has announced that Thernis Program Management and Consulting Ltd. was a successful bidder with respect to the contract in relation to family maintenance enforcement programs. Is the Premier aware that one of the principals, Mr. Brian Pollick, was formerly a director of services for the ministry and was also formerly the director for the maintenance pilot project?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I will defer the question to the Attorney-General.

HON. B.R. SMITH: In that case, the considerations were all met, as far as I understand, in relation to the bidding, and it was done fairly, competitively and openly. I don't think there was any problem.

MR. SIHOTA: There is indeed a problem. I want to tell the Premier this, and my question is to the Premier. I quote section 7(b) of the Premier's own guidelines:

"Ministers shall not, and shall ensure that officials in the departments and agencies for which they are responsible do not, conduct official business with a former minister, member of the Legislative Assembly or senior public official, hereinafter referred to as a former public officeholder, acting on behalf of himself or another person or entity, where the former public officeholder has had within the preceding six-month period access to information not available to the general public which could be used for the personal gain of the former public officeholder or person or entity which he represents."

This is the same situation as my learned friend, the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark), raised with respect to the Ministry of Energy. We are seeing a repeat of the situation again with respect to the Ministry of the Attorney-General. Mr. Premier, this is now the second example of an apparent violation of section 7(b) of your guidelines. What actions does the Premier intend to take to ensure that his ministers are complying with those guidelines?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Firstly, they are guidelines, and that's been said a number of times. We certainly consider all matters that might be brought to our attention.

We do not, however, act simply on appearances. I think the Attorney-General explained the situation with respect to the suggestion that you made as it affected one of the employees from the Attorney-General's ministry.

Also, with respect to the matter referred to by the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) as it affected the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, it should be pointed out that the information that apparently might have been used by the employee making the bid on behalf of a client was public information. All of these things are considered, and we do not act simply on the basis of appearance.

MR. HARCOURT: I have a question to the Premier about the Premier's conflict of interest guidelines. It's very clear they're guidelines that the Premier can ignore at his whim, guidelines that do not protect the public interest from a Premier who cannot distinguish between public responsibility and private interest. They are a sham.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Leader of the Opposition should withdraw that comment.

MR. HARCOURT: I will withdraw, but I repeat that these guidelines, as the Premier has said, are simply that. They are simply guidelines, and they have not been very effective.

That brings me to the central point that we've been trying to get at: is the Premier finally prepared to introduce into this House what the people of British Columbia want, which is conflict-of-interest laws, with an independent arbiter to make the adjudication, not the Premier of this province?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Legislation is future policy, and I don't need to comment on that. I will say, however, that the legislation in place now is the legislation that was in effect in '72, '73, '74, '75, '76 and beyond. I believe the legislation has served the people of the province well.

I am very pleased to see that the Leader of the Opposition was able to deduce that guidelines are in fact guidelines. That was certainly a wise observation.

MR. CLARK: A supplementary to the Premier. Could the Premier inform the House who in his office conducts the investigation regarding alleged breaches of the conflict of interest guidelines?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: If the Premier requires certain information with respect to a particular matter that might be brought forth here or elsewhere, then obviously the Premier will get such information initially from the minister in whose ministry there is perhaps the suggestion that some breach of the guidelines might have occurred. If further information is required, we can certainly turn to the Attorney....

MR. BLENCOE: Answer the question.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: He is answering the question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the member let the Premier complete his answer.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Keep going. It's all right by me. It's your question period.

[ Page 5289 ]

I'll start all over again. Obviously that member didn't hear, so I'll repeat what I said. If something is brought to the attention of the Premier, from the House or elsewhere, that requires to be looked at as it applies to the conflict-of-interest guidelines established for the benefit of cabinet members, then the Premier will obviously go to the minister in whose ministry the suggested breach, or whatever, has occurred and will consult with that minister. We'll certainly obtain whatever information is necessary, or as much as might be obtained. If further information is required, of course, we can obtain it from the Attorney-General's ministry as well.

There is a process in place, and a pretty effective process. I think it's more effective than what we've seen previously in this province. I appreciate that there are those who would perhaps like to see all things legislated; but that really isn't always possible. I think we've got a good situation and I'm happy with it.

MR. BLENCOE: Are the people happy with that?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The people are happy with it. If that's a question, I would like to elaborate on how happy the people are. The member was not standing, but I understand the question is: are the people happy with it? In response to the suggestion about the happiness of the people, yesterday I was in Port Alberni, and....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Oh, I'm sorry. You asked whether the people were happy.

MR. CLARK: A supplementary to the Premier. The Premier has indicated a process for the first time. When he brought in these conflict-of-interest guidelines, the Premier said that the auditor-general would assume responsibility for conflict of interest by acting as an independent official to adjudicate these matters. Is this wrong? Or is this the new policy? What has changed between the time you introduced them and announced that the auditor-general would do it and now, when you're saying it's your own office and you yourself will do the investigations?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I think that's a fair question. The auditor-general was in fact asked whether he would do the adjudication on such matters as might be referred to him in order to advise the Premier further. The auditor general certainly was concerned about the independence of office and declined - rightly, I think - that opportunity. So the Premier will certainly now have to make decisions with respect to guidelines without the benefit of advice from the auditor-general. But I don't fault the auditor-general for taking the position he did, and I'm able to get the advice in any event.

MR. SIHOTA: The Premier seems to be developing excuses with respect to his conflict-of-interest guidelines. The Premier doesn't understand that those guidelines which make him the judge, jury and executioner invite the obvious question: what happens when the Premier himself is in a conflict of interest? That's why we need independent legislation, and that's why this side of the House tabled legislation on the matter.

My question to the Premier: this is, by my recollection, the fifth incident involving conflict-of-interest violations with respect to your government since you were elected. Your answer to my question did not deal with the matter of an investigation with respect to issues that I raised. Is the Premier prepared to investigate forthwith the matter that I raised with respect to the Attorney-General's ministry and to report back to this House with his findings?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The Premier is prepared to investigate all things, but not necessarily because they've been referred to by that particular member. He himself said a few moments ago that we ought to proceed on the basis of appearance. In response to that, I said we can't always act simply on the basis of appearance. I think there needs to be a little more substance than the sort of innuendo that we continue to hear. I think we can't always act on the basis of simple innuendo. I believe there needs to be some considerable substance before we run off and declare all sorts of investigations.

[2:30]

I think the hon. member, if he were to investigate it carefully, would have to agree that we're acting responsibly in all these matters, and that yes, generally the people are satisfied. These guidelines are certainly better than what we see in most other places in the country. I believe the guidelines are definitely an assist to the process, and they were brought in by this Premier. They were not in place previously during any other administration. I'm thankful for them, as are the people.

SCHOOL CANADIANA

MR. HARCOURT: I have a question for the Premier. Over the last week it's become quite obvious that the government has created a situation at the Vancouver Community College where the college has been forced to cut the funding to School Canadiana. As the Premier knows, School Canadiana provides intensive and extensive ESL training for new British Columbians. Will the Premier acknowledge that it's a mistake to cut this successful program and agree to restore the funding to the Vancouver Community College to save this school?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I believe that we should all.... Certainly on this side we do respect the need for these college boards, other councils or boards. They ought to have the opportunity to make decisions for themselves. They should certainly responsibly decide where the priorities ought to be, or how they would like to provide a particular service to the public. In fairness, I suppose they must have given it a lot of fair consideration. I really haven't been party to any of those discussions. I have not been present, nor do I assume was the Leader of the Opposition present at the board meetings where this was fully discussed. Why they decided to do what they did I have not been able to determine, but this certainly is a decision for the board. I know that suggestions have been made.... I hear it across the floor: "Money, money."

You know, when you give to education, as we've seen it in this province, an increase of 8.3 percent, which is twice the rate of inflation; when you see universities and colleges, when all is said and done, with an increase of 5 percent, and you have to weigh this against what it is that businesses might get by way of an increase in order to do the business, to raise the taxes, to pay the cost of government or government services; when you consider, too, in fairness, what it is that

[ Page 5290 ]

might be available to a household annually for an increase to pay for the cost of housekeeping or providing for the family the food and shelter, the everyday things, then I think in light of all of that and in light of the ability of people to pay and how much we can, because we're in government, dictate to people what it is they should do or must do or how it is they ought to do it, or when it is or how it is they pay for it.... I think when we consider all of that, we've done very well, extremely well, by our schools, our colleges and our universities. But we do need to leave them some of the decision-making process. However, if you want further specifics, I am sure that the Minister of Advanced Education (Hon. S. Hagen) would be delighted to add to what I have already said.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I'd like to address standing order 47A, which deals with oral question period. Standing order 47A(e) says that points of order arising during oral question period may at the discretion of Mr. Speaker be deferred until question period has been completed. The reason that that's in there, Mr. Speaker — and the hon. House Leader opposite and I are both aware of this, because we were part of the committee that wrote that — was not to have question period bogged down with points of order. We wrote that in deference to Her Majesty's opposition, because they only have 15 minutes in the province of British Columbia for question period, and to have question period bogged down in endless points of order could in fact defeat all of question period.

During this session there have been lengthy preambles — and all members are aware of that. The government response has been lengthy answers, which I think is only appropriate. However, there has also been from time to time — and particularly today — a reference that really wasn't all that honourable made from a questioner to another member being questioned.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that it would commend all of us to in fact not do that, to maintain that the preambles are brief and that the questions themselves are in order. During any other debate, if that type of language or imputation were used, a member on this side would immediately rise to his feet and demand a withdrawal or rise on a point of order. We avoid that during question period for the purpose of letting question period continue. However, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that if we're going to continue with long preambles, if we're going to impugn the motives of other members during a question, we are going to have to rise on points of order, in which case question period could in fact just end in a point-of-order session. I'm sure that would not serve the best purposes of those wishing to have questions answered.

MR. ROSE: Well, I recall, Mr. Speaker, that it was you, sir, who called the member to order and asked him to withdraw the remarks. I hope that nothing has been said by the government House Leader that casts any reflections on the Speaker. I know he wouldn't want to do that, because we know he's doing his job to the best of his ability. I agree that sometimes there are sins on both sides. I would just like to close by saying that, yes, we would like to have an orderly question period. We don't need unduly long questions, and we don't need long, tedious repetitive answers as well. There are lots of clock-eaters over there; we all know them, and we try not to direct questions to them if we can avoid it.

The point needs to be made that to be in order, we do not rise on points of order during question period, because that would be against the standing orders. I wouldn't think for one moment the government House Leader would ever offend that, because it says be deferred "at the discretion of Mr. Speaker." I know Mr. Speaker is very discreet; I have full confidence in him, and I think this is a wonderful way to end the session — except that it isn't ending.

MR. SPEAKER: I would like to suggest that I agree with both the government and opposition House Leaders with regard to questions and answers. I think we have had some preambles and some answers that are too long. I would ask that all members listen to their House Leaders, and maybe we can get a few more questions into question period.

The one thing I would like to discuss is the attack on the integrity of members. I think we've had this discussion in the press and in this House, and I would hope that all members of this House would respect.... This House cannot function unless all members of this House respect the integrity of each other as members of this House. I would hope that all members would take that into account not only in question period, but in committee and during their speeches.

NISSI TECHNOLOGIES INC.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Yesterday I took a question as notice and, in the interests of not taking up time in question period, I would be pleased to answer it at this time.

I wish to respond to the question asked yesterday by the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew. The member was quite misinformed about the facts of an agreement between my ministry and a British Columbia software firm, Nissi Technologies Inc. This agreement was signed very recently and has had, as its objective, the express intent of assisting this company to vigorously pursue export marketing of its product in the United States. The expected result — and it is stated in the agreement with Nissi Technologies — is the creation of 20 new jobs in Nissi's British Columbia office.

The agreement negotiated by the Purchasing Commission provides for the purchase of government management software developed by Nissi. This purchase is in no way a subsidy to Nissi Technologies, nor is it an allowance to municipalities or to anyone else wishing to install this management software. Municipalities — and I think my colleague, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) will agree with me — are free to choose and buy from any computer software or hardware manufacturer they wish.

We hope that they will choose from the very many excellent firms in British Columbia, but the choice remains theirs. There are no exclusivity rights implied or given in this sale, nor is my ministry subsidizing Nissi Technologies through the purchase of their software. The transaction of this contract will enable them — in fact, it already has enabled them — to conclude an agreement with the city of San Jose, California, the fourteenth-largest in the United States, which very substantially expands Nissi's international presence and will bring them revenues of more than $1 million, I am given to understand. The agreement with San Jose was concluded as a direct result of the confidence shown in them by the government of their home province of British Columbia. We acted as a reference account, as we intended to do. They have since concluded another agreement with La Mesa, California, for $150,000.

We confidently expect Nissi to proceed to other successful sales agreements in the U.S. Their success in the international

[ Page 5291 ]

market has a direct bearing on the strengthening of their business operations here in British Columbia with a consequent trend to better service, lower prices and more intensive research facilities offered to municipalities and other public agencies here in British Columbia.

Nissi is bound by terms of our agreement with them to retain its head office here in British Columbia, as it is our Purchasing Commission policy to deal with British Columbia firms wherever possible. Right now it is located in North Vancouver.

