[ Page 4811 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

MTOC advertisements. Mr. Lank –– 4811

Consultation with Alberta Minister of Health. Mrs. Dailly –– 4812

Hunting rights for non-Canadians. Mr. Passarell –– 4812

Services for handicapped students. Mr. Rose –– 4812

Income assistance rates. Mr. Barnes –– 4813

BCSC building space, Hon. Mr. Curtis replies –– 4813

British Columbia Human Rights Code, 1984 (Bill M207). Mr. Gabelmann

Introduction and first reading –– 4813

Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill 29). Committee stage

On section 17 –– 4814

Mrs. Dailly

Third reading –– 4814

Young Offenders (British Columbia) Act (Bill 22). Committee stage

On Section 1 –– 4814

Ms. Brown

Mr. Lauk

On section 10 –– 4816

Ms. Brown

Mr. Rose

On section 20 –– 4817

Ms. Brown

Third reading –– 4818

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No, 2), 1984 (Bill 31). Committee stage

On Section 1 –– 4818

Ms. Brown

On section 8 –– 4818

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Rose

On section 15 –– 4819

Mrs. Wallace

On section 16 –– 4819

Ms. Brown

On section 17 –– 4820

Mrs. Wallace

On section 19 –– 4820

Ms. Brown

Mr. Macdonald

Division

On section 20 –– 4821

Division

On section 27 –– 4822

Mr. D'Arcy

On section 31 –– 4822

Mr. D'Arcy

On section 45 –– 4822

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. D'Arcy

On section 69 –– 4824

Mr. D'Arcy

On section 76 –– 4824

Mr. Passarell

On section 77 –– 4825

Mr. Passarell

On section 78 –– 4825

Mr. Blencoe

On section 81 –– 4826

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Rose

Division

On section 87 –– 4829

Mr. Segarty

On section 89 –– 4829

Mr. D'Arcy

Third reading –– 4830

Bill No 1, An Act To Amend The Vancouver Charter (Bill PR401). Second reading

Mr. Pelton –– 4830

Mr. Lank –– 4830

Mr. Pelton –– 4830

Bill No 1, An Act To Amend The Vancouver Charter (Bill PR401). Committee stage

Third reading –– 4831

Education Statutes (Fiscal Year) Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill 27). Third reading 4831

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Labour estimates. (Hon. Mr. McClelland)

On vote 45: minister's office –– 4831

Hon. Mr. McClelland

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Cocke

Committee of Supply: Premier's Office. (Hon. Mr. Bennett)

On vote 4: premier's office –– 4834

Mr. Howard

Division

Committee of Supply: Legislation.

On vote 3: ombudsman –– 4836

Mr. Reynolds

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Reid

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations. (Hon. Mr. Gardom)

On vote 43: minister's office –– 4838

Mr. Howard

Mr. Veitch

Expropriation Act (Bill 30). Hon. Mr. Gardom

Introduction and first reading –– 4839

Supply Act (No 2), 1984 (Bill 32). Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 4839

Tabling Documents –– 4840

Royal assent to bills –– 4840

Appendix –– 4841

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The House would Re to pay a special and very cordial welcome to Mr. Kunio Katakura the newly appointed consul-general of Japan in Vancouver. Welcome to British Columbia, sir.

MR. SEGARTY: I would like all hon. members to join with me in wishing the second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) a very happy birthday today.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition would also like to greet the new -consul-general from Japan.

MR. NICOLSON: Later today, touring the galleries, will be students from W.E. Graham High School in Slocan, with their principal Mr. Jack Edson and parents and other teachers. I wish the House would make them welcome.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, some 20 years ago my wife taught school at Nicola-Canford Elementary School in' Merritt. Today we're very happy to have a group of 27 students from that school, accompanied by their teacher Mr. Gage and other chaperones. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce five visitors in your gallery today. They represent the Association of B.C. Professional Foresters, and they made an excellent, positive presentation to our caucus today. They are William Dumont, president; Peter Ackhurst, past president; Randall Chan, vice-president; Arthur Walker of the Vancouver Island section of the Institute of Forestry; and Alan Furniss, the registrar. Would the House please make them welcome.

Oral Questions

MTOC ADVERTISEMENTS

MR. LAUK: I have a question for the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid), as chairman of the MTOC. Recently we have heard advertisements on radio with respect to the current labour dispute between the Metro Transit Operating Company and the Independent Canadian Transit Union. Would the second member for Surrey, in his capacity as chairman of MTOC, please indicate to the chamber how much has been expended for such radio advertisements? And why have the radio advertisements continued long after negotiations have been recommenced?

MR. SPEAKER: Would the member allow the Chair one moment. I believe that the question can only be addressed to the chairman of a committee who is appointed by the House. If the member would allow just one moment, I believe I can cite the appropriate authority.

MR. LAUK: Will the clock stop?

MR. SPEAKER: No, but Hon. member, citing from Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, E.G. MacMinn, page 78, both May's nineteenth edition and Beauchesne's fifth edition suggest that the only possible way for questions to be addressed to private members is if such members are chairmen of certain House committees. Hon. members, that would preclude the question to that particular member being in order.

MR. LAUK: I certainly wonder whether the Speaker is going to rely on such dubious authority for all of his decisions.

MR. SPEAKER: While taken in jest, hon. member, such a remark cannot be left unchallenged by the Chair. I must ask the member, notwithstanding the jest of the remark, to withdraw the same.

MR. LAUK: Well, all right. I've read that volume on many occasions, particularly when I'm on holidays.

I direct the question to the minister in charge of transit, the Minister of Human Resources. Under what authority were such advertisements authorized, and what was the budget set aside for them?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I thank the member for his interest. First of all, the source of the authority the member requests is a decision made by the board of Metro Transit, MTOC, and I cannot share the expenditure with the House because I haven't the knowledge of that amount.

MR. LAUK: We have been instructed in this chamber and elsewhere that the MTOC runs on a break-even year-to-year operating budget to keep the cost to the user and the taxpayer as low as possible. With that in mind, has the minister decided to investigate how the MTOC can raise the money for such advertising expenditures?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No, I have no intention of making that inquiry I'm sure it is kept within a modest means, because everything that board has done during the time I've had this responsibility has been done with restraint in mind. I have been appreciative of that, and of the board and of the service our member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) has given to that board in his leadership of that board.

In addition, I would just like to say that I do believe it's not only required of but an obligation of the board and the company to share with the riding public their concern that the service will be maintained for the customers they serve. As you know, there has been a problem with coming to an agreement on their contract, and I think it's imperative for the riding public, who are very appreciative of our service to them, to have an explanation of any work stoppages, and that's exactly what is being given by the board. Certainly I will concur with their decision to do so.

MR. LAUK: As the minister is refusing to make an inquiry about the perhaps unsavoury expenditure of MTOC's funds on media, perhaps the minister will consider investigating the competence of those who have decided to use such advertising. In light of the fact that the ads call upon the union to get back to the negotiating table, five days after they did get back to the negotiating table under the auspices of

[ Page 4812 ]

Clark Gilmour, has the minister therefore decided to investigate the incompetence of the board's decision in continuing the ads after that event?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that it is difficult for the member to change the question when it's all written out for him. I had already answered that question: that I believe the competency of the board is excellent and I don't question it one little bit. I think it should be noted that the board has always been waiting to bargain at the bargaining table. They wish to settle the dispute; they wish to operate the buses for the citizens of British Columbia and the citizens of Vancouver, and their position hasn't changed. It was the union that asked the mediator to book out nine weeks ago, not the company. So I'm really pleased that Mr. Gilmour, the company and the union are exploring ways in which this dispute can be settled. I'm confident that they will come to some agreement in a very short time, and I'm hoping so for the good of those who use the service and appreciate the service so much.

MR. LAUK: If the minister does not consider that incompetence, in light of the fact that Clark Gilmour, head of the mediation service, ordered a media blackout while these ads continued, has the minister decided to make inquiries about that kind of insolence toward the labour process on the part of the MTOC?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I believe that a news reporting blackout is very much different than information that has been given by both sides of the table, and I don't think either side has withdrawn its information to the public.

MR. LAUK: First of all, the minister suggests that I'm reading from prepared questions. If she thinks my extemporaneous questions are that bad, she should read the ones that were prepared for me,

Summing up then, Mr. Speaker, I take it the minister suggests that running these advertisements five days after Metro Transit has been back to the negotiating table, when the advertisements call for getting back to the negotiating table, is not incompetence; that using operating moneys that were to help the bus service is not incompetence; and that in fact she feels that all of these events are consistent with her view of the board's competence. Will she submit to a review of some legislative committee about her competence?

MR. SPEAKER: The question itself is out of order. The minister may wish to respond.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I will ignore the question from the member, but I would say that if research of the NDP caucus wishes me to take their case, I'd be delighted to do so.

[2:15]

CONSULTATION WITH ALBERTA

MINISTER OF HEALTH

MRS. DAILLY: A question to the Minister of Health. Documents released in Edmonton recently show that the Alberta Minister of Health plans to consult with the B.C. government before launching a major initiative to privatize the Alberta medical health insurance plan. Will the Minister of Health in British Columbia advise us whether this consultation has taken place with the officials of the ministry in Alberta?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The minister in Alberta frequently consults with British Columbia with respect to mutual problems, but I haven't heard from him with respect to privatization of health care service. Although I did hear a reference to it on the air the other day that they were considering it, I haven't heard from anyone about it.

MRS. DAILLY: Would the minister tell us if perhaps some of his officials are involved in consultation with officials from the ministry in Alberta?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Not that I am aware of with respect to that specific. Obviously the ministry officials and the Alberta officials do speak about various problems constantly, but I am not aware that they are having any consultation with respect to what the member speaks of.

MRS. DAILLY: Final supplementary. Will the minister perhaps give a commitment to this House that he will at a future date inform this House if such consultation takes place in the province of B.C.?

MR. SPEAKER: That's future action, hon. member.

HUNTING RIGHTS FOR NON-CANADIANS

MR. PASSARELL: A question to the Minister of the Environment. The regional director of the fish and wildlife branch has testified in the B.C. Supreme Court that there is nothing he can do to prevent non-Canadians from acquiring trapping, guiding and outfitting rights normally reserved for our citizens. What action is the minister taking to untie the hands of his administration and prevent the control of trapping and hunting rights falling into non-Canadian hands?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, as the member will probably appreciate, I am reluctant to comment about actions that I'm going to take when something is before the courts. I think the member is interpreting a bit, and I don't know whether the press release is also interpreting. I believe that the act says, as in any situation, that the trapping licence must be in the name of a Canadian citizen. If that person takes out a licence, then obviously it is in his name. If he makes some arrangement with someone else . . . . I believe the staff member is trying to point out that it is not within the law, or his jurisdiction, to decide who can walk where on somebody else's land. We can control who owns land or who has a lease, according to certain conditions. We certainly might like to try to tell anyone in this province how they must behave and with whom they must speak or deal, but it would be impossible, and not within the law, to enforce it.

SERVICES FOR HANDICAPPED STUDENTS

MR. ROSE: My question to the Minister of Education concerns a directive sent on April 18 by the ministry to various colleges and institutes concerning support services to adult handicapped students. The ministry says it will not provide interpreters or personal assistants any longer but "will liaise with the appropriate ministries and agencies" - I

[ Page 4813 ]

guess to produce the services that have been withdrawn. I would like to know whether the minister can advise the House which ministries or agencies will be looking after the needs of the handicapped college students. What is the provision for the necessary services, and does the minister have any assurance that the other ministries will provide, and guarantee, the services that are needed?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I'm unable to give a full answer to that question and will take it as notice.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, while the minister is taking that as notice, perhaps he could take the rest of it as notice, because I have another little portion as well.

A special fund has been announced for support services to handicapped students. Something like $400, 000 has been taken out of the $300 million to the college operating grants. I want to know whether the ministry can assure the House that the $400, 000 is sufficient to provide the service, and whether or not these funds will be granted annually in future years.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I took the first part as notice. I presume that the member was just adding the second part of this question; I'll take that as notice as well.

INCOME ASSISTANCE RATES

MR. BARNES: My question is to the Minister of Human Resources. Effective April 1, 1984 - a few days ago - the minister reintroduced age discrimination in income assistance rates. Does the minister have any studies which show that persons under 25 years of age require less nutrition than those 25 years of age and over? I realize the question seems a little facetious. But the point is that the minister has indicated in the past that these people were more mobile or had family to support them. We're talking specifically about those people who do not have those resources. What studies has the minister done to justify the age discrimination?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I think the member's question was answered at the time that the ministry's policy was announced. Figures were given at that time. I'd certainly be pleased to give them in general now. I can give them more specifically to the member. There is a quicker turnover in that age group. Fifty percent of those who come on income assistance today will be off income assistance within four months. The age group that has a faster return to the workforce is that group under 25 years of age. The other reason for changing the policy in respect to that age group is that they're more mobile, which you have just quoted. Also, they do have other resources. Those under 25 years of age are very often able to return to their families and have home support, which those who have spouses and children are unable to do. It was in order to retain the core services for the many others who are coming to us on income assistance that that group was singled out. Thank you for the question.

BCSC BUILDING SPACE

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in a series of questions from the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) we dealt with occupied floor space versus unoccupied floor space at the headquarters of the British Columbia Systems Corporation. The member is not present, but for his convenience when he reads Hansard perhaps I might deal with that briefly.

I indicated that one ministry was already in place in the Systems building and that it was reasonable to expect that a portion of another ministry would be there in due course. First of all, the Ministry of Labour is a tenant, occupying the third floor - approximately 36, 640 square feet. I don't know how large that is in Celsius, Mr. Speaker. The Buildings Corporation is acting on behalf of the Systems Corporation to rent the entire second floor which is 50, 000 sq. ft. -or 84 Fahrenheit. The member for Nanaimo can ignore the last comment, the very last part. All other space in the building is occupied by the Systems Corporation. With contracting out of the operations of a portion of the Systems Corporation, it could be expected that a small amount of this space would be rented to the contracting party or parties.

I trust that will help the member in his inquiry.

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. MICHAEL: I would ask the House to make welcome the students and teacher from Len Wood Elementary School in the beautiful agricultural community of Armstrong-Spallumcheen who are visiting the precincts today

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to return to introduction of bills.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair was informed previously that there was to be a . . . .

HON. MR. GARDOM: This is the purpose of it.

MR. SPEAKER: This is the purpose? Thank you, hon. member.

Leave granted.

Introduction of Bills

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a bill intituled British Columbia Human Rights Code, 1984.

Leave granted.

BRITISH COLUMBIA

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE, 1984

On a motion by Mr. Gabelmann, Bill M207, British Columbia Human Rights Code, 1984, 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.