Staff of the Purchasing Commission who negotiated this agreement have made innovative use of the province's purchasing power as a means of creating new jobs, increasing export development in an important high tech industry, and strengthening the economic base in British Columbia. These and other initiatives have earned my ministry's Purchasing Commission a reputation for being the very best in Canada. I give credit to Steve Hutchings and his colleagues in my ministry for gaining that reputation and for the innovative ways in which they use the Purchasing Commission to create jobs.

My ministry invites any British Columbia firm which can offer a quality product and competitive pricing to approach us.

I want to point out that the Nissi agreement was negotiated with the full support and cooperation of the Union of B.C. Municipalities.

It is not the first time the Purchasing Commission has negotiated successfully with a British Columbia high technology company to achieve these results. Last year's agreement with the Victoria firm of Softwords parallels this agreement with Nissi, and it continues to produce results which will benefit our economy and at the same time assist the industry. Agreements with local software firms such as OGMA Consulting of Victoria have resulted in the successful sale and marketing rights to government software, which has now been sold to the governments of four other provinces; and on it goes. It has been a good business agreement, and it has benefited British Columbians through our Purchasing Commission's policies.

The government's agreement with Nissi Technologies will result in benefits to B.C.'s economic base and its profile in the international marketplace, which is the underlying initiative here. As a result, it will benefit the taxpayers of our province.

MILITARY RESEARCH

HON. MR. DUECK: I would also like to answer a question taken as notice yesterday, in respect to a concern expressed about "the deadly bacterial experiments at the University of Victoria." The Capital Regional District medical health officer, Dr. Perry Kendall, was informed late yesterday that the university staff has decided not to perform this tularaemia research. The university also expressed a willingness to cooperate with health authorities in jointly reviewing future research proposals. The staff in my ministry will support Dr. Kendall in any capacity that is required to ensure protection of the public's health.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: May I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We have just had arrive in the House 53 grade 7 students from the Walter Lee Elementary School in Richmond with their teachers, Mr. Adams and Mr. Bussey. On behalf of my colleague the MLA for the constituency of Richmond (Mr. Loenen) and all members of the House, I would ask that you extend them a big welcome.

[2:45]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'd like to ask leave for the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services to sit later today while the House is sitting to discuss the Northwest Baptist Theological College Amendment Act, 1988.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

Motions on Notice

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call Motion 74. [See appendix.]

HON. MR. VEITCH: There are few tasks this Legislature is called upon to perform that are more significant than the determination of electoral district boundaries. The integrity of the democratic process depends to a large degree upon the public perception that there is a fair and equitable distribution of representation in this assembly.

One of the first initiatives of this government was to appoint a commission under the Inquiry Act to review the electoral map of the province and to recommend both the appropriate number of representatives and the proposed boundaries of the particular electoral districts in the province. On May 27 of this year, Judge Thomas Fisher released his preliminary report. His findings were the result of an extensive series of public meetings, and many British Columbians and organizations availed themselves of the opportunity to attend and to address the hon. judge. I can't stress too strongly the importance of public input into the question which is at the very heart of the democratic process in this province or any other jurisdiction. Under the terms of the inquiry, the commissioner's preliminary report is to be given the widest possible distribution. Once the citizens of the province have had an opportunity to study his recommendations, Mr. Judge Fisher will hold another round of public hearings.

The motion before this House, Mr. Speaker, is to provide a mechanism for injecting into the inquiry process the reaction of the elected representatives — elected in a fair and representative way in this province — of all British Columbians. A little bit of history. I have ascertained from the Journals of British Columbia that five such special committees have been struck in the past. The first was in 1938. The second was in 1953; in fact, there were two in 1953. In 1954 there was another one for a similar purpose, and another in 1955.

It is the duty of members of this House to decide upon things which affect the citizens of this province, and it's a duty they ought not to shirk. I believe that Judge Fisher has done an admirable job in balancing the statistical requirements with the geographic and social realities in British Columbia. I don't think there's any question about that. But what the process needs now — and it's a process that I believe we should never shrink from in this House — and what only a bipartisan committee of this House can really provide is the political element. We shouldn't recoil, I believe, from discussing

[ Page 5292 ]

politics along with electoral boundaries; not for a moment. That's what it's all about. We're not looking at the partisan perspective of this thing, but at the impact of the commissioner's recommendations on the very political process that exists in this province. That's why the committee's requirement for unanimity is so vitally important, in my estimation.

Members of this House are most affected by the commissioner's recommendations, and as people who live daily with the intricacies of the representative process, the input of this House is, I believe, an invaluable source and resource to the commissioner in making final determinations. Who understands better than the members of this House the political realities in defining electoral boundaries? Who better understands the interpersonal realities that exist between members and their elected officials? With the requirement for unanimity, the committee can provide a non-partisan input to the commissioner's final report. No further report, in my estimation — and I want to underscore this — ought to be forthcoming until the committee has reported to the House and that report been forwarded to the hon. Mr. Judge Fisher by the Provincial Secretary.

Last June the first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson) recommended that the interim report of the commissioner be referred to a committee of this House. In his motion to the House, the hon. member pointed out the importance of unanimity to the integrity and the full confidence in the boundary determination process. I accept that principle. The government has taken careful consideration of the suggestion of the hon. first member for Victoria and proposes a motion before the House — which is Motion 74 standing on the order paper today — that a special committee examine, inquire into and make recommendations to the House unanimously respecting the preliminary report of the Royal Commission on Electoral Boundaries. I think this is important; it's a historic step. It's the sixth such committee in all of the history of the democratic process in British Columbia. I take great pleasure in moving Motion 74 standing in my name on the order paper.

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House support this resolution. We have spoken on many occasions in this chamber of the need for an independent electoral commission on a permanent basis.

Justice Fisher has undertaken a most important task for all citizens of British Columbia: namely, the drawing of a fair electoral map for this province. We see on this side of the House that it's incumbent on both sides that the parties and members here do everything in their power to safeguard the independence and integrity of the commissioner's work. Justice Fisher will commence his second round of hearings, as the Provincial Secretary indicated, on July 19. We urge that a representation be made to that in the second round.

We have participated fully, as the other side has, in the interim. We see the primary role of the committee, as I say, to safeguard the independence and the integrity of the commissioner's work. We sincerely hope that it's not the government's intention to see the committee involved in altering or drawing boundaries that have been drawn by Justice Fisher, because we don't see that as the role of the committee. We would certainly have difficulties reaching unanimity if the government saw that as the role of the committee. We are acting in good faith; we welcome the committee. We feel Justice Fisher is doing vitally important work for all British Columbians. As I say, we are acting in good faith. We look forward to participating in the committee and assisting the judge in any way we can.

MR. RABBITT: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the motion moved by the hon. Provincial Secretary that a special committee of the Legislature be appointed to examine, inquire into, and make recommendations to the House unanimously respecting the preliminary report of the Fisher Royal Commission on Electoral Boundaries.

Today we have visiting with us two classes, and I don't think they realize that they are seeing history in the making, because this is something which has not happened in British Columbia for many years.

The establishment of such a committee is but one more example of this government's commitment to an open, honest and democratic process, and I'm proud to be part of it.

Last year the government commissioned a respected county court judge to undertake a comprehensive, wide-open examination of electoral boundaries within the province. This House has now received Judge Fisher's preliminary report and it is now our responsibility as the elected representatives of the people of this province to review the recommendations contained in this report. It is also our responsibility as Members of the Legislative Assembly to contribute in a meaningful way to the process of redefining electoral boundaries across our province.

The opposition has called for an all-party committee of the House to study the recommendations and to provide input to the final report. Comments from the first member for Victoria were referred from Hansard on June 19. I must say that on that particular item I stood in this House, as Hansard will show, and supported that hon. member on his position. I supported it then and I support it now.

As a responsible government, we have listened to our hon. colleagues across the floor and have proposed that such a committee be appointed for that very purpose. This committee will be the first of its kind since 1955. Indeed, as pointed out by the Provincial Secretary earlier, in the history of this Legislative Assembly there have only been five special committees struck to consider redefining the electoral boundaries of British Columbia: the first in 1938; the next in 1953, both in the first and second session; again in 1954-55; and now in 1988.

I note, Mr. Speaker, that in the case of each of these special committees, the membership was representative of a distribution of seats within the Legislature at that time. Such a composition of members on a special committee is in keeping with parliamentary practice. It is a guiding principle that in the selection of committee members, a party should have representation proportional to their membership in the House.

In any case, the recommendations of the committee must be unanimous. Therefore, I would agree with the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Veitch) that all matters, no matter what they might be, must be unanimously agreed to. Unanimity is required.

I mentioned the fact that this will be the first time in some 33 years that a special committee of the Legislature will examine a report on electoral boundary readjustment. It is interesting to note that under the NDP administration no special committees were struck for this purpose. When the NDP appointed the Norris commission in 1975, it was reported: "...considered the idea of allowing one representative

[ Page 5293 ]

from each party to sit on the commission, but abandoned it as unworkable." That was quoted and attributed to Ernest Hall, who was the Provincial Secretary.

[3:00]

On our part, we welcome the input of our colleagues opposite. We welcome their active participation, and the membership on this committee is very important. The fact that the special committee being appointed is made up of representatives of both government and opposition and that any recommendations must be unanimous represents not only a fair and open process, but one which, using the words of the hon. Leader of the Opposition, will "ensure that electoral reform would not favour one party over the other." I am only sorry that the NDP the other day voted against the addition of the hon. member from Omineca (Mr. Kempf) to that committee.

In conclusion, I look forward to participating with all members of the committee, and I look forward to hearing the recommendations of the report. After a thorough study, I hope that the open process that we are going through now will prove its merit and that we will be able to bring back a solid recommendation to this House.

MR. ROSE: I don't wish to speak very long on this because everything I would say has been covered by my colleague the first member for Victoria. But I would like to give a little fatherly advice to the member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt), who is to be the convener of this committee, I am told — if he gets enough votes — that if this is to truly be a non-partisan committee, it is a rather poor way to start by making constant references to things that did or did not happen in earlier times. I think that your role, sir, is to be as objective and non-partisan as possible, and if you do that, I think this will be a very successful committee. If you do not do that, sir, you are in for a lot of trouble, and there's going to be, I would say, less chance for a unanimous report than might otherwise prevail. I would like to suggest to you, sir, that you follow that tremendously objective stance you take when you occupy the chair. Should you do that in future, as the head of this committee, I think you will do well and come out as part of history — you described this as a historic moment — but if you don't, sir, you are history.

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, I advise the House that the minister will close debate.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Thank you very much, and fatherly advice is always welcome in this chamber from the hon. opposition House Leader. I want to thank the hon. proposed convener of this committee for his observations. They were quite cogent. I also want to thank the hon. first member for Victoria for his observations and, indeed, for being part of this committee by a suggestion earlier on in the House.

He spoke of the role of the committee, and for a moment I just want to read the first part of motion 74. It says: "That a special committee of the Legislature be appointed to examine" — I want to underscore that for you, hon. member; these are fairly carefully structured words — "inquire into and make recommendations to the House unanimously respecting the preliminary report of the British Columbia Royal Commission on Electoral Boundaries: May, 1988, so as to assist the commissioner of electoral boundaries in making his final report."

You cannot, I suggest, be so meek — and I am again not lecturing the House or telling the committee how to operate in any way, proposing that this will be passed — as to be afraid to make changes. As I said in my opening remarks, the political perspective must come from members of this House. We can have a rep by pop and all of these good things, and you wouldn't have representation in places like Atlin. There are other things in the electoral process that go far beyond that. Don't be meek: don't be afraid to let your mind soar a little bit, hon. member, and to make changes and recommendations, because that's specifically what this motion says.

With that little caution and with advising you that the final buck for any of our decisions stops here in this Legislature.... Judge Fisher can't vote; he doesn't have a vote. Somebody told me that judges and idiots can't vote. Now sometimes I get those mixed up. In this case, we don't.

MR. LOVICK: Fisher can read; be careful.

HON. MR. VEITCH: He doesn't have a vote in this particular Legislature, and the decisions must come back to this Legislature for final resolution. Don't be afraid; don't be timid. Look at the motion and bear the opening words in mind when you carry out your duties. With that, I move motion 74 standing in my name on the order paper.

MR. ROSE: On a point of order. All of us get carried away in attempts at our own humour from time to time, but I am sure the hon. Provincial Secretary didn't mean to link Judge Fisher with idiots. Perhaps he would care to withdraw that part of his remarks.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I withdraw it, but I never would link the judge.... I simply said that neither judges nor.... It's an old statement, and I believe I heard that from one of the hon. members on the other side. Certainly, not at all. I have the greatest respect for the hon. judge and for the judiciary itself.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee on Bill 42, Mr. Speaker.

PREMIER'S ADVISORY COUNCIL FOR
PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

The House in committee on Bill 42: Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. LOVICK: As we said last night when we discussed this bill in second reading debate, we on this side of the House are certainly going to support it. We applaud the measure as far as it goes. I will have some questions to ask when we get to section 3, but we can certainly deal with 1 and 2 right now.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. LOVICK: As we mentioned last night in discussion of this bill, my colleague the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D Arcy) and I both had some concerns that what we seemed to be doing was engaging in symbolism, to all intents and purposes, more than action. I notice in looking at the mandate

[ Page 5294 ]

of the council and the approximately seven particular items — things that the council may do — that there are really relatively few in there that have concrete steps implicit in them.