MR. REYNOLDS: I rise on a matter of privilege. A member duly elected to this chamber has the undoubted right to attend all sittings unless the House by express order has taken away that member's right to sit or unless the member has been ordered to withdraw by the Chair. Neither this

[ Page 4814 ]

House nor the Chair has placed any restriction on my right to attend sessions of this venerable chamber, and accordingly any session called and held in secrecy amounts to a breach of my privileges.

An accurate and unimpeachable source, the CBC, in a public television broadcast yesterday disclosed that this chamber sat until four o'clock in the morning for purposes of discussing a certain piece of legislation. Not only was I not advised, Mr. Speaker, of this secret sitting of the House, but it is my understanding that a number of hon. members were also excluded from that particular sitting.

I wish to emphasize that had the source of this information been other than the CBC I would have dismissed it as an inexactitude or a poorly researched report. In view of the source of this information, Mr. Speaker, I can only conclude that indeed this House may be embarking upon a dangerous course of action, and I ask you, sir, as guardian of the rights and privileges of all members of this honourable House, to take whatever steps are necessary to see that such secret sessions are discontinued forthwith.

MR. LAUK: On the same question of privilege, I was the only member in attendance until four in the morning, and I think the report, therefore, of the CBC was accurate as usual.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair will undertake the usual perusal and reply accordingly.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to bills.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 29.

[2:30]

HEALTH STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 29; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 5 to 16 inclusive approved.

On section 17.

MRS. DAILLY: I note that this changes the regulations, and it's concerned with the registration of adoptions, so that the adopting parents can now appear on the registration of birth as the parents of the child. I applaud that; I think that's a good move.

I'm not quite sure of the timing. I'm not raising any objection, but I wondered if the minister knows if that appears after the adoption is finalized or at the time of it. It's a question that has been asked of me.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, the amendment permits the registrar to provide space on the application form for the names and place of the birth of the parents. At the present time it is a separate certificate. The birth certificate now does not contain space for that information; it will now be integrated into the form. Where the information is sought for a person who has been adopted, the names and place of birth of the parents shall be those of the adoptive parents. That is now the procedure. This basically amalgamates two forms and provides further information than that which is now on the birth certificate; but, yes, the protection is accorded at this time.

Sections 17 to 23 inclusive approved.

Tide approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 29, Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1984, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

MR. SPEAKER: I have the pleasure to submit the 1983 annual report of the ombudsman to the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. Due to a printing problem, there is an addendum which has been inserted into each copy. The final and bound form will be presented within the next ten days.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call committee on Bill 22.

YOUNG OFFENDERS (BRITISH COLUMBIA) ACT

The House in committee on Bill 22; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

On section 1.

MS. BROWN: The reality of the situation, Mr. Chairman, is that my colleague the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) would very much like to speak on this bill, so I have two options: I can tread water until he gets here or . . . .

HON. MR. GARDOM: Which sections does he wish to speak on? There are lots of sections.

MS. BROWN: Yes, I know. I think he wanted to speak on Part I, which talks about the whole business of offences by young persons. I don't know whether he is near enough to his microphone to hear what's happening. If the second member for Vancouver Centre is near his microphone Mr. Chairman, I know he wanted to talk about Part 1.

Maybe the minister sitting in for the Attorney-General would allow me to welcome the member for Vancouver Centre, who is now here.

MR. LAUK: I want to deal with the Young Offenders Act in a way that it has not been dealt with before, I don't think, in the chamber, having studiously reviewed Hansard from the second reading debate.

In dealing with the interpretations, I want to point out to Mr. Chairman and to the chamber that the real practitioners of criminal defence work and prosecution in Canada, if asked for an opinion about how to deal with young offenders, would, I suppose . . . . When you ask the experts in Indian affairs, they say: "Take the Indian Act and chuck it." I don't think the Young Offenders Act is a heck of an improvement

[ Page 4815 ]

on the Juvenile Delinquents Act. It provides protection for juveniles where it's not needed, and takes away protection where it is needed. To learn respect for the law young people have to have a sense of legal security. That does not mean they should be left to the whims of social workers and that army of do-gooders who want to reform the person, even before we determine in a court of law whether the person has committed an offence. That's called predisposition. The Oxford dictionary has a definition of "predisposition" other than that, but it's a predisposition through injustice.

If a young person is going to learn what the benefits are of the adversary system and of the administration of justice under a British trial system, they must learn at an early age. One of the best ways to learn is that they are charged with an offence, protected by the law from making statements, particularly protected concerning their rights, entitled to legal defence counsel, and they should not be dealt with in a legal way prior to the trial or disposition of the offence with which they've been charged. I particularly remember the charge of incorrigibility under the old Juvenile Delinquents Act, and the other insidious use of an act that was put in place to protect young people but which was really put in place to persecute young people, and was misinterpreted and grossly misapplied. I think the young person must learn - in most cases, in open court- that a criminal charge must be made, clearly set out, particulars given, a trial had, and a conviction or acquittal entered, and then disposition takes place. Insofar as the probation procedures and all the rest of it, you're not going to get a young person - or an adult - to respect the laws of society when punishment is the only answer, or some sort of fake punishment, such as the ones outlined in the Young Offenders Act.

I think the law is effective vis-à-vis young offenders - or adult offenders - when apprehension is predictable, when conviction, if guilty, is certain, and when the disposition is the outflow or logical consequence of the act, and not some sort of fake punishment, silly disposition or social-working of the individual. The only answer for the young offender is the logical consequences of their acts. To some extent this is reflected in the new act, but not anywhere as seriously as the drafters of this act should have taken it. The logical consequences of their acts means to help repair the damage and to recognize, through some sort of imposition of a penalty, their responsibility for their actions. It also means a move away from punishment per se to logical consequences per se. I cannot give an example to the committee offhand, except perhaps theft. If, as a convicted offender, a person has not got the financial resources to repay or reinstitute the loss to the victim, then as part, or all, of their sentence that person should be put into the service of the community or the victim until the equivalent of that loss is repaid.

This is the kind of disposition for young and adult offenders that I'd like to see imposed in the criminal law across the country, because it makes sense. We can get away from all of this academic, post-war gobbledegook about rehabilitation, when in fact logical consequences is the best rehabilitation that any offender can experience.

Before the Young Offenders Act passed committee, Mr. Chairman, in Section 1 or any other section, I wanted to place on the record . . . . As a person who did eight years of criminal defence work, a lot of it with young people - not very much these days - and as one who has always had that abiding belief that we were so wrong in dealing with young offenders in that in many cases we perpetuated them as criminals, rather than brought them back into a society with a sense of responsibility, it seems to me that the Young Offenders Act, after so much inquiry, deliberation and effort, has come out with pretty much the same thing that we've had since 1921, and it's a pity.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the hon. member for his thoughtful and well-experienced remarks. I think it goes without saying that throughout the country the concept and the philosophy of the federal statute has been under severe criticism, by both all of the Attorneys-General in the country and, insofar as implementation is concerned, even, I believe, the majority of the Premiers in the country, if not all of them - certainly from the perspective of the dollars being imposed upon the provinces to take care of it.

There is maybe one bit of a saving grace in that the current statute is more of a justice model - and I'm speaking now of the federal statute. As everybody understands, we're compelled to bring this in; otherwise we'd be in a great deal of difficulty in law enforcement insofar as juveniles in our province are concerned, So there is more of a justice model now: specific charges will be dealt with as opposed to the omnibus-type charge of delinquency; there will be fixed term consequences.

You're perfectly correct that what we have here is a procedural road map, which we don't like at all, The provinces do not like this and, quite frankly, I'm hoping for a change of attitude or a change in government - whatever is going to be necessary in the federal administration for a review to see that this act, as it is now set forth by the government of Canada, does not continue to be the guiding light and the law of our country.

I agree with you very much, hon. member, that juveniles have to be accountable for their actions to the extent of their maturity. There are great concerns here re the overlays, the protections and, once again, the road map that has been presented vis-à-vis the diversion process. But I can assure you that insofar as British Columbia is concerned, the practice will be that only real cases will be dealt with and put into diversion. By a real case I mean a case that would indeed be prosecuted and subject to effective and proper prosecution -the Crown counsel would make that decision before the actual prosecution. So diversion is not going to become a capricious exercise. We have to look at diversion, I suppose, from the perspective of the best interest of the individual and the best interest of society. But I would very much recommend that the hon. member continue to say what he's saying and get it into the federal quarters and federal ears, because that's where the final decisions will have to be made. What we're dealing with here is a mess that has been imposed not only on our province but on all the provinces in the country.

[2:45]

MS. BROWN: What we're dealing with, Mr. Chairman, are young people who are here because the services which were needed at the beginning were not there for them; we're dealing with the end-products. Every time we cut services in infant development programs or services to small children and we fail to have the resources that young people need, we know that the end-product is going to be the law; they're going to come in conflict with the law by the time they become teenagers, if not sooner. That's what we're dealing with. It seems to me that if we're going to criticize the road

[ Page 4816 ]

map, we should start right at the beginning and talk about putting more money into prevention, more money into meeting the needs of young people prior to their coming in conflict with the law, and not so much about how we're going to punish them once they come into conflict with the law.

The Young Offenders Act has been made worse, as the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations standing in for the Attorney-General stated, because the provinces are not financially prepared to deal with the legislation. One of the things the federal act does is include provisions relating to the right to counsel. Under Part 1, 3 (l) or (2) . . . . Maybe a third subsection should have included that right to counsel. But in fact, Section 1 I of the federal act deals with the right to counsel, so that those young people, when they do get before the courts, are not standing there unprotected or unadvised, not depending on a social worker or someone to speak on their behalf, but having legal counsel guaranteed to ensure that justice is meted out to them fairly. That's been eliminated from the act. Maybe this Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, who at one time used to be Attorney-General himself, can explain why it is that section 11 of the federal act, dealing with the right of these young people to counsel, has not been included in this particular piece of legislation.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Just returning slightly, if I may, to the costing element - and this is not just a beef, I would like to assure the hon. member, of British Columbia; it's universal right smack across the country - the B.C. cost alone comes to about $40 million per year, imposed for a statute that the provinces don't want at this time. I gather that there has not been any opportunity to receive any type of federal contribution to the additional costs of policing or additional prosecution costs, but there is some reasonable cost-sharing from the federal government for confinement costs.

Dealing with the situation of legal aid, the province will support the right to counsel in certain circumstances, but not to the notion of an unlimited right. You do have to remember that the court can play a role and has an historic capacity to play a role in designating counsel in any event. I quite frankly can't see, and I would certainly hope not, that we are going to get into circumstances that where counsel might be required it would not be obtained.

MS. BROWN: I recognize that the province has made a commitment to ensure that young people under federal offences are guaranteed the right to legal counsel. If it's a federal offence coming under the federal act, the right to counsel has been guaranteed.

Where it doesn't apply . . . . When one takes into account the situation of legal services across the province right now, the tight budget that the Legal Services Society is trying to operate on, the kids who are charged under the provincial act are ....

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's some awfully minor stuff parking tickets.

MS. BROWN: Well, if it were only parking tickets it would be okay, but some of these kids are in for some pretty serious things, and if they're to meet the criterion of the Legal Services Society as it applies to provincial offences, most of the time they're going to be in court without legal counsel.

HON. MR. GARDOM: As I've indicated, first of all is the opportunity for the child to apply for legal aid. Secondly, if legal aid is not granted, there is the opportunity - if the court decides that the case merits it - to appoint counsel. There are a number of situations where counsel would not be required. I can certainly think of some where counsel would be required: where the individual is facing the loss of his liberty - some type of confinement, I would tend to think in those circumstances it would be reasonably automatic that that would happen. But you can't ask me to give an undertaking that I haven't got the capacity to give you.

MS. BROWN: I recognize that the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations is doing the best he can. As a matter of fact, he is doing much better than the Attorney-General, and I think we are in luck today that the Attorney-General isn't here, because I'm getting much more cooperation, support and encouragement from the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations than I got from the Attorney-General.

One more question. What about the records of these young people? I am raising this under this section because it is dealing with the application of the act. Again, the federal statute has provision for the destruction of the records of these young offenders. The provincial statute doesn't. What's going to happen to their records?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Really you're jumping to section 20. Could I deal with that when we get there?

Sections 1 to 9 inclusive approved.

On section 10.

MS. BROWN: I want to ask some questions on section 10, and I'm very happy to see that the chairperson of corrections is here, because I know that he will be able to give the information which I need. Are any more containment centres going to be built? Certainly my visits to the one in Victoria and to Willingdon and a couple of the others indicate that they are already overcrowded and will not be able to deal with the increased pressure on them. Will any additional containment centres be built? If so, are these going to be privately run or are they going to be under not just the aegis but the jurisdiction of the Attorney-General's ministry?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Section 10 seems to deal with community works.

MS. BROWN: Community works is all a part of it. It talks about community facilities and what happens there. Maybe what's happened is that the Attorney-General has indicated to a number of societies and organizations that as a result of the young offenders' legislation, there is going to be a need for additional facilities. I'm just wondering how many are going to be privately run. How many would the government itself be building?

HON. MR. GARDOM: First, by virtue of the provisions of the federal statutes . . . . Again, I'm hopeful that they will turn the comer on this thing over the next year, but whether that will happen, who knows? But according to the present structure, which must follow, yes, need will be created for the addition of centres to deal with 0-year-olds. I think you asked the question of whether they would become

[ Page 4817 ]

private-type situations or not. No, they would be under the aegis of the Ministry of Attorney-General.

MS. BROWN: The reason I ask that is because the Attorney-General has been speaking to societies and organizations telling them that there are going to be all sorts of facilities needed and that they should apply. There were ads in the newspapers. I attended a one-day workshop where they were advised how to fill out the forms, how to apply.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm referring just to containment centres. Attendance and work-service programs - that's a different thing.

MS. BROWN: The DARE program in Vancouver, the Metchosin camp, Porteau Camp, the DASH program, Crossroads, New Directions - what's going to happen to those programs? Have they been contracted out? If so, I'm going to ask some details about costing.

HON. MR. GARDOM: They're continuing but are in the process of being privatized.

MS. BROWN: Can the minister give me their budgets for 1983? 1 would like to compare that . . . . I'm trying to make a comparison with what those programs cost us prior to privatization.

HON. MR. GARDOM: With all respect, that really is beyond the concept of this bill. I don't have those figures for you.

MS. BROWN: What I'm trying to find out is whether the decision to privatize these programs was based on money, whether it was an economic and financial decision, or was an ideological decision in terms of what's best for the young offenders. That's really what I'm trying to find out.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I would think it would be a combination of both.

MR. ROSE: I was going to save this until section 12, but since it's along the same lines of the question just asked, perhaps the minister could provide some details. The Maple Ridge School Board used to have a camp at Loon Lake. They had it for grade 6 outdoor education in the spring and fall on the forestry grounds in the Loon Lake area of Maple Ridge. The school board had to close it down. It cost them about $75, 000 a year to run this program. The rumour around that community is that a program for young offenders will be located on the same site at a cost of about three-quarters of a million dollars, and that it's going to be run by a private contractor, W.J. Stelmaschuk and Associates. I'd like to ask for confirmation or denial of these allegations.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I missed your question. I heard the preamble.

MR. ROSE: Is the rumour about a young offenders' program costing some $733, 000, run by a private contractor, W. J. Stelmaschuk and Associates, proposed for the Loon Lake area of the UBC forestry grounds . . . ?

HON. MR. GARDOM: First, I would like to reiterate the point that in these privatization situations, which I alluded to a moment ago, there is no question that the program criteria will have to be met in all circumstances. I would say that and repeat it and underline it doubly.

[3:00]

Vis-il-vis Loon Lake, I gather that at one point it was a school property. I don't have those figures for you today, but if you'd like I'll do my level best to find out for you.

MR. ROSE: I accept the minister's offer, but I just didn't know what form . . . .

HON. MR. GARDOM: The answer is yes, the site will be used.

MR. ROSE: What about the contract, both the amount and the person?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I can't confirm the amount.

MR. ROSE: Ever?

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, I will seek that information. I don't have it.

MR. ROSE: And get back to me the next sitting of the House?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes, with the greatest dispatch.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, submissions were invited by the B.C. corrections branch from persons, agencies or corporations for the provision of community service order programs from some of the following communities: Abbotsford, Chilliwack, Delta, Langley, Mission, Port Coquitlam, Hope, Maple Ridge, New Westminster, Surrey, Courtenay and Nanaimo. I am wondering if any of those agencies or corporations have yet been awarded contracts for the 1984 fiscal year and generally something about what kind of negotiated agreements they are. I know you haven't got the question. I am posing it to you because I know that you will undertake to get the answer and bring it back to the House in the very near future.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I will relay it to the Attorney-General.

Sections 10 to 19 inclusive approved.

On section 20.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You were concerned, Madam Member, about the automatic document disposal provision in the federal side and not being automatic in the provincial side. Was that the tenor of your question?

Well, our Document Disposal Act provides that generally documents can't be destroyed before the end of seven years. As I said, the Young Offenders Act of Canada requires destruction at earlier times, This section that we have here will provide, should the province be forced to establish record destruction procedures, that that can happen and there will not be any conflict with our own Documents Disposal Act.

[ Page 4818 ]

So I take it, from our discussion, we have maintained a degree of flexibility.

MS. BROWN: In other words, a young offender at age 17 isn't going to become an adult and still be carrying those documents with him. The decision could be made to destroy them prior to the seven-year . . . .

HON. MR. GARDOM: That type of decision could be made, yes.

Sections 20 to 67 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: 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 22, Young Offenders (British Columbia) Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call committee on Bill 31, Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1984

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

On section 1.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, Section 1 gives the Attorney-General the power to define as a public body and establish legislation ... being established by legislation or by the Crown anything including boards, commissions, councils, whatever; in other words, from ICBC to community colleges to hospitals, wherever boards have been appointed. Under this section any of those agencies are going to be unable to hire a lawyer or legal services without first getting the approval of the Attorney-General. I'm not quite sure what the reason for that is. I want to point out two of the dangers I see. One has to do with the centralization of all this decision-making in the hands of the Attorney-General, and the other is the temptation to patronage. I want to express my grave concern about that, because although I recognize that it's a good management tool in that the Attorney-General can keep an eye on it and see to it that some boards are not paying their lawyers more than other boards are, I think that could have been arrived at simply by setting a fee, rather than by taking all of that power into their hands. So I just want to say that I'm very unhappy with this section, and I disapprove of the Attorney-General's concentrating all of that power in his hands.

Sections 1 to 7 inclusive approved.

On section 8.

MR. PASSARELL: This is a very short section amending the Court Order Enforcement Act. If I may just paraphrase what's written in the book on it, it provides that foreign judgments for loss or injury caused by asbestos cannot be enforced in the province. Original proceedings in the province are not affected, but where the loss or injury arises out of the province in respect of British Columbia asbestos, the law of the province applies. As you know, Mr. Chairman, there's only one asbestos mine in the province, at Cassiar. This deals with foreign judgments against the asbestos industry.

Is the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) taking this?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I am.

MR. PASSARELL: Okay. I have a couple of questions for you. Why is this being done? Is it because of a judgment in the province of Ontario in regard to the problems of death and disease caused by asbestos, and similar acts that are being brought in by the province of Ontario in regard to the asbestos industry? There was an article in the Toronto Globe and Mail of May 9, 1984, on page 5, in which the leader of the New Democratic Party in Ontario, Mr. Bob Rae, brought forth documents in regard to the asbestos industry and the problems associated with working in that industry. I think most of us in the Legislature are aware of the problems associated with asbestosis, a disease that has crippled, killed and injured numerous residents and citizens across this country. I would like the minister's reasoning as to why you're bringing in an act that to a certain extent protects the industry in regard to damages, lawsuits and claims related to asbestosis and the asbestos industry in this province. As I say, we're just dealing with Cassiar, because that's the only operating asbestos mine in the province of British Columbia. I'd like the minister's response.

HON. MR. GARDOM: If you would bear with me just a few moments, it's rather a complicated subject. First of all, if this bill was not brought in, Cassiar could be exposed to closure. That's essentially what could happen if the United States judgments were enforced in Canada. At the present time, the general law is that if one secures what's known as a final or conclusive judgment in an extraterritorial jurisdiction, you can sue on that judgment in - we'll use British Columbia - a British Columbia court. Just prove the mechanics of the judgment itself, presuming there was a fair and proper trial. If it's not a final and conclusive judgment -e.g., a judgment from maintenance, which is subject to variation - you cannot sue upon that foreign judgment in the B.C. court. We have had the situation of a final judgment which is developing as a result of these products-liability cases in the United States relating to production, manufacturing and use of asbestos fibres, and certainly as a result of the somewhat recent changes in the United States workers' compensation laws, wherein, if people aren't party to the workers' compensation laws through the total process, from producer almost to consumer, these people who have suffered disabilities, without question, do have tort claims. Well, we're now, I gather, into many millions of dollars with those types of claims in the United States. But Cassiar in British Columbia is prevented from raising the kinds of defences that would be open to Cassiar to raise against those people across the line. We're saying that it will not be possible to enforce

[ Page 4819 ]

foreign judgments in British Columbia in these specific kinds of cases. It is definitely related to asbestos-type cases. That does not mean that an individual in British Columbia cannot initiate a case here for just and proper cause, providing he can prove his claim. The capacities to prove the case in the United States are far broader. So you get an easy judgment in the United States - in Canadian legal concepts - haul that judgment into Canada and close up the mine. What we're doing here is not novel to our country. Similar legislation - I can't say it's precisely the same, because I'm not aware of that type - has been introduced in Quebec.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the minister's response. As this House is probably aware, Cassiar is the only mine that's operating in my riding right now. We have to keep some type of operation going on up there for the many individuals who are employed by it.

I have a couple more questions for the minister. What happens if an individual moves to another province? For instance, let's say that an individual employed by Cassiar and living there gets asbestosis and then moves to Quebec. Could an individual from another province bring a lawsuit in regard to the province of British Columbia or the mine of Cassiar after going to another province? I understand the foreign country aspect and what is happening with the Johns-Manville case in the United States with regard to asbestosis. What would happen if the individual moved to another province? Would he or she still have the protection of bringing a lawsuit under this section of the act, if it's passed?

HON. MR. GARDOM: His rights would be unchanged. This section doesn't affect that.

MR. PASSARELL: That's fine. Thank you. That's more or less what I wanted to know. I understand the part about a foreign country and lawsuits in this section 8. My concern is that, because it's such a transient population that works in the asbestos mine, there are a lot of individuals traveling between the provinces. But it more or less negates a foreign country bringing a lawsuit against Cassiar.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I think if you direct your attention to section 41. 1 (3), it says:

"Where a person has a cause of action under the domestic law of the province for loss or injury" -that's B.C. - "that is suffered outside Canada and arises out of or exposure to or the use of asbestos mined in the province" - in B.C. - "he may commence an action under the domestic law of the province notwithstanding that a judgment has been given in respect of loss or injury or that a proceeding might have been commenced outside Canada for the same relief."

[3:15]

MR. ROSE: One thing I object to about the report of the Ontario commission - and so do a lot of other people - is that in that industry they accepted the principle of a tolerable level of death, which doesn't particularly comfort me, nor should it anybody in the industry. The only reason they've cleaned up their act is because of all the surrounding publicity. People have been put under massive risk, and early death has been their reward. A lot of these people, as my colleague said, are transients. Miners move all over the place in search of work; certainly Quebec miners will come out to work at Cassiar, and presumably the reverse is also true. I'd like to ask the minister: is there any action that can be started, on the basis of health and safety regulations, against a company operating in British Columbia if that person who is sick and old now lives in Quebec? What is open to him if he is destitute, as many are? His rights are unchanged, but they are certainly not enhanced, as I understood the minister's reply.

HON. MR. GARDOM: There wouldn't be an enhancement here. Probably workers' compensation would apply in the instances you've given. This amendment primarily deals with product liability situations in the U.S.A. We're not building special classes of actions in British Columbia for asbestos situations. This deals with a foreign judgment.

MR. ROSE: I understand all that. I've also had some experience dealing with workers' compensation, where a person is injured in one province and then moves to another. There is no federal liaison for workers needing appeals under workers' compensation. Many of these people are indigent, they're sick and they're told to appear in Toronto on such and such a day for their appeal and hearing, when unfortunately they live in Mission, British Columbia. So this is a concern. It may not he a concern absolutely central to this amendment, but I think it's important, for the record, to raise it as a concern, because another amendment might well be contemplated to enhance the health and safety of working people in hazardous industries.

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: ML Chairman, by agreement we will proceed to section 14.

On section 14.

MR. COCKE: Yes, we are a party to that agreement.

Section 14 approved.

On section 15.

MRS. WALLACE: MR. Chairman, I have a quick query about this one. As it is no longer necessary to include RRSPs in a will, will they still be considered part of the estate if in fact the beneficiary has been named by other means?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes.

Section 15 approved.

On section 16.

MS. BROWN: This is the Motion Picture Act that's being amended. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to say how pleased I am by this amendment, which extends the coverage - or certainly the supervision - that motion pictures will have outside of the theatre and even into halls, private buildings, rooms and places of premises. What the act says is that once a film has been through the classification board and parts of it have been taken out because they're deemed to contravene community standards or whatever, the unexpurgated version cannot then be shown in a community hall or

[ Page 4820 ]

somewhere else. I think that's good, and I wouldn't want this section to go by without commenting on the fact that we have taken this small step for mankind. I'm hoping that by next year, when another act of this nature comes in, this will extend to video, because the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) has made a commitment to look at the whole business of classification of video as something that certainly should be introduced. I hope he will not be too long in doing that, because I think the whole classification process is one way of dealing with the proliferation of pornographic video in the province. I hope the Attorney-General will move with all deliberate speed in this direction.

Section 16 approved.

On section 17.

MRS. WALLACE: We just discussed the Human Rights Bill, which said that there should be no age discrimination as far as hiring goes. This seems to be a discriminatory thing: that you will not appoint people who are under 55 or over 70. 1 would like to know what the rationale is for this.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Insofar as the 55-age year is concerned, that is the year when provincial court judges can qualify for pension. It was not the intention of the attorney, in proposing this amendment, that a judge would retire at age 51, shall we say, and then apply and become a supernumerary judge at age 52, when his colleagues are still on the bench till 55. That's the first question. The second question, the age of 70 years, is one that was set by him, in his wisdom, as an appropriate age. If people wish to perform judicial duties after the age of 70, 1 suppose they can become arbitrators. I'm sure my colleague from Vancouver East, as he's fast approaching those years, is thinking of perhaps getting involved in that kind of work, and I'd wish him well.

MR. MACDONALD: Seventy sounds kind of fun.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes. It's all in the eyes of the beholder.

Sections 17 and 18 approved.

On section 19.

MS. BROWN: I'd like to make a comment - which I could have made under section 9 - having to do with the whole concept of the privatization of court reporters. Mr. Chairman, I would imagine that within the next year or so these people will have to move out of public facilities into their own private facilities when they become privatized. Who is going to pick up the cost of the rent and all of the others perks which they used to have when they were part of the public system? Is that going to be passed on, transferred on to the litigant, or is there going to be some arrangement to ensure that privatizing the court workers does not end up being a burden on people who need to use their services? That would make the justice system inaccessible to some people, poor people for example. Surely that would not be the goal of the government.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I can't give you a definitive answer, chapter and verse, as to specifically what is or is not going to be included in it. But I can assure you, Madam Member, the official court reporters are fully aware of their capacities and interests and indeed their duties. Furthermore, there is a process that is made available in the amendment wherein the Attorney-General, following consultation with the Chief Justice, can make specific regulations. They'll be looking into all of that very carefully. What you're talking about is really administration. We're not trying to build an administrative road-map legislatively.

MS. BROWN: I'm not discussing administration; I'm discussing access to the system. I realize that qualifications are going to be set, and that's good; there's nothing wrong with that. What I'm concerned about is that there is going to be an increased cost on the litigants, and I want to be assured that justice is not going to be denied to people who are too poor to meet these costs as a result of this. It's not administration. I'm sure that the administration part will be taken care of. It's the access that I'm concerned about. I'm wondering what kind of plans have been made by the government to ensure that no one is denied the use of court reporters because they haven't got the money to pay. That's all.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, even today that is unfortunately a fact of life in certain lawsuits. I can well remember - and other practising lawyers here will recall -situations where people did not go to the court of appeal because the cost of a transcript of a three-week trial was essentially prohibitive to them; yet they weren't the kind of people who could qualify for legal aid or assistance. Mostly in civil cases, and sometimes maybe cases that were brought by them as plaintiffs and lost, they eventually decided, "Well, heck, this is not worth any more grist to the mill -extra legal fees or court reporters' fees for transcripts, " and they'd walk away into the night. I can't give you assurances.

MR. MACDONALD: Nevertheless, there's a real philosophical divide on sections like this. Access to the law is becoming more and more difficult for people with limited means. This is part of the Social Credit revolt of the rich against the poor. It is all very well to say that transcripts have always been expensive. Of course they are, but under this government they're becoming more expensive.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't know that.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I'm sure of it. If you're going to put the court reporters out of the courthouse where they pay no rent, they're going to have to pay rent somewhere else and charge the client.

AN HON. MEMBER: Will you bet your seat on it?

MR. MACDONALD: I'll bet my seat on it. This is part of the revolt of the rich against the poor that Social Credit has inaugurated. In this section you're just limiting a little bit of access to justice without considerations of cost, and you're doing it in other fields as well.