To review, to advise and to make recommendations, for example — which is the first category — doesn't necessarily mean that there is going to be any concrete or specific action resulting therefrom. That process, as we all know from bitter experience, can go on forever. Similarly, with the second clause in that list of things, simply to bring before the Premier and members of cabinet and government matters of interest and concern to the disabled persons' community doesn't have any concrete action intrinsic to it, if you will, and that causes us some concern. Indeed, we have to go all the way down, I think, to number (c) and some of the specific ones there — and they are relatively few in number — to find that specificity and concreteness. For example, the achievement of equitable access is something that the council is mandated to promote. My concern, Mr. Chairman — it's one I know my colleague shares, and I would again invite the minister to give us some edification or enlightenment, if he can — is whether we can anticipate some specific, solid recommendations, actions or policies resulting from that process.

I note two other parts there that also invite that kind of concrete action — and I'll put those in the same grouping, and then defer to the minister, who may indeed want to talk about those a little bit.

The second one, of course, is the matter of education and training; and the third, employment for persons with disabilities. Each of those, it seems to me, clearly is desirable, necessary and good. I'm hoping, though, that we aren't simply going to promote that; we aren't simply going to make some rather vague recommendations without any concrete and specific plans attached to them. I'm wondering if the minister might like to clarify or respond.

MR. MOWAT: I heard what the second member for Nanaimo said regarding the mandate of the council, and I think under section (b) he forgot one very important word, where it said: "bring before the Premier, the government and the public...." "Public" is a word that has a very significant meaning in that the public will know what the council has reviewed and the advice and recommendations it makes to government.

Also, in regard to the other parts under section (c) of the bill, I feel very confident and assured that the section where they will be promoting those seven items.... They are all-encompassing items. The steering committee that traveled the province took into review all the presentations that were made, and the bill could go on for pages if we listed every item. But in the wisdom of the committee and the people who drew up the legislation, it does give broad scope to the council to look at all activities that are involved with persons with disability, and to bring forward recommendations to the Premier, to the government and to the public.

I feel very strongly that the committee gave a strong message to the government about the wishes of the people that they heard from.

HON. MR. VEITCH: The second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain said it all, Mr. Speaker.

There is a report which has been distributed to each and every member of the Legislature which clearly spells out the terms of reference that we will expect the committee to abide by. I might add that this legislation is as a result of a direct interface between a committee under the chairmanship of the hon. second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain and representatives of the disabled community — all sectors of them — as they traveled throughout the province. I don't remember, but I think you had 34 such meetings.

I believe that these sections are broad enough to be enabling, and I think that that's what ought to be in the legislation. We could be more specific, but that isn't really what the disabled community wanted. They wanted an enabling piece of legislation. I expect that the information that flows back to the Premier, to the government, from the committee will be as a result of the information that is contained in the report; and that report will serve as almost the rules of the game.

I think that section 3 is as specific as we dare make it, given the circumstances.

[3:15]

MR. LOVICK: I'm certainly not about to belabour the point, nor am I about to castigate the minister and the program for not doing things it wasn't intended to do. Fair enough. What I want to suggest, though, is that to be absolutely frank.... Of course, I accept the proposition that knowledge is power, and that's a good start in itself — I'm enough of a Platonist to accept that argument. My concern, however, is that it is quite possible that we have here simply a marvellous declaration of intent. I don't see enough, if anything, to lead me to the conclusion that there are going to be some dollars attached and some programs resulting from this. Again, I know it's unfair of me to ask the minister to change the legislation — he can't do that. My point — and I can't resist making it — is that if indeed there isn't anything more than this declaration, if there is nothing more to this legislation than saying we are promoting awareness and inviting opinion with a view to changing policy, then I have to question whether we in fact need the legislation in the first place.

I wonder if the minister might be good enough to give us some kind of assurance — or at least give me some confidence, if I can put it that way — that it is indeed envisaged that programs will result from a report from this council which talks about specific employment opportunities for disabled persons and putting up dollars to do something about the large access problem we have throughout communities in the province. I guess all I'm asking the minister to do is tell me that it is indeed his intention to press and lobby for that. Given that kind of assurance, I certainly won't say anything further about section 3.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I appreciate the comments from the hon. member. Mr. Chairman, British Columbia leads the way at the present time in services for the handicapped. There is no question about that whatsoever. Not only does it lead the way in services for the handicapped; it has in the last decade produced three magnificent leaders. I'd say it has produced more than that — it has one right down here. These are people who lead the world in awareness for handicapped people, their problems and the opportunities that ought to come to them. Really, that's what this bill is: an opportunity bill. Sure it's a declaration of intent. However, this government hardly needs to declare its intent, because it has already done that through many successive years of Social Credit government in this province, and it will continue to do that and will continue to look after the disabled.

[ Page 5295 ]

But we are doing one more thing here. We are going out and saying: "Look, we don't know everything there is to know here in this Legislature, and we're asking you people out there who are confronted on a daily-living basis with these disabilities to interface with us and give us input in a most direct manner." That's what this bill is all about. It's historic in that respect. It's very different.

I don't think any government could go out to a community as organized as the disabled community and put anything over on them. You wouldn't get away with that for one moment, I can tell you that right now. No, those people know what they are doing, and they are not going to be told what to do by governments or anybody else. They are going to send back to government the kind of information they want to send back, not what government wants to hear. So I give you that assurance, and I have faith in the disabled community and in the wonderful leadership that they have shown to date.

MR. LOVICK: One point very quickly, arising from this particular list of aims and objectives — all of which, of course, are perfectly worthy and supportable. I raise this point because the minister talked at some length last night on the same theme. I am referring to the theme of looking at the great successes within the disabled community and, dare I say, becoming fixated on that model. To be sure, we have examples in British Columbia that all of us take considerable pride in; not just Rick Hansen and Terry Fox, but also persons like my colleague the second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat), who has obviously accomplished a great deal despite what most people regard as a disability.

The caution I feel honour-bound to offer at this point is that we must not forget that large numbers of people in the community do not have those special skills and abilities — those things approaching heroism. The reality, of course, is that the great majority of disabled persons, just like the great majority of so-called able-bodied persons, are not extraordinary. They are not heroic, and I sincerely hope that we won't fall into the trap of continuing to hold up the model of the super achievers, these wonderfully successful individuals who provide an inspiration to many, but who can also be demoralizing to some who know they can't aspire to quite those heights. I hope we will be guided by that principle as well when we talk about providing better services to the disabled community. I hope that is also embedded in that list of principles under section 3.

MS. MARZARI: I rise to speak to the needs of disabled people in British Columbia, partly because I have worked with the disabled community for many years of my own life and partly because I think the disabled community has very nicely and very neatly come up with its own package of desires and resolutions in the most recent brief presented to all members of the legislative assembly by the B.C. Coalition of the Disabled. I believe just in the last week that brief has been presented to members of this House after a meeting two Fridays ago, at which the coalition unveiled its assessment of its problems and its solutions. A representative of my office attended that meeting, as did the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam.

Basically, I have to say that for twenty years now I have watched reports come out of various committees — committees of city council in Vancouver, committees of the Canadian Paraplegic Association that the second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) has sat on, committees of SPARC of B.C., committees of the Greater Vancouver Regional District on housing for the handicapped — a committee that I happened to chair. And for twenty years I have never seen a package of resolutions and recommendations put together as well and as cogently and as comprehensively as I have seen in this most recent brief put together by the B.C. Coalition of the Disabled.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I would say, then, moving on from those comments, that reading through the terms of reference or the mandate of this council, I would hope that government would see fit to ensure that representatives from the B.C. Coalition of the Disabled are on this council and that one of the first mandates and one of the first tasks of this council would be to sit down with the B.C. Coalition of the Disabled and go over their package. They are recommending real changes in real legislation. They are saying that disabled people cannot afford to live on less than $550 a month, which is what they are receiving in disabled benefits. That amount for a disabled person does not even begin to bring them to a subsistence level of living. They cannot live at that level, and yet that's what we are providing them.

They are talking very realistically about additional costs they have, that the disabled benefits do not even begin to make up, such as over-the-counter drugs. Prescription drugs may be covered by disabled benefits, but over-the-counter drugs are not. They are talking very realistically about retrofitting the buses with special stairs that enable disabled or older people who are not as mobile as others to get on and off buses with greater ease. This in fact is a decision which the transit authority is making right now. In fact, I gather at its meeting tomorrow afternoon this might be a major item on the agenda.

All the way through this package I see very real needs and very real resolutions, and I would encourage the government side to do more than studies and more than receive reports. My goodness, the reports would stack from the floor to the ceiling and around and around again. To use the Provincial Secretary's analogy about our public documents: if we stretched those reports end to end, or even sold them for scrap, we'd probably be able to retro-fit five buses. I'm saying, enough of the reports. If you're going to do this advisory council, please sit down with the B.C. Coalition of the Disabled, put a member or two of that coalition on your council and pay close heed, because it would be a tragedy to once again sit here a year from now and read a rehashing of those recommendations that have been coming forward from the disabled community for the last twenty years.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, we do have an amendment to section 4. This amendment is not on the order paper, but if any hon. members would like, we can have it printed. I'm sure the minister will explain it.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Yes, I provided a copy of the amendment to the opposition. The section says: "The council shall report its findings and recommendations to the Premier as and when advisable." The government felt and the drafters felt that we didn't want to confine it to — taking

[ Page 5296 ]

into consideration what the hon. member said — one report a year or one bit of advisement in a year, but to do it as often as they felt was advisable. However, two hon. members, the second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) but more specifically the second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) suggested that we be very specific and ensure that a report comes in at least once in every calendar year. The government agrees with that, and it was never the intent to lessen that. If we can get more information back, then we'll be able to respond more readily.

I move the amendment by adding the words: "but in any event not less than once in each calendar year" after "advisable."

On the amendment.

MR. LOVICK: I congratulate the minister. I was delighted to see the amendment in response, obviously, to the discussion we had last night, and obviously to other inputs and requests he had, as he just outlined.

I guess my original question still obtains: whether what we are going to be looking at is an ongoing series of recommendations or whether we might look, I think more advantageously, to a report that is given a particular time-line and will come down with a series of recommendations that ought to be acted on right now — analogous more, Mr. Minister, to a task force report. In other words, we have a group of people who have been given this set of principles, this mandate to go by, and those individuals do their deliberations, do their examination and then, ideally, it seems to me, should come forward with a report that instantly becomes newsworthy, important and significant and therefore the heat is also instantly on government — if I might put it in those terms — to take action in response to the report. That's the assurance I was looking for, and I would simply ask the minister if that is what is intended by this amendment.

[3:30]

HON. MR. VEITCH: Yes, that's what the original section — I think it's a fine section in this bill — was all about. It says: "The council shall report its findings and recommendations to the Premier as and when advisable" — as and when the council deems it to be advisable, not when the government thinks it's advisable. But it's further strengthened now by saying: "But you've got to do it at least once every calendar year." So the assurance is yes. As and when advisable means that you can act on things more quickly, and that was the original intent of that section. It's now been strengthened further, and I agree with the hon. member by saying you can't just let it slide past a calendar year; you've got to get your ducks in a row and report back to the Premier.

MR. MOWAT: I commend the Provincial Secretary for bringing this amendment forward. As we know, the minister was responsible for piloting this legislation and piloting the steering committee through the province, and I think this amendment to section 4 of having the committee bring forward a report at least once a year really makes the findings and recommendations they will come up with very valid when it has to come to the Premier.

I heard what the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) stated. When the steering committee was traveling the province it had over 300 submissions. The member spoke about the B.C. Coalition for the Disabled, and I think that's a starting point with all the submissions that were given to the steering committee. When the council is in action, it will take a great deal of time to go through all those very well thought out presentations. Some were tailored specifically to areas of certain disabilities that that report dealt with and were brought forward by a very positive and motivated group of people dealing with a specific type of disability. There is much to be looked at and reviewed through all the oral presentations as well as the written ones.

I again commend the government for bringing forward this amendment. It will certainly make the council responsible and give them the added dimension of bringing forward a report that will specifically discuss the recommendations and needs they have found through their deliberations in the year. I commend the government and the minister again.

Amendment approved.

Section 4 as amended approved.

Section 5 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 42, Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities Act, reported complete with amendment.

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

HON. MR. VEITCH: By leave now.

Leave granted.

Bill 42, Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 34.

TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

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

On section 1.

MR. LOVICK: I have a very quick question on this one. Certainly, as we know, it's merely definition, and as I said the other night when we talked about this, we on this side of the House were certainly happy and prepared to support this bill. My question concerns the change in definition of gross vehicle weight. This is purely an academic interest. All these years we have had a particular definition of gross vehicle weight, and now it is being redefined. I have no difficulty with the redefinition, but I'm intrigued, I guess. I would love to know why the redefinition.