MS. BROWN: The problem with this, Mr. Chairman, as the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations himself indicated, is that it's already happening, and this Section 1s going

[ Page 4821 ]

to increase the number of people who are going to be penalized in terms of access to the courts and justice system because they haven't got the money.

I'm not reflecting on another piece of legislation, but as you know, Mr. Chairman, legal services are being cut in a number of other areas, and we find that the justice system is really shrinking and fewer and fewer people are going to be able to afford it. It is quite possible that the government has made provision to ensure that these additional costs are not going to be passed on to the litigants. If the stand-in Attorney-General doesn't know, would he try to get the information, or suggest to the Attorney-General that this section be amended or not proceeded with or something? I think this is very serious.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'll request the information that you require from the Attorney-General, and I'll give him a copy of your remarks in Hansard. I think everybody knows here that as far as litigation is concerned - rightfully, wrongfully or indifferently - it's been essentially user-pay, save and except in criminal or legal aid cases. If you decide you want to sue me for whatever, then it's your baby to take that on and you pay for those expenses. Society provides a courtroom and a judge for you through the taxpayers' pockets. It costs you to get in there. You have to pay for the issuance of your writ. If you choose to have an official court reporter, or if the court orders one, that's part of your responsibility. The system is not changing.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's just costing you more.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Then it's costing all the taxpayers more. You can't have it both ways.

[3:30]

MS. BROWN: I want to ask the Attorney-General for an example. In ICBC cases where a settlement cannot be reached and a person decides to go to court, would this be one of the instances? Would that be included? You need a transcript. We all know of examples of our constituents, Mr. Chairman. I am thinking, for example, of one person whose husband was killed by a drunk driver. They could not resolve the thing out of court because ICBC just would not come up with a reasonable settlement. Now this woman has no alternative, because she is a single parent, but to go to court. So she's already deprived of the primary wage-earner in her family. She's having to scrape together whatever funds she can in order to sue ICBC. This is an additional cost which she would not have had to deal with prior to this piece of legislation becoming law.

So it's not a matter of a lot of idle litigants going through the courts who are hurt by this. A lot of genuine people who can't afford it are going to be hurt and penalized by this amendment.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the acting minister says the cost of the courthouse and the judge and all this are being paid by the taxpayers anyway, so he pays a little more directly in this case when he takes a case to court. But that's why I say we have a major philosophical division between ourselves and these Reaganites. The taxpayers out there are not equal in their ability to go to court. There are glaring inequalities of wealth out there - most of it inherited, for that matter. What you're doing is giving a leg up to a person who has a good case and a good bank account and a leg down to the person who has a good case and a weaker bank account.

MS. BROWN: I just want to add that this is not something that is covered by legal aid. Under these circumstances you're not entitled to a legal aid lawyer. So here you have a good case but no money. So I don't know - maybe the minister has had an opportunity to rethink.

Section 19 approved on the following division:

YEAS - 25

NAYS - 15

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

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I couldn't hear the reading of the list because that little rightwing cabal down were making so much noise.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The vote will be recorded in Hansard, hon. member.

MR. REYNOLDS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the member for New Westminster was right. There was some talking down here, but we were talking to all the Vickers supporters down at this end.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair might suggest that the points of order are questionable.

[3:45]

Section 20 approved on the following division:

YEAS - 25

[ Page 4822 ]

NAYS - 15

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

Sections 21 to 26 inclusive approved.

On section 27.

MR. D'ARCY: This should be to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), but it will be the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) instead. If these sections are unnecessary and irrelevant, Mr. Chairman, perhaps the minister could tell us why they were enacted in 1977. What has changed? Why were they necessary then and not now?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Sorry, Chris, I didn't hear you.

MR. D'ARCY: These two sections being repealed are only seven years old. The government decided they were needed in 1977 and the opposition didn't object. Why are they unneeded now?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Are you referring to the cost of borrowing, etc.? Am I on the right section with you? Sorry, I was being a little distracted over here. This is the cost of borrowing and related matters under the Consumer Protection Act?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Okay. The object of the amendments is to allow the extension of credit at a variable rate of interest. Variable rate credit is currently being offered by the lending institutions, but it's technically illegal because the cost of borrowing has to be specifically disclosed in advance; when you have a variable rate, you can't specifically disclose it in advance. So these sections require disclosure of the cost before the extension of credit, and the amendments will permit the cost of borrowing for variable rate credit to be estimated by using the interest rate existing at the time of the transaction. The time reduction in the other section - I may as well speak to the whole thing while I'm on my feet; the 90 days to 30 days appears under section 30 - is because the federal cost-of-borrowing regulations, which have been in effect now, I understand, for over 12 months, allow 30 days as opposed to the 90. So the provincial side has to dovetail, which is equivalent to procedures, I understand, in the rest of the country.

MR. D'ARCY: I appreciate the minister's efforts in showing us that he can read very well. The point needs to be made, though, that if ministers of the Crown, who are being very well paid to carry out their legislative duties in this chamber, would be here and on the job when their particular legislative responsibilities are being debated, I think things would go a whole lot more smoothly. The fact is that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) is not here when there are major sections under his responsibility in this particular statute.

Sections 27 to 30 inclusive approved.

On section 31.

MR. D'ARCY: The section making the changes to the Insurance Act does create an insurance council and essentially allows, as I see it, for a fair amount of self-regulation by the insurance industry. While there are some merits in increased self-regulation, the fact is that the history of self regulation by self-interest groups, whether they be professionals or business people, in this province has not been a healthy one. Among doctors, lawyers and other groups self regulation has primarily led to secrecy when investigations were taking place, and in fact has led to a lack of public trust. Even if the decisions they may have made regarding their own self-regulation have been the right ones, the fact is that, to use the old saw, not only must justice be done but it must also appear to be done. I have some concern that there will be a lack of public disclosure when problems do arise in the insurance industry along the lines of the lack of public disclosure we have seen within the medical profession and other self-regulatory bodies within the province of British Columbia. As I say, I'm not philosophically opposed to allowing some self-regulation. I am opposed to any provision that allows anything to be done behind closed doors when it is manifestly in the public interest that the sunshine should be let in. The public have the right to know what is going on inside such an important industry as the insurance business in the province of B.C.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I thank the member for his observation, and in response - and I think the response can apply to the other two areas that have been dealt with in these amendments of my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs - the documents relating, say, to licensing and processes and so forth, which will be handled by these self-regulatory organizations, will be open to public scrutiny. If you'd like me to make a few general observations about this, I'm very happy to do so now. It might be an appropriate time to do it, subject to what you wish.

AN HON. MEMBER: Under section 45.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'll wait until we get to 45.

Sections 31 to 44 inclusive approved.

On section 45.

MR. MACDONALD: We're dealing here with insurance and, as the acting minister said, the same thing applies to real estate and even to the stock exchange. But section 45 changes the Insurance Act so that the superintendent of insurance, in the exercise of his powers, can delegate any of his duties.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's permissive.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, it's permissive. We'll never know whether he does or not; but given the privatizing zeal of this government, I suppose you might as well let it happen,

[ Page 4823 ]

eh? That's why we're passing this section any of his duties to the council." Well, the council are a very estimable body of men, but they're in the industry. They're not the public. They're not the consumer. They're insurance people. When you come to the real estate industry, you're going to delegate any or all of the powers to the Real Estate

Council. They're realtors - they're in there for 7 percent or a flip. When you come later to the stock exchange, which is the most egregious example of them all, you even give this . . . . In your privatizing zeal to transfer the protection of the public, through a quasi-judicial proceeding - the protection of the public that has historically been the role of government, looking after all of the people - you're delegating it and giving these private bodies the right to collect the fees and to make the decisions within their own industry, where they're bound to have a financial . . . .

Supposing Smith's case comes up, and he says: "Smith can't sit on the council but Jones . . . . .. His own case may be a very similar one two months down the road. They're privatizing the jails. They're privatizing services to children, and now they're privatizing part of the justice system - the protection of all of the citizens. I don't know what more there is to say about it.

The acting minister talked about secrecy. All we're doing here is applying to the council the rights of secrecy that the superintendent used to have. Their decisions and formal reasons have to be made public, but that's all. It can be a secret . . . . The public can't go into the hearing, can they? Show me where it says that. Just the affected parties can, and then the reasons and the decisions are printed. But that's all. This is really so absurd, in terms of Reaganite revolution, to go so far as to privatize the protection of the public from unscrupulous insurance practices when they happen. I don't say they happen every day, but I say they do happen, and who's going to check them? The industry. It's just ridiculous.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Dealing with section 45, Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to discuss some specifics, and then I'll make a somewhat more general statement. First of all, we're dealing with licensing capacity here.

MR. MACDONALD: No, any powers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, with a licensing capacity. It doesn't deal with discipline. It doesn't deal with investigations, which are in other sections of the act. By way of a general provision, which I think will be of assistance to the hon. members, the amendments to the Insurance Act, the Real Estate Act and the Securities Act, all of which we'll be discussing this afternoon in the committee . . . . The observations are really essentially relevant to the three of them. The amendments will provide for the superintendent to create regulations and to delegate to appropriate self-regulatory organizations his powers to issue licences. We are dealing with the issuance of licences.

Now let's deal with them seriatim. First of all, under the Insurance Act, the insurance agents, adjusters and salesmen will have the capacity to be licensed by the Insurance Council. Insurers - those who undertake insurance contracts -will continue to be licensed for business not by the council but by the superintendent.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

In the real estate area all real estate agents will be licensed by the Real Estate Council. And the Securities Act . . . .

I'm now talking again, as I did in the first two illustrations, about licensing: brokers, brokers' dealers, investment dealers and securities salesmen will be licensed, depending upon their membership, either by the Investment Dealers' Association of Canada or by the Vancouver Stock Exchange. Security issuers fall essentially into the same ambit.

The licensing provisions themselves have been clarified to confirm an applicant's right to a hearing. We are looking at this from the perspective of an application for a licence or indeed a person who has a licence. If the licence is refused or an application is refused, that individual is entitled to a hearing.

Next, the documents that relate to licensing - the decisions that are made by these self-regulatory organizations -will be maintained and will be open to public scrutiny. Individuals who happen to be refused a licence . . . . Are they going to be denied an appeal? No, they're not. They're going to have an appeal to the Commercial Appeals Commission from any decision taken by the self-regulatory organization. The superintendent himself will become a party to that, so there's a complete interplay between the superintendent and the self-regulatory organization. And a very important point: the superintendent may, when he deems it necessary, withdraw from any one of these self-regulatory organizations any matter that is before a hearing, and he has the capacity to make his own decision. The doors are never closed to the superintendent at all. They are open to him. In order that they can perform these licensing functions, the usual protections and privileges are afforded, the superintendent can request any reports and any information concerning licensing from the self-regulatory organizations at any point in time and for any reason - doesn't have to establish cause - and the superintendent will have to require that they collect licence fees on his behalf, which you would anticipate, and they would issue the licences, but under the signature of the superintendent. With all respect, you are raising a bit of a pink herring in suggesting that the superintendent is going to be out to lunch. No way. He's still very much in the act.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister once again - if it's going to be in order to deal with these numbers of sections, because they're basically the same; the question applies equally to each one - will there be public filing of regulations and qualifications? Will the public have some input - shall we say - to that information, to the formulation of those regulations, to those provisions, and will those provisions be in the public domain in terms of a public statement either by the government or by the superintendent of insurance brokers or real estate, as the case may be?

[4:00]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Affirmative.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, you look at the reality of these situations, and the acting minister says . . . .

In the case of the stock exchange, for example, you've got some pretty influential people there - guys like Peter Brown and Mike Ryan - and he says the little superintendent sitting in Victoria without much staff left can intervene if you have an appeal to him, and he can ask them to give a report. But the reality is that the industry is going to be run by itself. The

[ Page 4824 ]

stock exchange is going to be run by people who are selling stocks. That's the social reality of it; you're transferring the power down there. You say: "Oh, you might be able to fight back and get a public hearing" - and you can on an appeal, but the reality is that you have transferred the power down there. Some things come to the public notice, sure, but not the hearing, the decision, the regulations they make, things of that kind.

On the question of cancellation of a licence, suppose the powers that be, who now have that authority in this insurance thing, say: "I don't think we'll cancel that licence." This guy has been hawking the insurance a little bit free and easy here and maybe not quite in the public interest, and you get some consumers to complain, and they're not cancelling the licence. The superintendent here, who's bereft of his staff and everything, says: "Oh, I've heard about that; I know all about that; I'm going to step in."

The reality is, you're giving away the powers of government, the protection of the public, to very powerfully influential - as far as the Socred government is concerned -groups in the community. I'm not knocking them, but I'm saying they're the friends of this government, and they'll be increasingly the friends, grateful friends, when this goes through. The stock exchange is the best example of all, where all kinds of things will go on in terms of bamboozling the public, and they'll be checked by the very people who may do the same thing the next day. That's privatization gone mad. You might as well let Jim Pattison regulate his magazines, oh. Well, all right, I'd be prepared to let Jim Pattison regulate himself, but I'm not prepared to let Hell's Angels regulate themselves and then submit a monthly report on their depredations to the government. That's practically what you're doing. It's just ridiculous.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, can the minister tell us whether the licensing provisions that the superintendent of brokers will now have discretion to do will allow him to license commodity traders? As has been raised before in this chamber, that's the major loophole in terms of securities regulation in the province of British Columbia, where we have boiler-room operators - either through deliberate actions or through incompetence - fleecing a lot of legitimate investors in British Columbia, resulting in our getting a bad name in some of those areas . Certainly there is not as much concern about the other area of investment licensing, but certainly in those areas there is a major loophole that needs to be plugged. Can the minister tell us whether this is going to give the superintendent discretion to plug that loophole in our securities investment community?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I understand that that specific group YOU Ire speaking of would still remain with the superintendent. You mentioned "fleecing"; if you have any specific information that anyone else doesn't have, please tell him.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, can we receive an absolutely genuine assurance that there will not be the use of the regulatory powers of the superintendent or any regulation to do what has happened all too often in this country and others when a body is given regulatory power under the guise of protecting the public interest? In fact, the regulations are basically used to prevent entry of competitors into the field. We only need to look at the chartered banks and airlines until recently in Canada to know that that regulation can be abused in that way. Certainly we on this side of the House want to see an honest operation, but we also want to see new operators with the ability to get into the field and compete with the established brokerage firms.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The power is purely permissive, and if there was abuse, if I had anything to do with it I would order the superintendent to draw back on it.

Sections 45 to 68 inclusive approved.

On section 69.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the minister can give us some indication as to what this change involves. Do they have any specific private railways that they are concerned about? Is the government thinking about industrial railways engaged in hauling logs, coal or some other commodity? Why does the government need this change?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the member for Rossland-Trail, section 69 is consequential to several others which commenced earlier in the bill, and relates to the British Columbia Railway only.

Sections 69 to 75 inclusive approved.