HON. MR. ROGERS: While it's very important for us to know the gross vehicle weight of the truck, it's just as

[ Page 5297 ]

important to know the individual axle weight, because there may be six axles. If one of those axles is grossly overloaded, yet the vehicle is under gross weight, that one axle will do more damage to the pavement than anything else. That's the reason for it. It's important that the load be stressed evenly among the axles.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. LOVICK: On section 2, I note that this is called the consequential amendment that has the effect of repealing sections 7, 8 and 12 of the existing act. Again, there's no difficulty with the consequential amendment. However, I would just like a clarification, if I could. I note that section 7 of the existing Commercial Transport Act deals with weigh stations, and the first clause in that section sets up the mechanism whereby the minister establishes weigh stations. I quote the existing act, section 7(l): "The minister shall establish and operate weighing stations at those places he considers necessary." My question is simply this: where in the new amended act is the provision that establishes weighing stations? I couldn't find it, and I'm wondering if the minister would tell me where we can locate that.

HON. MR. ROGERS: It is in another act under my jurisdiction called the Ministry of Transportation and Highways Act, under which we have been establishing weigh stations. In any event, that's the reason it has been removed from this section.

Sections 2 to 5 inclusive approved.

On section 6.

MR. LOVICK: I assume that the effect of section 6 is to repeal the existing section 15(l) and apparently to do so by tightening up and being much more specific in terms of what constitutes overweight and oversize vehicles. I assume that is the section of this bill that has most to do with modifying the existing Commercial Transport Act to meet national standards. Is it the case that this is simply to do that?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Yes.

Sections 6 to 10 inclusive approved.

On section 11.

MR. LOVICK: The purpose of this particular section under the Motor Vehicle Act has something to do with parking places being specifically allocated for disabled persons. This now gives that power under the Motor Vehicle Act to the ministry. Would the minister explain to me whether that kind of designation is currently done entirely by municipal authority? Is that the existing situation?

HON. MR. ROGERS: In some jurisdictions it's done under municipal authority. In other areas, of course, they are outside of municipal authority, and while we have indicated designations for disabled parking, we have not had the authority to do so; therefore we could be challenged on that. We would like to have the authority to do so. Then having the authority to do so, we can catch those people who park vehicles which don't really look like they belong to disabled persons and are parked in disabled zones — such as motorcycles. I saw that the other day, and I was having difficulty understanding how that really qualified.

Section 11 approved.

On section 12.

MR. LOVICK: Section 12 again is one of those clauses in which we see considerable elaboration and clarification. That would seem to be its purpose. What I wanted to ask is simply why that clarification. Why that elaboration? Where did this particular recommendation come from? Is this also part of that national standards deliberation, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. ROGERS: It is part of our consolidation out of the Motor Carrier Act into the Motor Vehicle Act, in terms of names and addresses of vehicle owners.

MR. LOVICK: Subsection (b) under section 12. For a moment I thought I had gone too far. I now want to get to subsection (b) and ask whether identification cards as stipulated there refer to (a)? In other words, is what we have in (q) the description? I am a little confused then. I would ask for clarification.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Sorry, it is a different section of that section. Subsections (b) and (c) provide for the provision and the regulation and establishment in issuance of control of B.C. identity cards. These are for people who are 17, 18 or 19 and for whatever reason don't have a driver's licence. They perhaps wish to establish their credibility in order to purchase alcohol or cash a cheque. There is quite a substantial proliferation of not very authentic looking — but nonetheless somewhat plausible — ID cards which proliferate from teenagers, as I have frequently seen.

I think this is a good section. For people who don't have a driver's licence or don't have any identification, they don't need to go through the difficulty of getting a passport. We can establish their identity with a photograph and a $10 fee. It is strictly voluntary, but it allows some measure of control. This ministry just became the agency of government.... We already have the plant and equipment in place for drivers' licences, so we can do it this way.

Sections 12 and 13 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 34, Transportation and Highways Statutes Amendment Act, 1988, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 38.

LIQUOR CONTROL AND LICENSING
AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

The House in committee on Bill 38; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

[ Page 5298 ]

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On section 4.

MS. A. HAGEN: Briefly on this amendment regarding the peace officer, I would like to ask the minister if this amendment is intended to provide the means for a response to a special occasion licence immediately on the problem arising? Presently with the legislation, if there's a problem with the special occasion licence.... In fact, the problem is gone; it's history by the time any action can be taken, and the only action might be to deny a licence presumably to a similar applicant on a future occasion. This would enable the police or peace officers to act in the context of the situation.

HON. L. HANSON: Yes, that's correct. It would allow our police or inspectors the opportunity of dealing with a violation at the time, as opposed to a later time.

[3:45]

Sections 4 to 6 inclusive approved.

On section 7.

MS. A. HAGEN: I would like to begin to canvass this section, which is a fairly lengthy one and which provides some very specific guidelines — particularly discretionary guidelines — around licensing, by referring to a previous section which in the earlier act was a part of section 11. Section 11 as it exists says: "Subject to section 10 and the regulations...." The amendment that we are looking at excludes any reference to section 10, which is the section that deals specifically with some of the processes of licensing: resolution of municipal council being considered by the general manager; public response; petitions signed by residents; referendum.

I'd like to ask the minister, first of all, why the reference to section 10 in the amended clause has been dropped.

HON. L. HANSON: The reference was dropped because the specific reference to section 10 is not considered to be necessary. All of that section is subject to the other sections of the act.

MS. A. HAGEN: Just to pursue that for a moment, Mr. Chairman: because section 10 — which is not specifically in the amendment but is encompassed — is no longer referred to in this clause, the matters relating to how a licence should go through a consultative process with municipalities and with the residents in an area that may be affected by the establishment of a licensed facility in their community are all seen to stand in their own right. And then under section 11 we have some of the discretionary power that is available to the general manager. That's fine, then, Mr. Chairman. The minister is nodding his head. So let me proceed.

I would presume here that in the new language, "having regard for the public interest" may encompass the intent of section 10, because section 10 deals with some of the means by which the general manager would canvass the public interest in the procedures that go into the establishment of a licence.

I'd like to move on to (2), which is a very much more specific clause than we have in the present act. It covers a large number of exemptions — or modifications, revisions — that are at the discretion of the general manager. I'm mindful that there has been considerable discussion, particularly in the report of the ombudsman on fair practices in licensing, around the use of legislation, policy, regulation, discretion, appeal. That is the subject, in fact, of that very excellent discussion that the ombudsman provided in his review of licensing practices. So first I'd like to ask the minister if he could just discuss briefly how the clauses of section 11 relate to existing regulations and existing discretionary powers. I think they're codified here for the first time. Could he give us just a little background on how this codification relates to what exists and is now, as I perceive it, being placed in legislation?

HON. L. HANSON: In fact, it does codify some of the discretionary abilities of the general manager. I should point out, though, that later in this bill we are putting in place an appeal process that is, we think, fairer and subject to the fair rules of justice. There is a separate appeal process by a separate, independent chairman and independent members against the decisions of the general manager. Many of these things that are in the act as we see them here were in it before but were maybe not quite as clearly defined as they are here. As an example, under special circumstances he can exempt a class of licence from requirements with respect to a marine facility where liquor is sold. In a special circumstance a marine licence may be.... There is a requirement to have some marine facilities available in a marine licence. Moorage is specified in the regulations, and in unique circumstances he may have the ability to reach an arrangement with mooring facilities that actually don't belong to the licensee but are performing the same service. So he could make a discretionary decision that that would be allowable under those circumstances.

He could exempt a class of licensee from requirements with respect to serving food and non-alcoholic beverages in an establishment — as an example, a dining-room that has a private room facility. Under special circumstances he may allow them to have a wine and cheese arrangement which wouldn't be in the original licence; that would be allowed only under special circumstances.

MS. A. HAGEN: Perhaps we could pursue a couple of these items, because I would like to get some clarification. If we could look at the one that the minister was just mentioning, which is (h) on exempting a class of licensee, am I to understand, pursuant to the minister's comment, that that would be the ongoing status of that room, or on a specific instance basis?

Could I ask too if that clause would allow a variance on what I think is a regulation? I'm not sure about this, and the minister could help me with that. There has been discussion about what percentage of a licensed restaurant should be food and what percentage alcohol. I think a 60-40 balance was recommended by the Jansen committee. What is the status of that particular balance between food and liquor, and what effect might this clause have on any change in that balance? Does it give the general manager the right of discretion to alter that balance, or is that firmly stated in regulation with no discretionary exemption allowed?

HON. L. HANSON: First of all, the recommendation in the report was very specific that it be a 60-40 ratio. With the difficulties in policing that and in establishing that 60-40 ratio, it was not adopted in that detail. This section of the act wouldn't give the general manager the discretion to say that

[ Page 5299 ]

you can serve liquor without food on an ongoing basis, because that would be contrary to the licence. It could, under special circumstances, allow him to say that.

Predominantly, what he would use is his discretion that a restaurant's main business is the serving of food without restricting it to as narrow a percentage as 60 and 40. If a restaurant was obviously operating as a bar and the ratio was totally out of reason, he would be able to police that; but it wouldn't give him the discretion to exempt the licensee from that requirement.

MS. A. HAGEN: I think one of the things we're going to be discussing is that because this is legislation, we will be looking to where regulation comes into play. Clearly, we're dealing too with the general manager's discretion. I just want to be clear that there is no firm guideline around the ratio for food and alcohol in regulation. There is an exemption, which we have now canvassed, and I think I understand that it would be an exemption on a one-time or specific-request basis. There is then nothing either in the act or in the regulation, other than that a restaurant clearly is there to serve food and liquor, to define how the licensee interprets the carrying out of the requirements of his licence. Only if there were a complaint would the general manager deal with any problems that might occur with that, possibly around its becoming more like a liquor establishment than a restaurant. Is that the situation, Mr. Minister?

HON. L. HANSON: That would be correct. Although this section does give the general manager some discretionary rights to deal with a licence, it's very difficult to deal with a restaurant licence in a global sense — that food should be this and liquor should be that — because of the various costs of liquor: in extreme circumstances the cost of a bottle of wine in a dining-room could far exceed that of the food. But the purpose of a restaurant licence is to serve food, and that is spelled out in the regulations — although they don't spell out the specifics of 60-40.

MS. A. HAGEN: I wonder if the minister would care to comment on further work happening in terms of regulation, once we have this particular clause which deals with discretion in place. As I said before, it's my sense that what the minister has been doing with this legislation is looking at all aspects of licensing, and that involves the legislation we're amending at this time. It clearly involves policies which have been suggested through the Jansen liquor policy report. There are tons of regulations I don't even pretend to have knowledge of, and then we have that discretionary power.

Let me phrase it just a little more specifically if I may, Mr. Chairman. In my community of New Westminster there are at this time an inordinately large number of liquor seats. My city council has recently passed some guidelines for handling some of their responses to requests for further liquor seats — something that I know the minister is also discussing with municipalities, through a special committee. Although I don't have those guidelines in front of me this afternoon, one of the stipulations they have is that they will no longer forward a recommendation for approval of seats that are specifically for the serving of liquor. That means that if a new hotel opens in town and is going to have restaurant facilities and all of those kinds of things, if there are other things in the establishment than just the sale of liquor, then clearly those things we all know are a part of that business and how that business is carried out.... But I'm sure they are going to be really concerned that there not be, on the part of the minister or the general manager, a great deal of discretion about how those seats are used.

[4:00]

How would the general manager deal with some discussion between the municipality, if you like, and the licensee and himself, to ensure that the intent of those guidelines can be realized, that discretion doesn't allow the general manager to move around the guidelines that the municipality has in place regarding additional liquor seats? I just want to be really sure that discretion here is a very limited power. I recognize the need for that discretion, but I want to have assurance that by virtue of this discretion being defined and described, it's in fact discretion and not licence to have a very broad interpretative power about how a licence will evolve and what may be available to the licensee — possibly in conflict with some of the aspirations of the municipality that wants to constrain additional liquor seats as much as possible without compromising a business's ability to do business.

HON. L. HANSON: I think we have demonstrated, certainly in the last year or so, a consultative process with the various local governments. But I assure you that it is not the intention of the liquor licensing branch or the general manager's discretion to allow him to go beyond the desires and wishes of a particular municipality or regional district. Regional districts and municipalities have, I think everyone would accept, complete control over land use as it relates to all of the locations in their communities, and through that they have a very definite control over what happens within the municipality.

But we in the ministry have as a policy that licences or changes in licences are always done in consultation with the municipality before those changes happen. In some licensing cases, we require resolution of the municipality before a licence application is even given pre-clearance, which doesn't grant a licence, but just says that at this point we have no difficulty with it.

As you know, licensed premises are subject to floor plans, seating arrangements and all those things; they are very strictly controlled. A request for a change in a liquor licensee's premises, if it required alterations, would require a building permit from the municipality, but for minor renovations to licensed premises, we may not consult a municipality, because the licensee has already been established.

I assure you that through the joint committee that we have with the UBCM and members of my staff, consultation between municipalities and regional districts is ongoing. We are now working on some understandings that we may arrive at between those entities and ourselves on what we would expect from them and what they would like us to inquire of them prior to a licence being granted. I think we are very aware of and sensitive to the needs of a municipality and are working towards that end through the committee of UBCM and my staff members.

MS. A. HAGEN: From discussions with the minister's officials regarding these clauses, we have a question about the current classification of the various licences that exist now. I want to ask whether this particular section would enable the minister to alter the present classification of licences without bringing it forward again for discussion. Is this enabling to the ministry to change the current classification of licences as they presently exist?

[ Page 5300 ]

Would the ministry be able to...? I don't know the number of licences right now; I think there are eight or nine classes of licence. Would it be possible for the ministry to collapse that into, say, four classes of licence, without having further public discussion? Is that one of the intents of this clause?

HON. L. HANSON: I have to answer that question as yes. It isn't the motivation, but yes, that could happen. I would also point out that that is also possible under the existing legislation, in that those licence classifications are established by regulation, and as we see the need for variations in the current classifications, they can be changed by regulation. That has always been the case. There really isn't any difference here.

This deals with some discretionary authority of the general manager, in that under exceptional circumstances, he can vary some clauses or conditions of an existing licence as opposed to really changing the licence, if you will. But yes, the licence categories could be changed by regulation, and they could have been changed before.

MR. BLENCOE: I just thought I'd get into this debate of the politics of issuing liquor licences in British Columbia. I notice in this section that if the general manager, following application, refuses to issue a licence, he must give the applicant reasons for his decision. Could the minister outline the appeal procedure for the case when the general manager turns down an application?

HON. L. HANSON: The appeal is handled technically, I guess, much as it was before, by a request coming forward for the decision of the general manager to be appealed. There is a fee included, and then a hearing is scheduled. The process now is that if it is a licensing appeal, it is heard by me, or I can deputize my deputy to hear it.

In the case of the general manager having a hearing and imposing a penalty of some kind because of infractions of a liquor regulation, the appeal to that goes to the Commercial Appeals Commission. Under the new legislation, it would all go to the appeal board that we are forming, as opposed to.... It's possible that that may still be handled by the Commercial Appeals Commission, but not necessarily.

MR. BLENCOE: The Commercial Appeals Commission, I gather, hears all appeals, despite which community the request....

HON. L. HANSON: No, the Commercial Appeals Commission doesn't hear all of the appeals now. The appeals from licensing decisions as they relate to applications for licences are to the minister, or I can deputize my deputy to hear them.

MR. BLENCOE: As you know, this issue of issuing licences can certainly enter the political sphere, and there has always been a feeling in the province that liquor licensing is highly political. There is a feeling, maybe rightly or wrongly, that the issuing of licences is done in a certain way, depending on communication or contacts or whatever — unfairly, I am sure, in some cases. I wonder if the minister has considered, say in my community, a hearing process which would have a community-based board of some sort, outside of the political process, rather than a political decision; that there be a community-based appeal procedure.

The reason I say that is that sometimes organizations come forward to ask for licences that may, shall we say, not fit the normal category of people applying for licences, and may have.... Within the bureaucracy some people may feel they don't particularly wish to license them because they do things differently or they wish to have a special club or whatever for whatever purpose. There is a feeling that politics enters the situation. They are denied a licence because they want a particular club, and it may not necessarily be acceptable to the politicians of the day in terms of what they want to have that club for.

I wonder if we need an appeal procedure that is separate from politics, that is community-based, and if we should remove some of these difficult decisions from the political arena.

HON. L. HANSON: I'm not sure if the member is referring to special occasion licences. There is a suggestion, although it hasn't been completely worked out yet, that the municipalities would play a much larger part in the issuance of special occasion licences. If that is what the member is referring to, that's what we are working towards. If he is referring to the general issuance of liquor licences, the purpose of forming the appeal board, along with members, is to attempt to do that. There will be, in our philosophy as to this appeal board, members appointed from various segments of the province, hopefully to be able to deal locally with the....

MR. BLENCOE: Would the minister consider, say, having a community-based appeal board in the greater Victoria area that would specifically know the community for which it is making decisions?

HON. L. HANSON: You're not dealing with SOLs — special occasion licences?

Interjection.

HON. L. HANSON: The Victoria city police now deal with special occasion licences; the general manager has delegated that responsibility to them. Yes, we have considered representation in the appeal process of people who do know the community, and that is part of our thinking.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we continue, hon. members, the first member for Nanaimo has asked leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. STUPICH: There is a group of 22 grade 5 students from Pauline Haarer School in Nanaimo, led by Mrs. D. Ravelo. They wanted the tour to be all in French; they are on that curriculum now. I welcome them this afternoon, and I'd like the members to welcome them to the precincts.

MS. A. HAGEN: I think we have moved to some extent into the appeal process. I want to just follow, though, in connection with this particular clause, (5), where there is a requirement that the general manager, on refusing to issue, amend, renew or transfer a licence, shall give the applicant or licensee written reasons for his decision. Can the minister advise us if this is current practice? Can he advise us if there are some preliminary processes that the general manager follows that may avoid the necessity of an appeal, if it's looking as if he's not going to grant a licence but wants to

[ Page 5301 ]

allow for the prospective licensee to perhaps provide some additional information, something that might have him look a second time at the issue?

Thirdly, does this clause accord with some of the recommendations that the ombudsman made around some of the fairness and due process that would assist with the licensee having a sense and in fact the reality of a very careful consideration? We're looking here at a tremendous amount of discretion that is now being codified in legislation for the general manager, and with discretion clearly have to go lots of processes that ensure that the licensee, prospective or with his licence being changed, is afforded every opportunity to have treatment which, as the ombudsman said, is fair and perceived to be fair.

[4:15]

HON. L. HANSON: First of all, for the benefit of the member opposite, when an application comes in for a licence for a particular location, there are a number of reports that are generated by that application: reports by the liquor inspector and so on. The licensing officer in the liquor control and licensing branch looks at that application and may go back to the applicant for some further information, or may go back to the applicant and say: "The difficulty I am having with this is this. Do you have any further information that you should give me?" As a result of that — and sometimes that goes on two or three times — he may eventually come to the conclusion that, no, a preclearance in the case of a neighbourhood pub, or a licence in some of the other categories, is not going to be issued, and it would require a letter being issued for that purpose. We have always had the ability for that individual who is unsuccessful in the licence application to appeal the decision to the general manager, who really hadn't directly at that point dealt with it. He would peruse it again, maybe ask some further questions, and give his reasons. Failing all of that, then the appeal process would come into effect.

MS. A. HAGEN: A quick follow-up. The general manager will now give written reasons for his decision. The other question that was also on the table, Mr. Chairman, was the ombudsman's recommendations about both the formal appeal procedures — which we'll come to, I know, in another clause — and the process items, which he speaks of at considerable length, around that whole issue of discretionary power. It's that I'm trying to get at with the discussion at this stage.

HON. L. HANSON: There always had been in the old act a requirement for the licensee or applicant to have written reasons if he required them. This, I guess, just changes the wording slightly. It says: "Where the general manager, following application, refuses to issue, amend the terms of, renew or transfer a licence, he shall give to the applicant or licensee written reasons for his decision." I guess in the old one it says "where requested" — and I'm not sure that's a large difference. But we have in all cases given that reason.

Yes, the ombudsman did request, as I remember — although I don't have the complete report in front of me — that there be a separate appeal process from the general manager's decision. That's what we are looking at in the appeal process that we're suggesting in this legislation..

Sections 7 to 13 inclusive approved.

On section 14.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, this is the section that deals with the establishment of a new appeals procedure through the formation of a liquor appeal board.
           I'd like to open up our discussion of this section by asking the minister to describe — not in great detail, but in some detail — how he sees the board working. Is it going to have a chair and a vice-chair? I gather the minister sees it as having representation through appointed people in various communities. If you would give us some description in your own words of how this might work, then I think I have relatively few questions to come after that.

HON. L. HANSON: We see the appeal board being made up of a chairman and a number of members who would serve on an as-needed basis representing the various interests and areas of the province. The chairman would have the ability to hear an appeal in isolation or by himself; he would have the ability to appoint a temporary vice-chairman in an area to hear an appeal , depending on the significance of it; he would have the ability to appoint a three-person panel, of which he could be one, or he could designate one of those members as the chairman to hear an appeal in a specific area. We are emphasizing the representation from the various parts of the province to ensure that the interests of the local community are heard in the appeal process and therefore are appointing members from various parts of the province.

There will be a fee involved. As a matter of fact, that appeal board could assess or award costs to either the appellant or the defendant. If it was just an appeal from the general manager's licensing denial, and if in his opinion that appeal was frivolous. I suppose, he does have the ability to award costs to either party. As I'm sure you are aware, appeals can vary from great complexity down to very simple ones. The general manager may issue a licence that has a condition attached to it, and the condition may be the only part of the appeal. They would have similar abilities to the Commercial Appeals Commission.

MS. A. HAGEN: Picking up on the last comment that they would have similar abilities to the Commercial Appeals Commission, what qualities will the minister be looking for in the people who sit on this commission? The ombudsman, for example, suggests quite strongly that the Commercial Appeals Commission have a specialist group to deal with those elements of liquor enforcement issues that come to them. One of the things I would be very concerned about with the Liquor Appeal Board — which I support — is that the board be a professional body, a group of people who have the skills. When you talk about the kinds of responsibilities that this legislation places upon them, including the right to award costs, it's a very significant responsibility and one that requires some special skills.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

I want to pick up on the comment of my colleague from Victoria on the community perspective which I think it would be important to have in place here. Heaven knows, every community has very specific kinds of perspectives on liquor licences. It's a very sensitive issue and subject to all kinds of difficulties in making decisions.

So those two issues: the professional or skilled qualifications of the committee, and the ability to have some regional or local perspective that people will respect and know is in touch with issues that have a local spin, if you like, on them.

[ Page 5302 ]

HON. L. HANSON: It's obvious that we would be looking for some considerable expertise and fairness in the people we choose to sit on the appeal panel. We have even considered, and may still consider, that the chairman may be a member of the Commercial Appeals Commission and have the responsibility for liquor appeals as a responsibility within the commission. We would look to the various communities for recommendations on who should be the area representatives, and we would consider those in our efforts to appoint fair and reasonable people.

I am not sure that whoever is appointed would agree with everyone in every circumstance, because from time to time there seem to be differences of opinion on the qualifications of individuals, but we will attempt to the best of our ability to ensure that the people on these appeal boards are fair and reasonable minded. I agree that liquor is a very sensitive issue and that it requires a lot of consideration and concern when we are dealing with it. That has been amply demonstrated to me on a number of occasions. I suppose that until there are actual appointments to the board, no one will make an assessment of that, but we will do our best to get the most appropriate people named to those positions.

I am not sure that we want to make the appeal process a very legalistic one. That is costly to everyone. We would like to try to keep it fair and reasonable without getting into the costs of a very legalistic process.

MS. A. HAGEN: Just another couple of comments on this clause. If the minister is giving the right to accord costs and so on, clearly the skill level, experience and background of people suggests a level of professionalism. I must say that I have some concerns about quasi-judicial boards, the powers they have and the skills manifest in the appointments, and I think we will watch that with interest.

Could I ask you if you know how many you anticipate might be appointed and what the term of an appointment to the appeal board might be?

[4:30]

HON. L. HANSON: It's very difficult to give exact numbers, because it certainly would depend on the workload. Initially, maybe we're looking at eight members and a chairman. There is no particular formula contemplated at this point. I suppose that certain parts of the province — as an example, the Vancouver area — may require two or three panel members, because there may be a number of appeals because of the density, whereas other parts of the province may require only one. There will be a certain amount of experimenting as it relates to the volume of work involved.

Section 14 approved.

On section 15.

MS. A. HAGEN: I want to ask if clause 2.1, which says, "A person having a relevant interest in and being aggrieved by an action, order or decision of the general manager may appeal to the appeal board," would have provided an avenue for the people in the Knight Street Pub issue to have had an appeal heard?

HON. L. HANSON: Yes, it would. We are going to be putting some time limits on those in the regulations, because once a licence is issued or a process is gone through, there has to be some limit to the time that an appeal can go on. Provided that they are within the time limit, that would be an appealable issue.

Sections 15 to 22 inclusive approved.

On section 23.

MS. A. HAGEN: This section and the following one deal with an issue that I know has been of very great concern to both licensees and police in various communities, but very specifically in some Vancouver communities. They have to do with the banning of knives and giving to the licensee the right to take action in respect to this. We very much welcome this clause, and I know that my colleague from Vancouver Centre is anxious to have some opportunity to discuss this with the minister.

Before we deal with that, Mr. Chairman — because I know my colleague from Vancouver Centre is wont to wax eloquent on issues that are important to him — because we are working under some time constraints, I wonder if I might have some latitude at this time to ask a question under section 29, because I may not necessarily be here to ask that question. It's a very simple one. I know that once we have completed this particular clause, we have very few other questions to ask. Okay?

Interjection.

MS. A. HAGEN: Thank you very much. The clause we will eventually be discussing has to do with on-site brewers. Is there some retroactivity in handling the business of putting into place more stringent licensing and regulation for on-site brewers? I'm sure you've had communications, as I have, with people who have set up businesses in consultation with your liquor officials and acted in good faith in developing their businesses. I don't want to get into a lot of discussion about whether they were right or wrong, but is there some consideration around people acting in good faith in terms of the establishment of businesses, as you implement a more stringent licensing and regulatory regimen in respect to these small business operators?

HON. L. HANSON: I guess you're referring to whether there is any grandfathering of the existing.... It's not our intention. We will certainly work very closely with and consult those people before we finalize the amounts and the restrictions that may be placed on it. I believe there are about 35 now in operation in the province. Most of them haven't been here very long — I guess less than two years. Even the Association of On-Premise Brewers supports the need for some regulation within the industry. We are not considering grandfathering them, but we will be in consultation with them before we apply any tariffs or taxes.