On section 76.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, I haven't heard the Minister for Intergovernmental Relations talk so much in this Legislature since the debate he had with the Hon. Joseph Martin a few years back.

Mr. Chairman, section 76 deals with the Motor Vehicle Act. The opposition will be supporting this amendment, but one problem with it is that the superintendent of motor vehicles will be able to refuse a driver's or motor vehicle licence, and/or plates, because of an unpaid fine. I agree with that, but as the critic for Transportation and Highways a number of people have contacted me because of the employment problems out there. I just dealt with one with the Minister Of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser), in which a cab driver received a number of points and was laid off his job. He therefore had no source of income and wasn't able to pay his fines, and at the same time couldn't renew his driver's licence. He was caught in a catch-22 situation, because if he couldn't renew his driver's licence he couldn't get a job.

In passing this amendment this afternoon I think we have to keep in mind that sometimes individuals who are employed in the motor carrier sections do need some kind of support, in that if their principal job is driving a cab or other vehicle and they get into trouble with fines, there should be some kind of allowance for that situation. I was able to work that situation out with the minister, and I would hope that some kind of a principle could be brought in where an individual who can't pay their fines won't lose their driver's licence, and that some kind of a program can be worked out. What happened on this one was that the individual had about $300 in fines, but was able to go to motor vehicles and pay it off at $50 a month or so. I would hope that it is not the intent of this act to make people pay off traffic violations all at once. The opposition will be supporting section 76.

[ Page 4825 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: In fairness, I would like to respond to the member for Atlin. It is my information that the first implementation of these provisions will not come about until about a year from today. It will take that long to work into the system. Initially it will only deal with drivers' licences; it will not go to the other side. If I might, since the hon. member really did make a philosophical observation about the process of fines, I completely agree . . . . I've always felt that the fine system is not the most appropriate system. It's a pretty simple thing for a person who has a degree of wherewithal to pay a fine. In many cases the hardship of paying a fine and losing the licence is borne more by the family of the individual than the individual. I tend to think that some type of social agency would be a better process to be followed. We might be a few light-years away from having that happening, but I've been preaching it for quite a while.

Section 76 approved.

On Section 77.

MR. PASSARELL: I want clarification on this from the minister. It states that this new act reads . . . . "Without limiting the generality of any provision of this act, " it is declared that the power of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make regulations extends to . . . and it goes on. Could the minister give this House a reason why the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council makes regulations without restricting the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act? I guess that is what it's implying in section 76. Was it the advice of counsel to add that?

Another question. "The power of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council extends to . . . . .. Why do you need that regulation in this act, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm backfilling. The explanatory note says . . . .

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, no.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's a very good explanatory note, I want you to know.

MRS. WALLACE: We can read.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes. But I'm having a little difficulty reading it, because the print is so small. It's two lines in length, and it says: "Section 77 adds back a reference to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council which was removed erroneously in a previous amendment." Now there's good reason for you, sir.

Section 77 approved.

On section 78.

MR. BLENCOE: This is a fascinating section. It has some marvellous algebra in it - some equations. I think I have a handle on the situation, but I'm wondering if the minister would like to give his full explanation of the details of the equations and the changes.

[4:15]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I just couldn't wait to be asked that question. Algebra was never one of my better subjects. I will attempt to explain it in a more simple way. Actually what we are doing here is making that conversion from the old mill rate to the tax rates. This Section 1s dealing with the borrowing limits. In order to do this properly . . . .

MR. BLENCOE: I agree.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Are you following?

MR. BLENCOE: I agree with that.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Very good, Keep assuring me that you understand; that way I won't have to repeat it.

In order to arrive at apples for apples, we have taken '9" and converted that back from the actual value to the assessed values. Then we have 1981, 1982 and 1983 all equal apples for apples.

Are you laughing?

MR. BLENCOE: No, I'm just wondering where the oranges come in?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Okay, we've reached that stage. Now we take the average of those figures, and in order to arrive at the actual limit we . . . . Because there are a variety of assessments and rates for one municipality or another - residential versus industrial, etc. - we have to arrive at a percentage by municipality that we will use against the average figure in order to arrive at the limit. Using Abbotsford - that's going back home - as an example, in order to arrive at their borrowing limits, we come up with a figure of 16. 11, and 16. 11 of the average of the three years' assessed value will bring them to somewhere very close to what their limit was under the old system. Is that clear?

MR. BLENCOE: Yes, I'm with you.

MS. BROWN: What is 16. 1 P

HON. MR. RITCHIE: That's the figure used in using Abbotsford as an example.

MR. BLENCOE: The common denominator may be wrong, but that's okay.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Does that answer your question fully?

MR. BLENCOE: Are you finished?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Completely, yes. Then, of course you know, the first section deals with cities, towns Q districts, and we go on using the same application for villages. It's all very simple.

MR. BLENCOE: I just wanted to check with the minister at this time to get the figures and the background. Indeed, I agree. His explanation is a very good one.

MS. BROWN: But what does it mean?

[ Page 4826 ]

MR. BLENCOE: Well, it's very complicated.

I did have some concerns about the algebraic equation. I suspected that the common denominator of three may have been slightly off - by 0. 92 - but after about three hours of figuring it out and close calculation, decided the government's common denominator is indeed quite accurate.

Does the minister know what I'm talking about?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: As I said earlier, it wasn't one of my better subjects. But be assured, my friend, through you, Mr. Chairman, that this formula was worked out by very talented people, experts in the field, and I am totally satisfied because of the example that has been used to demonstrate just exactly how simple and accurate it is. I am totally satisfied that indeed this is the best way to do it.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, I'm not usually taking the minister's word. I did, however, check this morning with UBCM, and I discovered that they are reasonably happy with the equation and they see no substantive changes to be worried about. I think that's good, because UBCM of late hasn't been particularly happy with a number of things that this government has done. I have to report, however, that they are pleased with this section.

Suffice it to say, Mr. Chairman, the changes are adequate and we are going to support this particular section.

Sections 78 to 80 inclusive approved.

On section 81.

MR. BLENCOE: I won't treat this section quite so lightly. This is indeed a very important section. I will provide a little bit of background as to why I have some concerns. The minister will, I'm sure, want to respond. I've indicated in the last ten months in this House that the difficulties that the municipalities are going through in terms of financial constraints are enormous. Unfortunately the minister doesn't sometimes always understand the operations of municipal government. He simply doesn't understand them, probably from having had no experience in municipal government.

Suffice to say, Mr. Chairman, that in the last ten months we have seen a number of changes in municipal acts, municipal affairs legislation and granting systems. They have had dramatic impact on the financial arrangements of municipalities. One which I have mentioned - and I will mention again - is the whole funding formula for underground services and the contribution from provincial government, which was radically altered and has changed dramatically and will create financial hardship. The other one, of course -and there are others; I will mention just one more - is the transfer of sheriffs' costs and this sort of thing , which I hope the government will compensate. Again, it is a further transfer of costs to local government, which they cannot meet.

Mr. Chairman, we have a section here in this bill, section 81, which looks harmless on the surface but financially could be a great burden for local government once again.

What the government has decided to do, and I suspect it's because of some of the renegade back-benchers that come from the outlying areas on the mainland of Vancouver, is give another gift to . . . .

MRS. JOHNSTON: Name names.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, you wouldn't want me to, Madam Member; you wouldn't want me to name your name.

Here we have another gift - which we've already had in this House in the last ten months; Bill 9, which got rid of regional planning, and things like that - to the development industry. One of the things that happens when a development is to go in is the development charges that the municipality is entitled to collect from a developer. Currently, all development charges are payable at two points only: at the point of subdivision approval or at the granting of building permits. Those costs are met by the developer, and it's a way municipalities know they can recover their costs immediately or virtually immediately. Now, in this section here, we're going to have the minister being able to defer or set a process of these charges, or he'll have the power, by regulation, to phase in payments. Indeed, we don't know if the development costs will ever be paid at all. There's no statement here of how by regulation he is indeed going to do this.

My concern is that by doing this the municipalities will have to bear the burden of the development costs because they will be delayed by the developer having to pay those costs. It's a further embarrassment for municipal financing, and I don't believe there is any reason to change the existing system.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Did you talk to the UBCM about that?

MR. BLENCOE: I did indeed. Since a number of the municipalities have discovered this was coming in, I've had a number of calls today from local governments concerned, once again, that their ability to collect costs and finance their arrangements satisfactorily are going to be hurt again by this particular section. The only reason I can consider why the government wants to change this is that it's now another gift to their friends in the development industry. It's private interest done under public legislation. It's protecting private interests.

It will allow the payment of development charges by instalments and can prescribe other unspecified conditions regarding the payment of development charges. I have to categorically say that we are opposed to that. On the grounds that municipalities are already struggling financially, you cannot have an undetermined system of payments. It's currently clearly laid out that it's at the point of subdivision or the granting of a building permit when the municipalities get their development costs. Now we have, I think, a gift to the development industry again, and the poor municipality -and the local taxpayer - is going to have to pay the burden of giving this kind of credit-Chargex-American Express system to the development industry. That's not right, and the local taxpayer is going to have to take up the slack of this instalment program.

I don't see any reason why the current system should not stay in place. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, I see no guarantee or assurance to the municipalities that development charges will be paid at all, under this particular section, because it allows the minister virtually to waive or put off the costs to a predetermined time. I know that municipalities . . . . I've had a number of calls today saying that once again this government is impacting on the financial ability of local government to keep themselves above water. Here we have another chip off the old block.

[ Page 4827 ]

I'd ask the minister to find some way to defend this particular section, because he's got to be responsible for local government and their financial arrangements.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Yes, I'd be very pleased to . . . .

It's unfortunate that that member should spoil a good opening, as we dealt with a previous remark, by some of his personal remarks. Again we will forgive him because of his age and inexperience here. Certainly this particular amendment is a reflection of someone who has no preconceived ideas or any bad habits developed in respect to what happens at the municipal or regional level. The matter here is one of phasing in these developing cost charges. As we know, we have people in the industry who are finding it very difficult indeed, under present economic conditions, to come up with the amount of money required under this program. I think the member should understand, having had that vast experience of his, that not all of these development cost charges are used right away. Indeed, I have recently been expressing some concern that some of this money is sitting around too long -some, I believe, as long as five years, and we may find some longer than that. Any time that a charge is made under this particular program that sits around for up to five years, then I'd question the need for the charge in the first place.

The reason for development cost charges is to offset the additional cost of trunk lines, sewer and water and roads as a result of a development. In very few cases is all of this money used immediately. Let me assure the member that UBCM will be working very closely with us in drafting the regulations, as they work very closely with us in everything else. When drafted the regulations will take into consideration not only the developer who must put up the cash but also the needs of the municipality. I think this amendment is fair not only to the developer but to the municipalities and to the taxpayers at large. It's overdue.

MR. BLENCOE: Avoiding the personal attacks, I'll try to get into some of the specifics of why this particular Section 1s bad. The minister is just not answering the question. Because of giving yourself all sorts of powers down the line to be able to phase in the costs, do you expect the local taxpayers to have to take up the slack and meet those costs? That's what you're saying.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I'll try answering it in another way. First, let me clearly state that the purpose of development cost charges is to cover the additional cost of trunk lines, sewer, water and roads as a result of a development. Therefore those charges are placed in accounts for that purpose. How you could take from that that other taxpayers are going to be paying that bill, I don't know. What I am saying is that not all of this money is required immediately; the record shows that some of it is not required for up to five years. The development still pays it, the difference being that they're not expected to come up with the total amount immediately. They are going to be allowed an opportunity to make an initial payment and the balance over a period of two years.

[4:30]

MR. BLENCOE: Let me explain to the minister how it works, because he doesn't know. In a major development you have to put in a sewer or storm drain system, right? It's got to be put in and completed. The costs are there. Currently those costs are paid for when the development is approved or the building permit is granted. Say, for instance, the development costs will be half a million dollars; that's paid for. You're saying that you're going to phase in paying for that, yet the municipality is going to have to put the system in and pay the money, and the carrying charges are going to go to the local taxpayers, because you want to give another boost to your friends in the development industry at the expense of local taxpayers. We have a system now that is fair. If you put in a system for your development, you should have to pay for it. Now you're giving them a little bonus, and the local taxpayers are going to have to pay for the carrying charges, which could be astronomical. They can't pay those costs. All they have to do is transfer that carrying charge onto the property tax. Is that what you want, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: What you've just said is nothing but hogwash. We're only talking about off-site charges; we're not talking about putting in sewers or roads within the development. If you can indicate to me any municipality that immediately goes ahead and puts in the additional volume lines, the larger trunk lines, and improves the roads according to what they consider necessary as a result of the development, then you point them out to me. You should understand, Mr. Member, that very seldom is that the case. Most times a project takes several months, and some could be over a year; therefore the increase in trunk lines or roads, whatever, does not take place immediately but rather over the period of the project and sometimes not until some years after the project has been completed.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister refers now to something that is not stated in this section. He says "off-site costs." Let me read the section to the minister. "Notwithstanding subsection (2), the minister may, in respect of all or different classes of developments, by regulation authorize the payment of development cost charges in instalments and prescribe conditions under which the instalments may be paid." That's a wide-open statement on all sorts of costs, Mr. Minister.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Hush, Madam Member.

All I'm trying to say - and I know the minister is getting very defensive about this - is that he once again is passing further costs onto local government and giving cost breaks and incentives to their friends, who are obviously the renegades who are pushing this government to give more and more financial burden to local government.

He's still not answering my question. I'd like to know, for instance, Mr. Minister: what are your recommendations? Over what period should these costs be paid for? The other question is: you say you're going to consult UBCM, but they have asked for consultation on a number of things in the last ten months and have not had much success, Bill 9 being a major one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. To the section, hon. member.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, the minister said he was going to consult UBCM, and what I'm saying is that the record of this minister in consultation with UBCM is very poor. We've had a number of pieces of legislation where they've asked for that consultation and it hasn't occurred. Is

[ Page 4828 ]

the minister going to listen to the municipalities and UBCM on this particular clause? Because I can tell you, if he doesn't do it right and he transfers these costs over a long period of time, the financial burden to local government is going to be horrendous, and he has to answer that question.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, let me repeat: the payments will be spread over two years, if necessary. But let me refer the member to section 719 (4) of the Municipal Act, which, again, he should be very familiar with, with his background. It says:

"Development cost charges may be imposed under subsection (1) for the sole purpose of providing funds to assist the municipality in paying the capital cost of providing, altering or expanding sewage, water, drainage and highway facilities and public open space, or any of them, in order to serve, directly or indirectly, the development for which the charges are imposed."

The member, above all people, should understand what development cost charges are all about. That is all laid out in the act, and everyone out there is totally familiar with it. In the minds of the people at council level there is no problem whatsoever with that. This is simply saying that we will now allow them to phase in the cost of this. They are now not going to be in a position to demand full dollars up front. They will be allowed to phase it in over a period of two years.