MR. BARNES: Just to get it on the record, really, I'm very pleased that the minister has come forward with the appropriate remedy for the carrying of knives in licensed premises. I hope he will comment with respect to the effect of the amendments. It appears as though he has made it incumbent upon the licensee to be aware of — or if not, to assume some responsibility for — people with knives. How that comes about, I suppose, is a case of attention being brought to the problem. Maybe if you could explain to me how the law will be carried out, before I comment much further, it would facilitate matters.

[ Page 5303 ]

I'm just wondering: now that you've got this law, are you going to be posting signs or promoting this? Is it going to be publicized — advising of the changes and making it known what the penalties are, and this kind of thing? Could you clarify your initiative with respect to carrying out this new regulation?

HON. L. HANSON: There are a number of initiatives. The Vancouver police have one, the Hotel Association has one, and so on. They are looking at various ways of posting and making notices in the licensed premises. Our ministry will provide a properly printed notice of the rules and regulations which they may want to enlarge or whatever to use in the licensed premises. The Vancouver Hotel Association, I've been advised, has adopted or is suggesting that it adopt as a house policy a notice form in their premises. It's fair, I think, that the responsibility for — or at least the preliminary responsibility for — the policing of knives and firearms within licensed premises lies with the management people in the operation. Our act says that they will not knowingly allow that to happen. It has to be treated with common sense; they are not expected to have a metal detector in the doorway or to physically search people. I think we and the operators will use the common sense that they should not go to that length.

My response — or at least the reaction that I have been getting — is that most operators welcome the legislation because they really felt they would like to control that within their premises, but they didn't have the authority to do it in the past. In the case of patrons who after proper warning still refuse, the operator has the resource of the police force to call to help them enforce infractions that are not easily resolved between the staff and the patron.

We look to it as enabling legislation for the owners to police their own premises and to have the force of the law behind them in policing their own premises, and that they will use some common sense, and that also they have the resource of our police to help them enforce it.

MR. BARNES: I really neglected to indicate that this is a very special occasion. In fact, the people who should be here to help talk about the issue are the people in downtown east side, like Sue Harris, for instance, and others who have campaigned for years to stop the carnage that has been happening on the streets, in the lanes, in the downtown east side hotels and generally in the community.

A knife — which is really quite a revelation to many of us — is even more popular than firearms when it comes to violent crimes. Banning knives in public places is something that should have happened a long time ago. To think that in this day and age there are people who still believe that they need weapons in public places to protect themselves shows how far behind we lag in any sane regulation with respect to protecting the safety of the public.

I think you can be commended for this and your receptiveness. I commend the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith) as well, because we've talked to him about this issue in the past. I don't think it's been a question of indifference on the part of the government or anyone else; it's just been a case of enforcement and how to go about solving the problem.

Perhaps you want to indicate if anything has been done with respect to amending the Criminal Code and talking to the federal people. That was one of the other concerns that you mentioned in your correspondence in the past. Although there may be some changes made provincially, what changes could be made as well at the federal level?

We could expand on this issue in terms of hoping that it will be effective, but I will conclude by saying that I am very pleased that we have taken this first step. I believe that the patrons will be more comfortable and have some reassurance that they can go in and have a drink without having that drink turn into a fight, or where they are ambushed by the person they were befriending just a few minutes before. This quite often happens in these public places.

Two friends go in, start drinking and talking, and before the evening is over, somebody has pulled a knife for whatever reason. It's just too convenient; it's too easy. We know that when you're drinking, you are not as responsible for your behaviour as when you are not. It's incredible that people in the past have been able to have their drinks and their weapons in the same place.

I think this is a step forward which is long overdue. If you could just respond in closing to the federal side of it, that should suffice for now.

HON. L. HANSON: The Attorney-General has been in contact with the federal government on this issue, and we have their promise that they are studying it. I'm afraid I have nothing more concrete than that to report, but I would give you my undertaking to continue to follow that up as we have said before. But the Attorney-General has been doing so, as it would be his proper relationship with the federal government to pursue that. He has elicited the promise that they will study the issue.

Sections 23 to 39 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: 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 38. Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act, 1988, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

[4:45]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee on Bill 47.

CREDIT UNION AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1988

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

Sections 1 to 17 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 47, Credit Union Amendment Act (No. 2), 1988, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

[ Page 5304 ]

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Committee on Bill 51.

SMALL BUSINESS VENTURE CAPITAL
AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

The House in committee on Bill 51; Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.

On section 1.

MS. EDWARDS: I have a couple of questions on this. Probably it would be best if I asked the first one now and asked the second one later. Would the minister explain to me why the definition of "equity capital" is changed? The only change that I can see under it is that where it says "venture capital corporation for its issued shares" is a change from "for its issued equity shares." This happens all through the bill. It may be partly because we haven't had very much time to examine this, but I am not quite sure why the act is being changed so that the wording "equity shares" is nearly always replaced with "shares" without the adjective "equity."

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: On point one — and it is throughout — this is a technical amendment which clarifies the distinction between equity capital of a venture capital corporation and equity capital of a small business, as those terms are used throughout the act.

MS. EDWARDS: That means that when we read "shares" without the prefix "equity," we are talking about the shares in the venture capital corporation instead of the shares in the small business. Is that correct? The minister is nodding yes, so I assume.... All right.

My next question is: in subsection 1(d), small business is now defined without the limitation of "together with its affiliates." This was the definition of how many employees had to be where. No longer do 75 percent of the employees have to be in British Columbia, I understand. Could you explain the change in this section, which excludes the phrase "together with its affiliates"?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: These are technical amendments. Let me just refer to another section, to give this to you. As I understand it, all the criteria used to determine what is an eligible small business or eligible investment in a small business are brought together, if you refer to section 10. The definition of small business is a technical amendment only, to explain the criteria used to determine an eligible small business. It allows program-users to more readily understand their program requirements.

I'm sorry, I don't think I'm quite getting your question as I should. Maybe you should repeat it. Perhaps I'm not giving you the correct understanding, or perhaps I'm not understanding your question.

MS. EDWARDS: As I understand it, previously the largest size of company that could be defined as a small business would be a one with 75 employees, period, and that would include any affiliates of that company. Now the definition is such that any affiliates of that company are now excluded, so the company could have any number of affiliates, with any number of employees. Previously that was considered important, I believe, and now I'm presuming that there's a difference in the profile of a small business that can go to a venture capital corporation to offer equity.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Does it help if I say that I believe your assumption is correct, that they cannot go to affiliates? Was that your question?

MS. EDWARDS: I think it means that now the type of small business that we're talking about could be a whole different small business; it could be quite huge, in fact. We're talking about a business with no more than 75 employees, but in fact it could be affiliated with any number of other companies and that won't matter. In other words, this could be one of a conglomerate, if you like, affiliated with any number of other companies. Previously that was excluded; now a small business can be affiliated with any number, any size.... Why has the minister decided to allow companies that could be affiliated with very large groups to be defined this way in this act?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Perhaps if you'd look back to section 1(1), where the major shareholder is explained, the definition now applies to shareholders of all corporations referred to in the act and not just venture capital corporations. The amendment also expands the concept of major shareholder to include groups which may control a corporation by some method other than their shareholding. We're trying to broaden the opportunities.

If you wish to leave this "affiliates" question, and with the authority of the Chair, we could go on to the other amendments, and I will have someone here who was responsible for drafting the act originally and then came with this amendment. I'd be very glad to return to it, if that's all right with the Chair.

MR. ROSE: I wondered if there was a problem with it, and I didn't hear it; I wasn't listening. It's quite permissible. I think the House would, by leave, stand the clause and go on to another one while your official is coming. That would be fine.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

MS. EDWARDS: I just have a question of the minister. I'm not sure why this is repealed. Under this the registrar need not know any longer the total authorized and issued equity capital. It seems to me that's information that is important for the registrar to know, and I don't know why it is removed.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: This act is filled with quite a few technical amendments. This is one where similar requirements are found within the regulations; those in the regulations are the same as those found in the act. We felt they should stay in the regulations and not in the act.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

MS. EDWARDS: This is a new section. The substitution and the addition of number (4) is new. It says: "Where he considers it to be in the public interest, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may . . . exempt a venture capital corporation from the limits of equity capital set out in subsection 3(a) or (b) and specify other limits...." I'm not

[ Page 5305 ]

sure why the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council would want to do that. What are the particular cases in which the minister foresees that you would want to go beyond the limits laid out in the legislation?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: What we're aiming for in this act is to have enough flexibility in it that we will, in unique situations, be able to broaden the capability to take care of those unique situations. You'll recall last year there were amendments to the act by which we broadened it to take care of aquaculture and so on, and we would have that same flexibility without being specific. It would allow for flexibility which we would be very pleased to have.

MS. EDWARDS: This doesn't deal with the actual kind of business. As I understand it, it deals with the amount. It says there would no longer be limits of the capital to be set out. I wonder if the minister could explain what kind of unique situation would require that the amounts be extended.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: It's for the same reason. Later on you'll see a different definition is given more flexibility, but also the same amount; the amounts can be changed as well. The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council will have the right.... If there is something that's a little greater than is in section 3, they have the flexibility to encompass that as well.

[5:00]

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

MS. EDWARDS: I might suggest that we take two along the way. In section 5 there's more discretion again given to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council under what would be (4.1)(b). That's new, and it's more discretion. Section 6 is a revision of section 10 in the act, and under 10(l)(b) it says again: "unless otherwise provided by regulation...." In other words, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and so on has more and more power as we go along, and all I hear is: "Well, we might need it." But it seems to me that the minister is asking for more discretion for the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council as to amounts, as to who's there and even as to the regulations that are put in place and certainly can be changed more easily than the act itself. There's discretion there, and I would like to know why. What are the probable situations? Why is it that the legislation which was revised and amended just last session is again being amended and again giving more and more leeway to discretionary powers?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: It's a good question, and perhaps the member will understand when I say that the take-up and the interest in the Small Business Venture Capital Act has been very aggressive in this last year. Also, our staff, in working with it, have found that they require flexibility to fit particular and individual examples. We have such a diversification in the province now that, in terms of investments in business, that kind of flexibility is required.

You mention section 5, which I believe we're on now. It allows the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to effectively define what types of preferred investments a venture capital corporation may make in a small business. It adds flexibility to ensure that the VCCs maintain the required level of investments under the act.

The whole idea of bringing this back to the House is to clarify the wording. A lot of technical wording has been clarified. Because it had the definition of "eligible investments " in several places in the act, we merged the definition of the eligible investment. In this act it allows, as you say — and it should actually answer the question for very many small business investments — our people who work with this act the flexibility to allow them to take advantage of that situation. It's to give greater flexibility; you're absolutely right. I can assure you that it doesn't give more power, but more power not to be tied to a restrictive piece of legislation which would preclude some investments from being made.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

On section 7.

MS. EDWARDS: I have just one more question. It deals with what under the act will be section 12(3) — the last sentence there. We're talking about funds invested by the VCC raised other than through the issue of approved equity capital. Can you give me an idea of what those kinds of funds might be?

Interjection.

MS. EDWARDS: I'm sorry. It's section 7 of the bill; of the act, it will be 12(3). It's the very last sentence in that part. It refers to funds invested by the venture capital corporation which were raised other than through the issue of approved equity capital. What kinds of funds would be raised other than through the...?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: That refers to loans.

Sections 7 to 15 inclusive approved.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I can go back to the section which we skipped, section 1.

On section 1.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I believe it was 1(d), and I would like to ask our member doing the questioning if she would please rephrase her question.

MS. EDWARDS: It's in (d) under section 1 of the bill. The definition of small business has now had the phrase struck out, "together with its affiliates." My question is: why was that taken out? Does it not now lead to the possibility that you have large conglomerates?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Again I refer to section 10. This deletion under (d) that you refer to has been rolled into 10(l), where it says under (1)(a): " . . . the small business, together with its affiliates, has no more than 75 employees calculated in the prescribed manner.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

[ Page 5306 ]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 51, Small Business Venture Capital Amendment Act, 1988, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call committee on Bill 32.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

The House in committee on Bill 32; Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On section 4.

MR. BLENCOE: Section 4(b). Can the minister give me the details of what encouraged this section?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: We have had several inquiries over the past year and a half from both municipalities and membership in churches requesting this type of tax exemption. There are communities in this province with very small religious operations, so small that they are unable to afford to own their accommodation and are renting or leasing. We are attempting, in this amendment, to assist them with regard to property tax exemptions and place them on an even footing with other church operations that are owned by the congregations.

MR. BLENCOE: If a church organization considered that a townhouse development or a print shop or a catering business were necessary for public worship, would this section cover that situation?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I guess we can refer to local autonomy. This is permissive legislation. It permits the local government to grant temporary property tax exemptions in this area as they see fit. With all due respect to local government that we both have, I think we should assume that the local government will handle it very well. The likelihood of townhouses being given tax exemption under this particular section is nil.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister is aware that in her own constituency of Surrey there is a certain society that wishes to have 90 townhouses tax-exempt and exempt from development costs, bylaws and all sorts of things. I'm asking the minister if this section of the bylaw permits that sort of thing to happen.