MR. ROSE: While my colleague is busy consulting with his House Leader, I'd like to pose a couple of questions to the minister.

When I was an alderman in Coquitlam, we had a very successful prepaid water system. That was our policy. In other words, if there was to be a subdivision or development, the water system had to be prepaid. I would like to ask whether or not this amendment would preclude a municipality from demanding that kind of prepayment in order to finance a water extension; and if not, under what circumstances does this particular section apply?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: No, not at all, Mr. Chairman. I'm not sure whether the member is talking about water connections within the development or not. Or is he talking about the main trunk lines that serve the development? What is he talking about - the services within the development or the lines servicing the development?

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I don't think that that really matters very much.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Yes, it does.

MR. ROSE: Well, it doesn't seem to, but it may be covered elsewhere. I think it's wide open, because it's not specified in here. Ultimately it might be specified in the regulations; I don't know. I would be interested in the minister's response to that.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I just read the Section 1n the Municipal Act that deals with development cost charges, which quite clearly states that these charges are used for the purpose of increasing the carrying capacity of water or sewer lines, drainage and roads, etc., as a result of the project, but have absolutely nothing to do with the services within a project. I am sure the municipalities will still provide all the necessary services within. We are only talking about the impact of that development on the off-site services.

MR. ROSE: The minister is saying that he may authorize instalments for the off-site services required by development not contiguous to some other developed pattern. We well recall Surrey. They had a development all over the place and nearly went broke because ultimately they couldn't service it.

I think what is going to happen now is just the reverse. If the municipality feels it is going to be out of pocket by an extension of a development, I think they're far less likely to approve that development. It may have precisely the opposite effect that the minister contemplates in terms of encouraging development, jobs, etc.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Very quickly, Mr. Chairman, absolutely not. The process that this will permit has been accepted out there already by some that we have been talking to, who are running into difficulties as a result of the demand for this up front money. In one particular municipality we were talking about a couple of projects that represented somewhere in the neighbourhood of 350 jobs, which were in jeopardy only because the developer was unable to come up with a very large amount of money for development cost charges, and of course the act did not permit that developer to pay it in instalments. The municipality was prepared to accept it, but they couldn't because it wasn't permitted. But please keep in mind that seldom is all this money used immediately; very often - I would say in most cases - it's used over a period of two, three, four, up to five years. There will be no burden on the municipality; as long as a municipality is not spending the money, then why should they have to receive it? One could quite easily say that they could put this into an account and make interest on it, but that's not the purpose of this program. The purpose of this program is simply to cover those additional off-site costs, not to raise money to put into the bank and earn interest on.

MR. ROSE: I have two further remarks. I agree that that's the case, but there are a couple of other . . . . I'd like to have time for specific examples; we may not have them here today. I'm certainly not going to vote for this amendment. What happens if the developer goes broke? He has put all this development ahead, he's only been allowed to pay instalments, and the municipality is stuck with it unless it's a completely pay-as-you-go system. Lots of developments go broke, and I'm afraid that if we allow this they could start on a small - not a shoestring; not in terms of developments . . . . I'm not so stupid as to believe that you can start on a shoestring. But I think the municipality is vulnerable, and as long as it is vulnerable it will be reluctant to take flyers and chances on extensions and developments if this thing goes through.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, to allay his fears, the regulations will cover that. We have here part 6: "A person electing to pay a charge by instalments must deposit with the treasurer of the council at the same time as he pays the first instalment (a) an irrevocable letter of credit or undertaking from a bank; (b) a bond of surety, licensed under the Insurance Act; or (c) a security duly assigned." So the municipality is covered; there is no fear that they could be left

[ Page 4829 ]

holding the bag for an expense caused by that particular developer.

MR. BLENCOE: I don't want to delay this section, Mr. Chairman, but that section which the minister read out does not guarantee that the interests of the municipality are protected. It depends on who has first call on the money. You know that in these kinds of bankruptcies all sorts of problems occur. This particular Section 1s a weakening, I think, of the financial protection for municipalities in this development cost area. Obviously you have succumbed to the pressure from developers in the contracting industry to ease and put the pressure - and the potential burden - on the local municipality, and therefore the local taxpayer. We cannot support that. The system as it is, is good. Sure, it may mean that developers have to pay their costs, but so be it. I don't think the local taxpayer should have to pay the carrying charges over a two-year period for services that have been put in.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: You don't know what you're talking about.

[4:45]

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Minister, you are amending this section to allow you to charge the costs over a certain period of time - instalment plan - when indeed those costs may already have been met by the local municipality.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: When the development and the servicing go in, the municipality doesn't put any money up? Sure they do. Come on now! And the colleague to my right, who said that this indeed may be a hindrance to development, is quite correct, because if there is a feeling in the local government that they may not get all their development costs in a reasonable period of time, they may indeed not look at that particular development with much interest. So we cannot support this, Mr. Chairman, It's a bad amendment and does not protect the interests of municipalities.

Section 81 approved on the following division:

YEAS - 24

NAYS - 18

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

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I ask leave the committee to make an introduction.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I note in the gallery for a short while a distinguished local government representative for greater Victoria, Mayor Ken Hill of Esquimalt. I wish the committee to welcome him.

Sections 82 to 86 inclusive approved.

On section 87.

MR. SEGARTY: I just wanted a minute to speak on this particular section, which basically legalizes the revenue sharing agreement between three municipalities in the Elk Valley: namely, Fernie, Sparwood and Elkford. It is a project that I spent much of my time with between 1979 and 1982, and 1 worked hard with the three municipalities in the Elk Valley, along with the Regional District of East Kootenay. I would like to take a minute to thank the former mayor of Fernie, Gus Boersma; the former mayor of Sparwood, Henry Volkmann; the current mayor of Elkford, Mayor Richard Pinotti, the councils of the valley and the regional district of East Kootenay - in particular, electoral area representative Jim Smith, along with the staff; and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the minister for putting forward this section and bringing it to this point. It's an agreement that's working very well between the three municipalities, and I want to thank the minister for bringing that forward.

Sections 87 and 88 approved.

On section 89.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, this refers to the Company Act and gives the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council -the cabinet, that is - the power, it appears to me, to overrule the superintendent of companies on the registration of company names or certain aspects thereof. We would like to ask the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs - or whoever wishes to answer - why the government deems it necessary to give themselves the power to overrule the registrar of companies in the approval of company names, which has traditionally been one of the functions of that office.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's my understanding, Mr. Member, that this is consequential to the amendments of the Minister of Finance dealing with B. C. Rail and its subsidiary company proposals.

MR. D'ARCY: The problem we have with the answer of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) - and it's too bad he's not in the House at this time - is that he said it only applied to British Columbia Railway. Yet British Columbia Railway is not named in any of the sections which he said refer only to the B.C. Railway. What other companies might be involved? Any and all companies? Or only other railway companies such as B.C. Hydro railway or the private railroads operated on Vancouver Island, for instance, that haul logs? We don't know that it only applies to the British

[ Page 4830 ]

Columbia Railway company, because it is not specifically stated.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I have received the advice of the legislative counsel too. It's essentially as I said. It's consequential, so that the subsidiary which we formed under the Company Act may operate as a railway.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I wonder if I could ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, would the House welcome the granddaughter of a former member of our House, who was a minister of the government. Jennifer Skillings is in the gallery with her father, David, and I would ask the House to give them both a warm welcome.

Sections 89 to 93 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to have third reading without report at this time.

Leave granted.

Bill 31, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1984, reported complete with amendment, read a third time and passed.

[5:00]

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call second reading of Bill PR401, Bill No. I An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE VANCOUVER CHARTER

MR. PELTON: I take a great deal of pleasure in rising to move second reading of Bill PR401. 1 don't think a great deal need be said on this bill. All members will have read it. It deals with the Vancouver Charter and contains a number of items, 14 in total, which relate to various housekeeping matters - I suppose that would be as good a way of explaining them as any amendments which the city of Vancouver would like to have made to their charter. This matter was dealt with by the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills and we heard from the solicitor of the city of Vancouver. After quite some discussion and some changes that were made, the committee accepted the items that are contained in Bill PR401. If I might suggest this to all hon. members, if there are any questions, they would probably be well received when the bill goes into committee. So saying, I would move that Bill PR401 be read a second time.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I look with a great deal of regret at the delay in the committee's report on Bill No. 2 respecting amendments to the Vancouver Charter. It's unfortunate indeed that I have to rise under Bill No. I to bring to this hon. chamber's attention the fact that this government steadfastly ignores the democratic will of the people of the city of Vancouver. It is another example of philosophical inflexibility, of a right-wing doctrinaire approach to the government of the province of British Columbia, when they cannot possibly recognize the democratic will and statement of ordinary citizens in the city of Vancouver.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. We are currently in second reading of Bill PR401.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, there's something wrong with this mike.

MR. SPEAKER: The microphone's fine; it's the member that is out of order.

MR. LAUK: Someone has turned off the juice, Bruce. Are you drawing me to order?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, hon. member, I am. The hon. member is familiar with the rules that guide us in second reading, what can and cannot be discussed. Hon. member, we are looking at a bill before us which contains certain things and does not contain other things. The member may therefore debate what is contained but not what is not contained. Having said that, are we ready for a question possibly?

MR. LAUK: What Mr. Speaker is saying is that I must contain myself within that which is contained within the bill. I think that this bill is wonderful. But think of how wonderful it would be had it contained an amendment bringing in a ward system.

MR. PELTON: I have nothing more to say. I just move that the bill be read a second time.

Motion approved.

MR. PELTON: I ask leave to go to committee forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill PR401, Bill No I An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE VANCOUVER CHARTER

The House in committee on Bill PR401; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 22 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

[ Page 4831 ]

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill PR401, Bill No. I An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, report on Bill 27.

EDUCATION STATUTES (FISCAL YEAR)

AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

Bill 27 read a third time and passed.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR

On vote 45: minister's office, $196, 554.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I was going to make a very long speech, but I heard my critic over there telling his colleagues he had an hour's speech, so I'm not going to do that. Anyway, it seems like it was only a few days ago that we were standing here debating last year's estimates.

I do want to pay tribute, though, to some very hardworking people in my ministry who have performed exceptional duty. That is all of the members of the ministry, but particularly the deputy minister of women's programs, Isabel Kelly, who also acted for a long period of time as acting deputy minister under some very difficult conditions. I'd like to thank her very much for that. Although they aren't here with me, because some of these things have happened at short notice, I'd also like to inform those members who don't already know that we now have a new Deputy Minister of Labour as of May 1, Mr. Graham Leslie. Graham started his career with the Ministry of Labour in British Columbia. He went on to other things and spent 19 years as the manager of the labour relations bureau of the Greater Vancouver Regional District, so he brings with him a wealth of experience in the field. And Mr. Gerald Levey is now the new chairman of the boards of review for the Workers' Compensation Board. Also here is Mr. Walter Flesher, chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board. I'd like to thank those people very much.

Mr. Chairman, I don't think I need to go into a long preamble about what the ministry has done and hopes to do over the years to come; rather, I'd like to be available for questions on any aspects.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, for the last month this seems to be the most familiar position I've had standing here talking to the Minister of Labour.

First, I want to associate myself and members on this side with the minister's expression of thanks to the people who work in the Ministry of Labour. They deserve the commendation. They work hard. I agree with the minister that the last year or so have been difficult times for those people at the very top echelon of the ministry.

MS. SANFORD: If they had another minister, it would be okay.

MR. GABELMANN: Well, I'm going to be more charitable than that. Without having an acting deputy and having a consultant who seemed at times to be an acting deputy as well, obviously there were some difficulties. I want to associate myself entirely with those words of appreciation to people who too often are maligned. I refer not only to public servants in that ministry but to public servants in general.

I also agree with the minister, and to make the point to those people in the galleries and to those who read Hansard, that just a few months ago we had the Labour ministry estimates, at which time we raised a number of concerns. I want to now say publicly that I asked a number of questions in those estimates earlier this year in respect to farmworkers. The minister promised he would reply in writing to me, and he did. We often stand up and complain when ministers don't, so I think we should stand up and say thank you when they do, and I say thank you for that.

Mr. Chairman, there are a number of things I want to say, but not in the hour that I jestingly - if that's the word -suggested to my colleagues. There are three matters that I think require some attention. The first is that I don't believe the Ministry of Labour has properly or conscientiously enough developed labour employment programs in this province. I know we'll get the speech back from the minister about jobs here, jobs there, jobs everywhere else and the thousands that were listed the other day. It is a great speech politically. The politics of it are great. But when you have the levels of unemployment that we have in various communities . . . . People can live with that level of unemployment for a certain period of time if they recognize that there is an end to it. What's happening now in our society is that there is a growing fear that there is no end to this, that two and three years of constant unemployment may well be followed by many more years of constant unemployment. I guess people would feel a little bit better if they had a sense that there was an economic plan, that there was a program being developed to try, if not immediately then at least in the short term, to put an end to the massive levels of unemployment that exist throughout the province, particularly in some of the communities that are very hard hit - communities in my riding, all over Vancouver Island, all over this province. I guess what we would like to see is some suggestion, some outline of what this economic plan is that is referred to frequently by ministers on that side. We've seen very little to date.

I want to also make some reference to the youth employment program. In question period the other day I asked some questions relating to the apparent running out of money for this particular program. Over the years the province has spent considerably more money on youth employment than it is spending this year in the $10 million that has been allocated. In 1974-75 we spent $26 million-plus; in 1975-76, $26 million-plus. It went down to $18 million-plus in the summer of 1976; in the summer of 1977 it was $22 million; in 1978 it was $21 million; in 1979 it was $24 million; in 1980 it was virtually $25 million; and then $21 million in '81. We've consistently spent $20 million to $25 million on summer employment programs when the dollars went further, and this year we're spending $10 million. I acknowledge that there isn't a lot of money available these days - we have no concern about that; we on this side of the House recognize

[ Page 4832 ]

that there is not unlimited funding available for any number of programs - but to spend only $10 million on youth employment at this time is really quite pathetic. When the minister replies to this, I would like him to stand up and say that he does intend - if he hasn't done so already - to go to Treasury Board for additional allocation, even though these estimates that we're debating don't call for that additional expenditure. I think it's well worthwhile and would certainly receive the support not only of this side of the House but of the many thousands of young people in this province who are going to be unemployed this summer.