[5:15]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I'm getting fed up to the teeth with this kind of discussion. The society may want tax exemption, but there is no possible way they will be given tax exemption. If the member for Victoria would just read the proposed amendment, he would recognize, I hope, the right of a municipal council to deal with this as they see fit. I don't know why we are getting off into properties that are owned by religious organizations. The member is making a mockery out of the entire committee system.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: I've got nothing against churches. The minister is rattled. The minister is upset. The minister knows that she is on very thin ice in Surrey with the society she is associated with, has helped and has gained tax exemption for for a number of things.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Can we get back to the section we're debating.

MR. BLENCOE: The point I'm making, Mr. Chairman, is that maybe the local council in its wisdom can make decisions, but I can assure you that the taxpayers of any municipality are particularly interested when you have permissive clauses in terms of tax exemption and in the wisdom of that council they grant wide-open tax exemptions. There's no question that in the minister's community of Surrey we have a society that is gaining all sorts of giveaways from the general taxpayer and having businesses and carrying out profit-oriented kinds of operation.

However, the minister has not answered my question. I'll leave that section for now.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I want to point out precisely what it says, in case the hon. member is unable to digest it. The amendment reads: " . . . for the purpose of public worship or for the purposes of a church hall which the council considers necessary to the church." Possibly those on this side of the House have more faith in local government than those on the socialist side of the House, but I have no problem with this amendment at all, and I'm sure it will be used as it was intended to be used.

Sections 4 to 6 inclusive approved.

On section 7.

MR. BLENCOE: I want to ask the minister a few questions. Now that we've got off tax exemption for her favourite few in her riding, we'll talk about Section 7. 1 want to ask why the assessment value of this particular section is no longer done on the date of the final approval of a development. Perhaps you can tell me that. I asked that question during second reading.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: There seemed to be a problem in some communities with interpretation of the previous wording of this particular section, so what we are doing is spelling it out very clearly in order that all local government can handle this particular section in the same way. It required clarification, and we're spelling it out clearly.

MR. BLENCOE: That's a partial answer. The minister is aware that previously the developer of a subdivision could either put aside parkland as required by the local government or pay the government an amount equivalent to the value of the land that should have been set aside. It was calculated on the basis of the average market value of all land in the subdivision on the date of the final approval, minus the cost of designing, surveying, etc. Now the developer will be required to pay an amount based on the average market value of land in the subdivision on the date of the preliminary approval of the subdivision. That's a substantial change, and it may be construed by some as a bit of a break for the developer and a short-changing of local government. Why such a substantial change?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: It certainly isn't a "break" for the developer, because any thinking person would understand and accept that the ...

[ Page 5307 ]

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: That is a problem, isn't it?

... cost of servicing property is ultimately passed on to the homeowner. In our mind, it's a break for the homeowner.

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 32, Municipal Amendment Act, 1988, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call committee on Bill 41.

MUNICIPAL FINANCE AUTHORITY

AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

The House in committee on Bill 41; Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. BLENCOE: Just to let you know, Mr. Chairman, we support this legislation. We think it's good legislation, and we can proceed post-haste.

Sections 2 to 9 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 41, Municipal Finance Authority Amendment Act, 1988, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call committee on Bill 49.

RESORT MUNICIPALITY OF WHISTLER

AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

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

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. BLENCOE: I just have a few questions on this section, which basically, I think, reflects the overall intention of the bill. It's my understanding, and the minister can correct me if I'm wrong, that the government is in some ways trying to avoid being tied up with the day-to-day administration of Whistler while retaining some sort of veto power over areas it considers important. For instance, in section 3 (9), it lists the areas that Whistler may be involved in in terms of making its own decisions, but the minister keeps control over many other aspects of Whistler decision-making or administration.

The role of the provincial government might be questioned along the lines of why the province has approval power of municipality borrowing while the electors in Whistler don't have the same power. Why give them some power and then retain a tremendous amount of responsibility?

The important thing to note is that in the first two sections of this amendment the municipality had very broad powers to construct, acquire, operate and maintain public works, municipal works and services. In this section, the types of development they may deal with are very carefully spelled out. While it is expanded in its specifics - i.e., highways are specifically mentioned - it is reduced overall because any item not mentioned in the legislation must be approved by the minister. It would appear that the minister may also prescribe development to be carried out by the municipality whether or not the municipal council supports it. I refer to section 9 (2) (g). It says: "Other works and services prescribed by the minister." I'm not quite sure what that means.

Those are some general comments. An overall question I would like the minister to answer is: if the council wants to undertake any development not specifically mentioned in the legislation, do they have to receive the approval of the minister?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Were you referring to development cost charges or to development period?

MR. BLENCOE: In 9 (2), for instance, it says, "The municipality may construct, replace, acquire, operate and maintain. . . . " and clearly lays out what it can get involved in. My question is: if it wants to undertake anything beyond those issues, does it have to directly get your approval?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Was the question: if they wanted to level a development charge for a service or something that was not outlined on this menu, would they have to come to the minister?

MR. BLENCOE: Yes.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Generally speaking, yes. That's why (g) is in there, so we can cover something that we may not have anticipated.

MR. BLENCOE: A philosophical question. The minister talks about this legislation giving a municipality all sorts of powers to run itself and make its own decisions, yet there are clearly going to be many areas that are still going to have to come to the minister for approval. Why would the minister want to retain that approval power? What circumstances still exist in Whistler, in the opinion of the minister, to require that approval process to be still in place?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: This is a very broad list. Short of saying, "Go ahead and charge for anything you want to, " it is very difficult to spell it out, so we have attempted to stipulate what the municipality feels they will be requiring. Rather than have to come forward with further legislation, we have put (g) in to allow us to address any other areas they may feel are important for them to be able to address.

[ Page 5308 ]

MR. BLENCOE: I'll leave it, but I can't understand why.... You're clearly laying out what areas they can get involved in, or have the power to approve development charges, but there's no question that the minister. . . . I assume that what you're trying to do with Whistler is to remove, as much as possible, the involvement of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs in the daily operations. I can understand that, because staff in that ministry has been cut so dramatically that we don't have enough to do those sorts of things anymore.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Quality.

MR. BLENCOE: I agree we have quality, but we still need more people to do the work.

I can't understand why you would maintain a heavy involvement in a number of these areas. Why not just start to cut yourself right out of this process?

Sections 3 to 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 49, Resort Municipality of Whistler Amendment Act, 1988, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

[5:30]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call committee on Bill 27, Mr. Speaker.

LAW REFORM AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

The House in committee on Bill 27; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 approved.

On section 5.

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

MR. SIHOTA: This section talks about agreements for sale or mortgages for residential purposes, really. I appreciate that the intent here is not to provide that level of comfort for commercial properties; I don't want to get into that. Clause (a) says: "to acquire the residence;" clause (b), "to make improvements to the residence;" clause (c), "to make expenditures for family or household purposes, " or (d) "to re-finance for any of the purposes in paragraphs (a) to (c). " I was intrigued by that wording in clause (d). I'm talking about 19.1 (2) (d).

I understand what the intent of the legislation here was, and I was wondering why you have limited paragraph (d) to items enumerated in items (a) to (c). I could see somebody for example, taking up.... Am I wrong in saying that (d) is limited to items (a) to (c) ?

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: That's correct. What do you do in a situation where someone has two residences, takes out mortgages on two separate residences, has it on one, sells that on an assumption basis. . . . The purpose of putting the mortgage on that property was to acquire the property next door, for the lack of a better example. It's not acquiring the residence, but it's certainly acquiring a residence, and it's not doing it to make improvements or to make expenditures. It seems to me that there may not be any protection for a person who falls into that situation. I don't think there's going to be a lot of them, but unless there's an answer to it.... It struck me as I was reading this section. I'm interested to hear what the Attorney-General has to say in response.

HON. B.R. SMITH: In order not to upset commercial transactions and create commercial uncertainty, we limited the whole principle of this kind of relief to the residence of the person. Unless the borrower actually resides there, then this route is not open. It's quite true that (d) refers to (a) to (c), so that the borrower can do those following things. In the case that the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew made, it would be a commercial transaction, or a transaction that wasn't primarily related to residence. We have tried to get rid of this burden on borrowers for their residence, but not for any other related or semi-related commercial purpose.

Amendment approved.

Section 5 as amended approved.

On section 6.

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

MR. SIHOTA: I'll put this item on the record, and I don't need a response from the Attorney-General. Again, you have left the three-month provision. I would have preferred to see a provision that did not refer to three months. I appreciate the fact that you've gone down from six to three, but my concern remains. As I said in second reading, there should be no clog in that regard, whether it be one, two or three months. I don't require a reply from the Attorney-General; I know what his answer is. But just for the record I wanted to express our position on that.

Amendment approved.

Section 6 as amended approved.

On section 7.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I move all the amendments to section 7 standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendments approved.

Section 7 as amended approved.

Sections 7.1 to 10 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

[ Page 5309 ]

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 27, Law Reform Amendment Act, 1988, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Introduction of Bills

MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING AND VALIDATING

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1988

Hon. Mrs. Johnston presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act (No. 2), 1988.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Bill 54 contains provisions to resolve the conflict in the Okanagan-Similkameen Regional District over the provision of electrical services to the specified area H3. The legislation will validate the process used by the regional district to provide the electrical service.

I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 54 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. STRACHAN: Committee on Bill 31, Mr. Speaker.

VICTIMS'RIGHTS AND SERVICES ACT

The House in committee on Bill 31; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Sections 1 to 17 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. B.R. SMITH: 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 31, Victims' Rights and Services Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 45.

HYDRO AND POWER AUTHORITY

PRIVATIZATION ACT

(continued)

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The hon. member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) adjourned debate, and I presume will defer to another hon. member of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

MR. HARCOURT: I indeed would like to speak on second reading of Bill 45, because we are at an important point in our province's history where we have to decide whether we have the ability to make our own economic decisions or whether British Columbia is being sold off; and if it is being sold off, for what reason. If it is being sold off under the government's privatization scheme on a scale that takes away the breath of people who are hearing about it for the first time, the reason is very simple: this government is hell-bent on putting the narrow interests of big business and a few friends ahead of those of ordinary men and women of this province.

British Columbians are asking: what is for sale? All of B.C. Hydro? ICBC? B.C. Ferries? B.C. Rail? The selling off of our highways and our public health labs to businesses whose bottom line is to make a profit, not the health and safety of or service to the people of British Columbia, is the motto of this government. With the introduction of Bill 45, British Columbians can only conclude that this government has not earned and does not deserve their trust. The only conclusion they can reach is that B.C. is indeed up for sale.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Just to confirm that point, this afternoon the government introduced an amendment saying they wouldn't sell off B.C. Hydro's electric division. What happened is they got caught. Last week the Minister of Energy said that the bill did allow the sale. He answered a question from our very able Energy critic, the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) ; and they had to introduce this amendment.

We raised the issue in this Legislature, and we exposed the real agenda of this Social Credit government. The real agenda has been made very clear by the Premier, when he said last fall: "We've only just begun." We've only just begun stages I ~ 2~ 3, 4 and 5 of privatization. No. 5 is that the last person turns off the light on British Columbia. He said that nothing is sacred. Well, you don't have a very original Premier. They were going to sell off everything but the wires of B.C. : Hydro - lock, stock and transformer. That's what was going to go on in this province.

The real wonder so far in the New Democrats' successful fight to save B.C. Hydro is the ordinary men and women of B.C. Your government's agenda still remains, but you got caught.

You're extremists. When I tell people - I've been talking to a few mayors in the last little while - what this government intends to do with its privatization and sell-off of this province, they catch their breath.

Interjection.

MR. HARCOURT-r: And then they get quite sick thinking about it, hon. member, because they can't believe a government could be that extreme. In 1983, there were 60, 000 people working for the people of British Columbia. By 1986 that was down to 40, 000. This government wants, from 1987 to 1989, to take that figure and reduce it from 40, 000 to 20, 000 people, and they have task forces looking at the remaining lonely, hunted people in the public sector. They've got task forces looking at those last 20, 000 people, and they've got task forces looking at municipal governments, hospital boards, hospitals, school boards, prisons.... Everything is up for sale, and all that's going to be left by this government that hates the public sector are the tax collectors and the army to back them up in collecting unfair taxes.

[5:45]

We've got to understand the scope of the extremism and why it was important for New Democrats to fight this

[ Page 5310 ]

government's plan - which they got caught at - to sell off the B.C. Hydro electric division. It's because that would then allow them to sell off not just the Site C dam but the Williston reservoir, the W.A.C. Bennett Dam and the Peace River to California investors. If they can sell off West Kootenay Power and Light, a modest $80 million utility, just think what they could do to the Revelstoke Dam, the Arrow Lakes, the Mica Dam, the Columbia River and all of the downstream benefits when they sell to a multinational investor.

I tell you, Mr. Chairman, W.A.C. Bennett would roll over in his grave, and I think this new style of Social Credit member that I see around here smiling about their nefarious plans for this province. . . . I'd like to quote some words. . . . If you won't listen to New Democrats - which you should; it would help this terrible government a lot to listen to us. . . .

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: We listen.

MR. HARCOURT: And learn - that's even more important, Madam Minister. It would do you even more good.

I'd like to quote, Mr. Chairman. On August 2, 1962, W.A.C. Bennett said: "The energy that serves the public should be under the auspices of the public." He would roll over in his grave if he saw what this government tried to sneak through this Legislature and sell off on the people of British Columbia. It's not surprising that this new-style Social Credit government would try it. This isn't the old Social Credit Party that many British Columbians have supported in the past. This Social Credit government has moved away from those good people; they're representing the interests of big business and the wealthy now, and friends of the Premier. They don't understand the reason that B.C. Electric was taken over and turned into B.C. Hydro in the first place. That's how the north and the interior of this province were opened up, because B.C. Electric wouldn't do it.

What we would have had happen to this province if this nefarious crew of new-style Social Crediters had gotten away with it.... They would have given up the lifeblood of British Columbia: water power, hydroelectric power. That's why old-style Socreds are so upset with this new group, because they were even willing to sell the electric division, the public utility that British Columbians have entrusted their government with. The public assets that their tax dollars bought.... Not your tax dollars, Madam Minister; the people of British Columbia's tax dollars and the abundant natural resources that go along with that.

I'll tell you, British Columbians are saying that they can't trust this Social Credit government. It's a government that profitizes health care, sells our highways and refuses to make public its commitment not to sell ICBC to U.S. insurance companies. But this government is still not listening.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You create your own rumours and then enact them.

MR. HARCOURT: It's no rumour, hon. member; it's a bill that you tabled in this Legislature. If you think a bill that you table in this Legislature is innuendo, then go back and look at the dictionary, or talk to your fearless leader. He can look in his file for some further innuendo.

Let me tell you, Bill 45 is a damned good example - and I use that word in a limited way - of how deaf this government is to the voices of British Columbians. Until we stopped you all today.... You're smiling sheepishly about it. Nice try, but you didn't get away with it. Until we stopped you, you were prepared to sell off not just the four divisions of B.C. Hydro. . . . You admitted it opened the door to the sell off of the entire B.C. Hydro operation, including dams and $11 billion in assets owned by the people of this province, and you got caught.

It's sweeping, radical, unprecedented legislation, and 1, New Democrats and the people of British Columbia ask: where did your mandate come from? It didn't come from the people of British Columbia. You didn't bring up selling B.C. Hydro in the last election. You got caught. Not only that, but you were prepared to give total power to cabinet with respect to all aspects of selling off B.C. Hydro, to give cabinet carte blanche.

Electric power is just too vital; it's too strategic a sector of British Columbia's economic development. The control of this sector automatically gives a degree of control over the whole structure and future direction of B.C.'s economy. Energy generation should not be put into the hands of a multinational hydroelectric concern solely with maximizing profits at the expense of B.C. consumers. We don't need to rely on foreign ownership to develop British Columbia. We've got the skills and the people right here. If you would listen to British Columbians, instead of setting up these harum-scarum funny little things called your "United States of British Columbia, " you would hear what they have to say about the potential of this great province in each of the regions. If you not only listened to them but maybe took action on those grassroots ideas.... It's like the fine proposal from the councils of that great area of the Cariboo -Quesnel, Williams Lake and 100 Mile House - that had that splendid program to reforest and get involved in silviculture; you turned them down cold.

Just like last night when I was in that New Democrat stronghold of Langley....

MR. PETERSON: What did they tell you there?

MR. HARCOURT: Do you know what they told me? That you didn't listen to them.

Interjections.

MR. HARCOURT: I'll repeat it for you. They said that this government was listening to the Langley Chamber of Commerce so badly that when the Langley Chamber of Commerce asked for some partnership with this government to help with their information and tourist centre, they were told to go see the welfare minister for a grant. Treating the visitor industry in this province - a $3 billion-a-year industry - like a welfare grant! That's how well this government is listening to the people of this province.

Our minister of the environment here says we should close down the commercial fisheries. That would close down the coastal communities of this province. That's not listening to the people of this province, Mr. Speaker. In Boundary Similkameen they gave you a message; you're not listening to them. You want to close down the agricultural community there.

We have the people. We've got the talent and the resources right here in this great province of ours, and we and the people of this province are unequivocally opposed to foreign ownership of hydroelectric utilities. We said that for WKPL and we say that for B.C. Hydro: we are not going to let you sell it.

[ Page 5311 ]

This cabinet thinks that it can sneak through a provision and this government would be prepared to go along with it. All the back-benchers who are just waiting with their breath held for that cabinet post that may or may not come their way - they're not saying anything, because they just may get up into the captain's area to help take another run at the iceberg with the Titanic. They're just waiting to have a chance to do that. So they didn't point out - we had to point it out - the provision where the cabinet can override all the foreign ownership restrictions in Bill 45 in the name of the public interest. Which public? Which interest? It's certainly not that of the ordinary men and women of this province.

Mr. Chairman, in every instance where there's a restriction on foreign ownership in the special companies designation section of this bill, the cabinet can override it. That's why we've opposed this bill, and that's why the very able and fine critic, the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark), stumped you, caught you, and now you've got nothing but embarrassed giggles as you wait breathlessly to find out whether you're going to get into the cabinet. We were doing our homework, and we were doing our work on behalf of the ordinary men and women of this province, and we caught you. I'd say shame on you, but you're beyond shame, most of you. I couldn't do that; I couldn't say it.

Last July 13, during the debate on another sale of a hydroelectric concern, West Kootenay Power and Light, to an American company, we asked. Let me quote from questions asked by our critic: "Has the Premier decided to include the question of nationality of ownership as a consideration for the Utilities Commission in future takeover attempts by America? Or is everything for sale? Is B.C. Hydro going to be sold to American companies?" That was the question we asked the Premier, and you know what? the Premier wouldn't even answer the question and make his public commitment not to sell B.C. Hydro to foreign owners. And now he asks for our trust. Well, now we know why the people of British Columbia aren't prepared to do that. We're not prepared to do it as the New Democrat opposition.

Even if this bill is amended, this government still wants to sell off B.C. Hydro's gas, research and development and rail divisions. I want to touch on a couple of those.

Our critic has said that if the gas division is sold, consumers will pay more. He has effectively, in detail, pointed out why: because these companies must make a profit and a rate of return and that's got to be added on to the rate. Secondly, private companies cannot borrow at the same rate as public enterprise. They'll have to pay more, and therefore we'll have to pay more. Thirdly, private companies have to pay a federal income tax; public enterprise does not have to pay those corporate income taxes. That's all going to be paid for by the consumer.

The research and development division. It's said that that facility is being sold off. It's a year or so away from breaking even right now. It works to improve the efficiency of our hydro - not just our hydro, but they're consulting with U. S. utilities, they're consulting with the private sector. They're there day in and day out for people in B.C. Hydro to utilize and to give the best hydroelectric service in the world to our people here in British Columbia. That will be lost if it's sold, because it's an integral part of the hydro system. If it's sold it will be less efficient, reliable and safe. Our energy critic has pointed all of those matters out.

Ernst and Whinney, your own consultants, said that the R and D division should not be privatized. They said you can't privatize; it's not a stand-alone. So why are you privatizing it? Your own experts said don't do it, and yet you're going ahead with it.

It's part of this government's mad dash to dismantle the technological capabilities that we have in this province. They're going to let MDI be sold to Motorola and those 400 jobs in Richmond be lost and go down to the Motorola plant in the states. They're going to let B.C. Hydro's research and development go. They're prepared to sell off two of the best facilities we have in this province.

It's for that reason that we are opposing this bill with every ounce that we can, because the people of British Columbia are opposing this bill. They don't want B.C. Hydro sold off. This government is extreme; it's radical. It brings in extreme and radical measures to dismantle this province. It has an extremist agenda. The people of British Columbia in Boundary-Similkameen sent you a message. They said: "Step back. Take your foot off the accelerator. Put on the brakes. Listen to British Columbians. You're doing too much too quickly. You have no mandate."

For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I am putting a motion forward, and I'll read it out: "That the motion for the second reading of Bill 45, entitled Hydro and Power Authority Privatization Act, 1988, be amended by deleting the word , now' and adding the words 'on this day six months hence.

It's appropriately signed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment to the motion is in order, hon. members, so we're now dealing with the hoist motion.

MR. GABELMANN: 1 move that the debate be adjourned until the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I move the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:02 p.m.

[ Page 5312 ]

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

74 The Hon. E. N. Veitch to move-

That a Special Committee of the Legislature be appointed to examine, inquire into and make recommendations to the House, unanimously, respecting the Preliminary Report of the British Columbia Royal Commission on Electoral Boundaries: May 1988, so as to assist the Commissioner of Electoral Boundaries in making his Final Report.

That the Committee be composed of Messrs. Rabbitt (Convener), Ree, Long, Jacobsen, Weisgerber, Vant, and Messrs. Williams, G. Hanson and Sihota; and to report to the House as soon as possible, or following adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be.

In addition to powers previously conferred upon the Select Standing Committees of this House, the Committee shall further have the following powers:

(a) To appoint of their number one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee; and

(b) To sit

(i) during any period in which the House is adjourned, and

(ii) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient.

27 The Hon. B. R. D. Smith to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 27) intituled Law Reform Amendment Act, 1988 to amend as follows:

SECTION 5, in the proposed section 19.1 of the Property Law Act

(a) in subsection (2) by striking out "or" at the end of paragraph (b), by adding 14or" at the end of paragraph (c) and by adding the following paragraph:

(d) to re-finance for any of the purposes in paragraphs (a) to (c).

(b) by adding the following subsections:

(3) In subsection (2) reference to the borrower is reference to

(a) the mortgagor or purchaser under the agreement for sale, or

(b) where the mortgage has been assumed or the purchaser's interest in the agreement for sale transferred, the person who assumed the mortgage or the person to whom the purchaser's interest was transferred, as the case may be.

(4) A reference in sections 20.2 and 20.3 to the "personal covenant" or "covenants" is deemed to be a reference to all covenants, terms and conditions in the mortgage or agreement for sale, and where those sections provide that liability in respect of the personal covenant or covenants ceases, liability ceases with respect to all those covenants, terms and conditions in the mortgage or agreement for sale.

SECTION 6, in the proposed section 20 of the Property Law Act

(a) in subsection (1) (a) by deleting "interest" and substituting "estate in fee simple", and

(b) in subsection (2) (a) by deleting "consideration for" and substituting "net proceeds payable on completion of".

SECTION 7, in the proposed section 20.1 of the Property Law Act

(a) by deleting subsection (1) and substituting the following:

(1) In this section "current owner" means

(a) the current registered owner in fee simple of land whose title was acquired subject to a mortgage, or

(b) where the purchaser's interest under an agreement for sale has been transferred, the current registered owner of that interest. ,

[ Page 5313 ]

(b) by deleting subsection (3) and substituting the following:

(3) A mortgagee or vendor under an agreement for sale is entitled to

(a) recover from the current owner any amount due and owing under the mortgage or agreement for sale, and

(b) enforce, against the current owner, all covenants, terms and conditions in the mortgage or agreement for sale

as though the current owner had entered into those covenants to make payments or to observe or perform the covenants, terms and conditions referred to in paragraph (b). , and

(c) in subsection (6) by deleting "other rights or remedies" and substituting "rights or remedies".

SECTION 7, in the proposed section 20.2 of the Property Law Act by deleting the proposed subsections (1) and (3) and substituting the following:

(1) Notwithstanding section 20 (1), a person who

(a) transfers an estate in fee simple inland subject to a residential mortgage, or

(b) transfers a purchaser's interest under a residential agreement for sale, ceases to be liable under the personal covenant in the mortgage or agreement for sale, unless the mortgagee or vendor under the agreement for sale gives, within 3 months after the existing term has expired, written notice to the person, making a demand for payment of the sum secured.

(3) Notwithstanding section 20 (1), a person who

(a) transfers an estate in fee simple in land subject to a residential mortgage that is, under the terms of the mortgage, payable on demand, or

(b) transfers a purchaser's interest under a residential agreement for sale that is, under the terms of that agreement, payable on demand, ceases to be liable under the personal covenant in the mortgage or agreement for sale, unless the mortgagee or vendor under the agreement for sale gives, within 3 months after he has received written notice from the person of the transfer, written notice to the person, making a demand for payment of the sum secured.

SECTION 7, in the proposed section 20.3 of the Property Law Act

(a) by deleting the proposed subsection (1) and substituting the following:

(1) Notwithstanding section 20 (1), where a mortgagee under a residential mortgage or a vendor under a residential agreement for sale gives written approval under this section to a person to whom

(a) the mortgagor transfers an estate in fee simple in land subject to the mortgage, or

(b) the purchaser transfers his interest in the agreement for sale, that mortgagor or purchaser ceases to be liable on all covenants contained in the mortgage or agreement for sale. ,

(b) in subsection (2) by deleting "or assignment",

(c) in subsection (3) by deleting "may request" and substituting "may require", and

(c) by deleting subsection (3) (a) and substituting the following:

(a) reasonable financial information respecting the transferee or proposed transferee, and .

SECTION 7.1, by adding the following section:

Transitional

7.1 (1) Section 20.2 (1) of the Property Law Act enacted by section 7 of this Act applies only where the expiry of the existing term that is referred to in that section occurred after section 20.2 (1) came into force.

(2) Section 20.2 (3) of the Property Law Act enacted by section 7 of this Act does not apply where the transfer or assignment occurred before section 20.2 (3) came into force.