[5:15]

The final point I want to make, Mr. Chairman, relates to the WCB. I am concerned that there is a direction being taken by the Ministry of Labour to transfer to the public purse responsibilities which are properly the responsibility of the employers through WCB assessments. I'm concerned that that's a program that is developing. We see it in terms of the transfer of portions of the health functions from WCB to the public health service. I understand that there will be a fee in the case of the audiologists. In other words, the Health ministry will levy a fee to the WCB for services rendered in respect of audiology. I would like to have that confirmed, and I would like to have confirmed by the minister that that principle, if it applies with audiology, will apply across the board in respect of services that formerly were provided by the WCB, but which might now or in the future be provided by some other government agency or perhaps some other agency outside of government, but that those costs will not be taxpayer costs but WCB costs. I think that's an important principle and one that I would hope the minister would state.

I'm concerned, Mr. Chairman, about the closing of WCB offices - I think of the one in Prince Rupert, for example. People working on the coast - in the woods industry in particular, but even people living in Prince Rupert - now will have to go to the office in Terrace for WCB services. I understand that their inspection officers will still work out of Prince Rupert despite the fact that there isn't an office there, but we're not talking about that; we're talking about the availability of service to workers who need to go into the office. I know that that's a problem, because I have workers all over northern Vancouver Island who have to go to Courtenay - that's awkward and it's expensive - and the costs in effect are being transferred from the general WCB assessment onto the individual workers who happen to live a long way away from the WCB office, Not only is it a long way to go; they can't even phone collect to deal with their particular case. I'm not necessarily asking for a commitment on those kinds of questions right now, but there should be some serious attention paid to the fact that workers - it used to be remote communities, but now it's increasingly in more populous communities like Campbell River and Prince Rupert -are unable to go to a WCB office in their own community. That's a continuing concern.

I worry, too, Mr. Chairman, about the changes that are going on at the WCB. I have no quarrel whatsoever with administrative changes that are designed to streamline the operation to improve the efficiency - dealing with the investment to make sure there is a better return on the dollar, all those kinds of things, will be welcomed - but when they impact on workers who require the services of the WCB I that's where the line needs to be drawn. I'm not at all convinced that those are the instructions to the new chairperson of the WCB. It's a concern that I hear expressed by workers, and the minister's comments about that, too, would be welcomed.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The member referred to my use of a special consultant over the past period of time. It would be very remiss of me if I didn't make mention of the consultant, Ian Stewart, who has worked with me very closely over the past several months and who also gave very good service to this government and worked extremely hard in developing with me some of the initiatives that we have.

I would simply accept that it would be very nice if . . . .

First of all, let me go back to the labour-employment programs and the matter of an economic plan. I mentioned earlier that within a matter of weeks the government would be putting forward an economic development plan. The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) also announced that.

Members know that cabinet held a session at Cowichan Bay recently at which the major focus was on economic development and how to achieve the highest measure of recovery in our economy. As chairman of the Economic Development Committee of cabinet . . . . My committee has been charged with helping to pull all of that together, and I think we'll be ready, certainly, within weeks to put that plan before the public and before the opposition members as well.

In youth employment, yes, we would like to spend more money, but I cannot give a commitment to the member that there will be more money available. The amount this year is the same as the amount last year, $10 million. If it hasn't been already, maybe today or this week it will be fully committed - I have no doubt about that - and it will have provided close to 9, 000 jobs. There are other programs as well that provide funds for youth employment, but as far as that program goes, I simply cannot give that member a commitment that more money will come from treasury.

As far as the WCB health services go, as far as I'm concerned - and there isn't a firm written policy - if services are provided through the public service, whether at hospitals or wherever it happens to be, it will be on a fee for service, and that's the only way it would be done. I wouldn't support any other program.

Closing offices. The office in Prince Rupert, for instance: the decision wasn't made there without a careful assessment and recommendation from the chairman and others at the board that that office was not being used to its full capability. The WCB is largely a mail-order operation anyway. I'll endeavour to continue to review those offices, and if the problem arises, I can maybe share it with the member or the member may want to share it with me at a later date, and I will discuss it with the chairman.

The instructions to the chairman of the board and the Workers' Compensation Board are, in fact, first of all, that we want to reduce the unfunded liability. We have started on that already, with a significant reduction occurring in the last annual report. We want to improve the board's investment capability and to streamline its financial operation and its management operation. Other than that, and in fact beyond that, the top priority of the board is to maintain services to injured workers in the province. Those are the instructions which have gone to the new chairman, and they've been very firm.

MR. GABELMANN: I have one other matter to raise. It relates to the. mining industry and the fact that it has its own

[ Page 4833 ]

health and safety regulations and enforcement. The safety rules and enforcement were put into a separate agency around the turn of the century when most mining was underground. I think there's a general agreement that the rules and regulations relating to health and safety in the mining industry, in respect of underground operations, are pretty good. But if you look at coal-mining and, increasingly, in hard-rock mining, it's open-pit. I think it has always been timely that that function be transferred to the WCB, but if it wasn't, because of the underground nature in the old days - even as recently as 15 or 20 years ago that argument was made, and you could argue it - I don't think there's any argument anymore to leave that jurisdiction with Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Rather, it's to move that whole operation of mining safety, both in terms of regulations

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I know. I remember. We'll soon be back to it too, ML Minister.

* ... to move that whole area into the WCB. I don't need to explain it further than that. The minister knows the issue. I would be interested in the minister's response as to whether he agrees with me that that transfer should take place.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I think the member knows the answer to that already. No, I don't agree. I think the system works as well as it could possibly work. The safety record in the mining industry is pretty good, compared with other areas with similar kinds of risks. If someone could put a paper on my desk which would give me some comparative figures that would prove to me it would be better just by changing the inspectors to somebody else, then I would probably consider it. But right now, no, I don't agree with the member that it should be transferred.

MR. GABELMANN: Finally, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister, in respect of this matter, hasn't got the brief that was submitted to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Rogers) from CAIMAW. You do have that.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I think it was submitted to me.

MR. GABELMANN: It probably went to everybody. In any event, the brief is good. It makes some compelling arguments, and I think the . . . . I heard you; you said no. I just ask that you continue to have that matter under review. I think it's an issue where the time has come for that change to be made. We may disagree about that at the present time, but let's keep looking at it, and maybe even the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) will agree that it's about time.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I talked to CAIMAW when I was the Minister of Energy, and in my new capacity, and Workers' Compensation Board officials and chairmen have talked to them. We'll keep it under review. I have not been convinced that it would do some of the things some people think it would. If somebody can convince me, I wouldn't be as hidebound about it.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I guess one could have an awful lot to say about the Ministry of Labour. However, I think there's been a great discussion in terms of the ministry respecting the bill that has passed this House.

There is one aspect of the minister's responsibility that I still feel has been totally inadequately handled and that's WCB. I don't think WCB is providing the level of care in terms of their responsibility that they should be. One of the ways an MLA can sense the time and what's going on is by the number of complaints one gets. They go up and down, but they've been going up, I think relatively seriously, in the last year or so.

I'm always worried, particularly when a Crown corporation - or whatever WCB is - becomes debt-laden, or in a deficit situation; the tendency is to take it out on the claimants. My feeling is that the WCB is being inordinately tough in terms of claims. I'm not dealing just with back injuries or injuries of that nature; they just don't seem to be treating claims as fairly as I feel they should. I've had a number of cases recently that I've had to assist with, and I've talked to a number of others who handle WCB claims on a regular basis, and I think there's an opinion out there that one should not ignore.

I recognize that the employers pay the shot, and I know that the government doesn't want to put a disproportionate levy on the contributors to the plan. But one of the things we must remember is that when there are injuries in the workforce, part of the responsibility is because the workplace is non-safe. I'm certainly not going across the board and saying that that's true everywhere, but I don't weep bitter tears over the employers' contribution to the WCB. It is an established way of de~ling with workers' problems. Certainly I don't ever want to see us go back to the situation where people would be suing their employer and all of those kinds of things. I think, however, that WCB should be and must be more sensitive than they are at the present time. I'm led to believe that from time to time some of the adjusters tend to be protectors of the faith. In other words, their whole job is to see to it that a claimant isn't paid, as opposed to the very reverse, if the claim is justified. I wonder how the minister feels this can be dealt with, particularly in times when money is very tight. I really feel that there are some people who are getting very badly hurt out there.

[5:30]

1 have a situation before me at present that I feel was dumped on WCB. As I can see it, and I've said it to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, it was certainly an ICBC claim - a person injured in an automobile accident - yet somehow or other they dumped it on WCB, and this person has fallen right in between the cracks. He can't get any just deserts from WCB, because to some extent they're quite right. They've accepted it to get ICBC off the hook, but on the other ~and I don't say that they should have. I think that ICBC should have carried it, but when you have this kind of situation going on, there should be real notice taken of what's happening in terms of adjudication.

When you have a claim that's been badly adjudicated, you then have to get it through the review process, which heaven only knows takes an interminable amount of time. I know that the recent changes were supposed to bring us to a point where review boards can deal with them more quickly, but I have concerns about that because of the new structure. It doesn't seem to have the same balance that it once had.

In any event, I don't feel that adjudication is being fairly dispensed - not in all cases, but certainly enough that the volume has grown to the extent that, as far as my barometer is

[ Page 4834 ]

concerned, is just too high. It's grown higher than it should be in terms of the needs of our workforce.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I can only share some of the concerns that that member has, particularly with the review process. I am certainly not happy with it yet. I believe, though, that there may have to be changes to legislation in order to fix that. My MLA problems with WCB are not going up to any noticeable extent. It would be interesting to know if the member - or other members - would like, to share some of them with me so that I could get an idea of what's happening there. I think we agree that we must have fair adjudication. I believe that the appointment of a new general manager on the claims adjudication side, who I believe the member for New Westminster has had some considerable contact with in the past .... Mr. Bob Taylor used to be with the Medical Plan Services for the province of British Columbia, and will bring a great wealth of experience to that side as well. Certainly I'll keep a very close watch on what's happening there. Within the law that exists right now we're going to continue to try to improve the review process as much as we possibly can.

On the other question, I would remind the member that in the ombudsman's review of the Workers' Compensation Board he really identified only a dozen cases that concerned him enough to lay a report before cabinet. Most of those cases dealt with deficiencies - in his mind at least - in the legislation. We have that report as well, and I'll certainly monitor it very closely, Mr. Member.

MR. COCKE: I think it's a good idea. Naturally it's very difficult for a minister to deal with every . . . . I try to keep away from ministers and deal directly with the WCB itself; otherwise, you would load up the minister responsible. Having had some experience in that regard myself, I tend to steer away from it as much as I can. But if the minister wants us to keep him informed, I'm not opposed to that at all. I do think there is a real opportunity here to give them a sense of wellbeing with respect to this whole question. I don't think there's the confidence.

You talk about the ombudsman and his report, and so on and so forth. The ombudsman is of course not brought into the picture very often; it has to be a very serious case in his eyes before he'll accept it. I know of a number of cases of WCB cases that he has rejected. They've come to me and as a last resort have gone to the ombudsman. I could do nothing, and then he couldn't do anything. He couldn't handle it, or didn't want to because he didn't feel it was within reason that he should. I have a case right now that I've been working on for three years. I even went through the review process with this person, who is in Montreal, and I think it is patently clear that properly there should have been a claim paid there. Anyway, I don't want to deal with specifics, because that's crazy in committee. But I do say that in general I am apprehensive about the way things happened to go. Maybe this is an aberration as far as I'm concerned; maybe it's just my bad luck, and the minister's good luck not to have had an increase. I wouldn't mind polling the House to find out whether there has been an increase. Who knows?

In any event, the minister has said that he's going to keep a watchful eye on it, and I appreciate that. I think that this is an area that really requires a watchful eye. Otherwise, we've really taken away from people when we disallowed them the right to sue their employer.

Just let me give you one little example. Here is a person that was working part-time on a pop truck for Coca-Cola, putting himself through university. A bottle exploded and impaired his eyesight for life. The way he has been jacked around by WCB is absolutely outlandish, in my mind. This is a case that I've been working on for some time. I'm afraid it's pretty well down the tube. I mean, there was a settlement, but it was totally inadequate, in my view. A person who has been damaged irreparably . . . . I just think that that kind of thing should be taken into consideration.

Anyway, if the minister will keep his eye on the adjudication in and of itself and the review process that follows, I would be very appreciative, as would the workforce in this province.

Vote 45 approved.

Vote 46: ministry operations, $57, 715, 546 - approved.

Vote 75: student employment programs, $10, 000, 000 approved.

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

On vote 4: premier's office, $697, 886.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, we are embarked here upon what could very easily be a precedent-setting decision and activity. Finally during this Parliament somebody with some intelligence is sitting in the Premier's chair.

Seriously, there is a very serious matter before us. That serious matter is that the first minister, the leader of the government - the office without which little else would happen in government - is not here, and the estimates for that office are being called in the absence of the first minister.

There are some offences against this chamber, some insults that can be directed to members in the chamber and some obstruction that can take place for which there are remedies. If the insult or the obstruction or the interference takes place by a member in the chamber, it can be dealt with by the House. If it's an interference or an insult or a declaration against the proprieties of the House, or anything of that sort, by someone outside of the chamber, that also can be dealt with. There are instances in our parliamentary system where that has been the case. But there is an activity which, I submit, Mr. Chairman, is of an insulting nature, of an obstructing nature, because it impedes the orderly progress of providing supply for the government to carry on. It's certain obstruction and interference for which there is no remedy, and the House cannot deal with it. That obstruction, that interference, that insult to that House is engaged in by the person who is absent.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The Leader of the Opposition.

MR. HOWARD: The Premier, in case the Minister of Forests is wondering.

There's an element of cowardice involved in this, if nothing else, involving running and hiding, refusing to show up to deal with the accountability aspect. One of the fundamental parts of the whole foundation of government with respect to taxation and spending government moneys is that the minister who wants the money to spend must be available

[ Page 4835 ]

to the Committee of Supply at the time that demand for money is made, in order to show accountability; to say, "This is why I want the money, and this is what I want to do with it"; in order to answer questions of hon. members about the course of events in that ministry or in this case with respect to the Premier himself

Without accountability at the time the request is made, we have nothing more than taxation by way of theft. I'm not talking about accountability afterwards through Public Accounts - after the money is spent. I'm talking about the time when the money is paid, right now. The Premier's office is demanding $697, 886 from the people of British Columbia, an increase from what was voted from last year. I think the refusal on the part of the leader of government to be here at this moment, on this day when those estimates are called for $697, 886, is a contemptible act, and that the Premier stands in contempt of Committee of Supply.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I will remind the committee right now that we appear to be indulging in personal attack which is not parliamentary, and also I will remind the committee that the Committee of Supply does not afford the proper opportunity for discussing which minister should represent the government in respect of the estimates under consideration.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, I want to submit to you that this is part of a deliberate plan. We went into Committee of Supply on March 2 on a motion for the House to go into Committee of Supply to grant supply to Her Majesty's government. That was two and one-half months ago. In any sitting of this Legislature from March 2 on, the Premier's estimates could have been arranged for. The leader of the government's estimates could have been called, but they weren't.

You can't convince me, Mr. Chairman, that that was accidental. The government, insofar as the rules of this House are concerned, is in a dictatorial position. The government is a dictator with respect to the rules. The government has absolute control, through the government House Leader, over the House's business; it can call what it wants when it wants. It's had two and one-half months to call the estimates of the Premier and didn't do it. It waited deliberately, I submit, till this moment so that the estimates could be sneaked through without the prime person responsible for the operations of government being here to provide the accountability for what was happening.

That's an abuse of power and an insult to this House, but more particularly it's an abuse against the people of the province of British Columbia and an insult to the people of the province of British Columbia. I submit that the Premier is in contempt of the Committee of Supply.

I want to move, Mr. Chairman, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), that the Committee of Supply hereby declares the Premier of this province to be in contempt of this committee as a result of the failure of the said Premier to attend and justify his demands for $697, 886 of public funds, and that this resolution be formally reported to Mr. Speaker.

[5:45]

MR. CHAIRMAN: By virtue of the citation that your Chairman read just moments ago, that the Committee of Supply cannot discuss which minister should represent the government in respect of the estimates under consideration, I find the amendment out of order.

MR. HOWARD: I didn't doubt that there would be some mechanism whereby that result would occur, but I must challenge that decision.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, during Committee of Supply an amendment submitted in the name of the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) was ruled out of order by the Chair, and the Chair has been challenged.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, shall the Chair's ruling be sustained?

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS - 24

NAYS - 16

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

[6:00]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, prior to calling Mr. Chairman back, I would like to draw to the hon. members' attention that earlier today Bill 401 . . . . When Bill 401 was amended in the Private Bills Committee, it had 14 sections when it was committed to committee; inadvertently, in committee additional sections were called which were not before the committee, and were therefore a nullity. Bill 401, as committed, printed and given third reading, therefore stands.

I would like to thank the opposition House Leader for his time in discussing this matter with the Chair prior to this information being presented to the House.

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

On vote 4: Premier's office, $697, 886.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 4 pass?

[ Page 4836 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A division has been called.

It appears as if all who can be here are here. We will proceed with the division.

All those in favour please stand. Thank you. All those opposed please stand. I'll remind some of the members of the committee that standing order 16 (2) states that everyone present shall vote.

I will once again call for those opposed to the passing of vote 4.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, the standing order that Mr. Chairman has read indicates that all those members must vote. It seems to me it's much more important that the first minister of this province should be present for his own estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order.

I will once again ask, after pointing out the provisions of standing order 16 (2), that all those opposed to vote 4 please stand.

I have no alternative then but to report this to the Speaker.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, during division in the Committee of Supply certain members of the committee have not followed standing order 16 (2). 1 therefore report this to you.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, one moment, please.

The member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD: My point of order relates to the standing order cited earlier. I inform Your Honour, with full knowledge of that standing order, that in conscience I cannot vote for or against the estimates, because to vote yes or no, in my opinion, is voting for the cowardice of the Premier. I cannot vote.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, I thought the Chair was going to entertain an intelligent point of order. Obviously I was mistaken.

Hon. members, the question referred to the Chair is one which .... The Chair cannot force any member to vote. Therefore the vote, having been taken, is carried and the matter then must be dealt with in committee. I call Mr. Chairman.

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

Vote 4 approved on the following division:

YEAS - 23

HON. MR. GARDOM: I really thought the official opposition was elected and paid not only to attend but to vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the estimates, please. We are in Committee of Supply.

Vote 1: legislation, $7, 616, 302 - approved.

Vote 2: auditor-general, $3, 488, 068 - approved.

On vote 3: ombudsman, $1, 938, 020.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, I won't be very long but I see we're passing through all these estimates so fast that our Public Accounts Committee won't be be meeting tomorrow morning when we were going to have the pleasure of having the ombudsman before us.

I'd just like to make some comments about that department. After reading his report today, I would suggest that the staff who work for the ombudsman has done a good job in some areas, and I wouldn't want anybody to think that my criticism, past, present or future, of the ombudsman's department is for anybody else except the ombudsman himself, Mr. Friedmann.

In reviewing his travel expenses for the last session, which we were going to review tomorrow in our meeting, I see that over half of them are for travel outside of this province.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, it is well known and accepted in the standing orders and conventions of Westminster and this chamber that a servant of the chamber whose estimate is to be questioned should be called before the bar of the House, or the vote, by reference of the government to a special standing committee or a standing committee to review the servant of the Legislature. His vote should not be questioned, particularly with the kind of personal references made by the member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds), before a committee without the opportunity for the ombudsman, who is an independent appointee of this chamber as a whole on the unanimous recommendation of an all-party committee of this House, to be before a Committee of Supply unless - if you'll check the precedents in this matter - (1) the ombudsman is called before the bar, or (2) his vote is referred to a special committee for that purpose.

I therefore object to the remarks made by the hon. member until either of those two courses are followed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: This business is properly in front of the committee now, Mr. Member.

MR. LAUK: That's not a correct interpretation, Mr. Chairman. We can certainly question ministers who are present in the House. Which minister do we question with respect to the estimates for the ombudsman? He's an employee and appointee of the Legislature as a whole, and if any question arises to the vote, he should be at that bar.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We will remind the committee and the second member for Vancouver Centre that when in Committee of Supply any member may speak on any particular vote - which the member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound is properly doing, and I will invite him to proceed.

MR. LAUK: I wish to protest, and request of the hon. member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound, as a question of honour, that he either move those two motions I suggested -

[ Page 4837 ]

either one of them - or refrain from attacking the ombudsman in this committee with the protection of this House.

[6:15]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, we are in Committee of Supply and the member has every right to address the vote ....

MR. LAUK: I could have made some comments on the auditor-general with respect to Jim Rae, but I refrained from doing so.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I will ask the member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound to continue on vote 3, if he wishes.

MR. REYNOLDS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Certainly my comments are not an attack. They are questions and statements I want to make about the way the ombudsman's department is handled and run, and the ombudsman will have an opportunity this evening or tomorrow morning to answer any of these accusations that I make. He certainly seems to have had no trouble in the past getting his name on the front pages of newspapers or getting on talk shows and doing whatever he wants. As I mentioned earlier, half of his traveling expenses are for travel outside this province, and I don't believe that any ombudsman who is doing his job has to spend half his travel expenses traveling outside the province of British Columbia, to the United States and other areas around the world.

I was also anxious to see him before our committee tomorrow so that we could talk about the comparisons between British Columbia and Alberta. I would also like to comment about the way the ombudsman uses cartoons in his annual reports. I have had numerous letters that the cartoons offend a number of people. I don't know how much we pay Mr. Raeside to print some of his cartoons. I hear my friend the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) going: 'Ali, oh." This same party was here talking about human rights, and if he was to look at the cartoons . . . . He's got a cartoon at the very front of his report that was issued in this House today showing the ombudsman, Mr. Friedmann, ringing the doorbell, civil servants jumping out of a second-storey window, one civil servant with a gun up to his head ready to blow it off, one with a cross, all scared. You would think they too would be offended by this attack on the human rights of all these fine civil servants we have working for us around this province. I think the ombudsman is trampling on the rights of civil servants all the way through this report. I feel sorry when I think of the psyche that must be behind this man. I feel sorry for the people who are working for him, because I think the man has something wrong with him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

MS. BROWN: Surely he'll have to withdraw that?

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. As the ombudsman isn't here to defend himself, I will take it upon myself to ask that member to withdraw that last statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, withdrawals are only called for when a member of the Legislative Assembly is in some way treated in a manner that is unparliamentary, and that hasn't happened in this case. As all members do, the member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound speaks in this House with immunity and has every right to do so. The point of order from the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) is not a point of order.

MRS. DAILLY: A further point of order, we have just been told that we can proceed with debating the ombudsman's estimates here in this House; that has been so ruled. Do I not have the same right to defend him if his estimates are before this House?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, under the rules of committee you may speak on this vote in committee as much and as many times as you wish, but that was not a point of order.

MR. REYNOLDS: I hope the member will get up and defend the ombudsman. He may join their party one day and run for them in an election campaign,

I have one final comment to make about the ombudsman. Section 1 I (1) (a) of the Ombudsman Act states that the said act does not authorize the ombudsman to investigate a decision "until after that right of appeal, objection or application has been exercised . . . . .. Mr. Chairman, it has come to my attention that the ombudsman is interfering in cases in this province that are still before the courts of this province.

Mr. Speaker, I think that shows what is happening with the ombudsman and the power that he thinks he holds in his department, that he can start to interfere in cases that are still before the courts of this land. Now how would you like to be a judge or a jury or anybody else within that system that was looking at a case before the courts of this province and find the ombudsman starting to investigate? I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the ombudsman is violating Section 1 I (1) (a) of the Ombudsman Act, and that if this House were to sit here for any length of time, he would have to come before this House and defend that action.

Mr. Chairman, Liberal cabinet ministers who have phoned judges and interfered with the system have had to resign their offices. I would suggest that the ombudsman, who is interfering in cases before the courts of this province, should resign his office, because he's not following the Ombudsman Act. That's why I wanted to get up and speak in his estimates, because I don't think he's doing his job. I will stress very strongly that those who work in his department are doing some good things around this province. The ombudsman's department does serve a function within the province, but not under the leadership of the present ombudsman.

I think he's not only violating his office, but he should get out of it, because he's not doing a proper job. The cartoons, the interference in the system, numerous things . . . . He thinks he is the judge and jury, and is interfering in too many situations where he shouldn't be. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, 1 look forward to coming back here in the fall when we can get the ombudsman before our Public Accounts Committee and have a proper chance to analyze these expenses outside of the province. But also I would like to hear him answer publicly between now and then why he thinks he has the right to interfere in cases that are before the courts of this province.

MRS. DAILLY: I found it most interesting that the opening statements of the member who just attacked and maligned

[ Page 4838 ]

the ombudsman of British Columbia referred to his travel expenses. Yet we just had to deal a few moments ago with the Premier's estimates, when the Premier is traveling to another country at this time. Yet there is no mention of that whatsoever by that member. I don't think ever in the history of this parliament, Mr. Chairman, have we dealt with the estimates of a Premier who didn't even have the decency and respect for this system to be here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are on vote 3 now. To vote 3.

MRS. DAILLY: The member who just spoke also has never at any time referred to the ridiculous travel expenses of other cabinet ministers who have traveled half the time around this province and outside. We want fairness.

Why attack the one person who isn't even in the Legislature? I found it interesting, Mr. Chairman, that he chose this forum where he has immunity, where - the ombudsman doesn't have to face him and he doesn't have to face the ombudsman, and yet that ombudsman has asked over and over again, in every report that he has presented to this Legislature, for a legislative committee to be set up so that we could sit there as members and deal with the ombudsman face to face. But I don't think the Social Credit government wants to deal face to face with the ombudsman; they want to make indirect and direct attacks on him from the chamber, and I think it's disgusting.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. DAILLY: Well, I think it's disgusting, Mr. Chairman. The man has no opportunity to defend himself from those terrible statements that have just been made by that member. I want to say that if he had taken the time to look through the ombudsman's report he would see how many citizens in British Columbia have benefited from an ombudsman who has courage and is willing to stand up for what he believes to protect the people of British Columbia. That member obviously does not even know why the ombudsman was appointed and the reasons for having an ombudsman. He obviously is not concerned about the human rights of the people of British Columbia; if he were, he would be praising the ombudsman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please. There seems to be a problem with the microphone. You can use the next desk. We've done this before. I know there is a standing order, but we'll waive that for the time being.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, if that member were to sit down and take the time tonight and do some homework and read through the many cases that the ombudsman of British Columbia has solved, he would be up here praising the ombudsman of British Columbia and not attacking him. I'm pleased to have the opportunity to stand here to say that I respect the work done by that ombudsman, and I think B.C. is and has been well served by him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Again, I will advise the committee that because of a mechanical problem we waived standing order 36 for that moment.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, just to finish off, I have read the ombudsman's report released today, and I did praise those people who worked within his department. It was the ombudsman himself I was attacking, not those fine people who work in his department.

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I'm probably going to get bawled out for this, but in referring to page 27 of the ombudsman's estimates, employees for 1984-85 indicates 32 FTEs. I want to raise that out of Public Accounts, 1982-83, the ombudsman had allocated FTEs of 37. His actual employees totalled 57. 1 raised the question last time we talked about the estimates of the ombudsman, which had gone from $300, 000 in his first year to $2 million now. I question the number of FTEs that the ombudsman reports will be employed by the ombudsman's department in 1984-85. 1 will be very closely watching the number of employees employed in that department between now and the completion of his estimates to make certain that the total number of FFEs in his department will not exceed 32.

Vote 3 approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Indeed, Mr. Chairman, the moment that I'm sure everyone has been waiting for, the forty third vote - four three - quatre trois.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS

On vote 43: minister's office, $125, 531.

MR. HOWARD: I just want to make a correction to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs - or Relations, whichever he is having at any given time - and suggest to him that he had a good chance of getting the estimate passed if he hadn't mangled the French language so badly. It's quarante-trois, not quatre trois. Call your colleagues over there and find out about it.

In any event, we want to give an appropriate amount of time to this ministry in considering it in Committee of Supply, equal to the power, authority and respect he has within cabinet.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I am just delighted that the hot lead is being prepared in the balconies, apropos of that last comment.

Mr. Chairman, if I may I would like to make one observation with which I don't think anybody in this room would differ; that is, that Canada is going to face some brand-new policies and directions over the next short while, be it under the aegis of the existing administration or under a new one. I don't think that our country is living up to its potential as it can and should, and I dearly hope we will see some policies emanating from Ottawa that will better correlate with the directions that are being taken by the many provinces.

[6:30]

MR. VEITCH: I commend the minister for the excellent job he has done as House Leader, and I think the vote is not high enough and that it should be slightly more.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That would be out of order.

[ Page 4839 ]

Vote 43 approved.

Vote 44: intergovernmental relations, $2, 309, 876 approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move the committee rise and report resolutions.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolutions.

EXPROPRIATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Gardom presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Expropriation Act.

Bill 30 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. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that by leave of the House the rules be suspended and the reports of resolutions from the Committee of Supply on March 6, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 19, 21, 22, 23, 28 and 29, April 4, 5 and 11, and May 2, 8 and 16, 1984, be now received and taken as read.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the rules be suspended and the resolutions from, the Committee of Supply be now read a second time, taken as read and agreed to.

Motion approved.

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

Motion approved.

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

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty for the public service of the province there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund:

1. the sum of $7, 776 billion towards defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1985, the sum to include that authorized to be paid under Section 1 of the Supply Act (No. 1), 1984.

2. the sum of $392, 717, 000 for recoverable disbursements required for the purposes referred to in schedule C of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1985, the sum to include that authorized to be paid under section 2 of the Supply Act (No. 1), 1984.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move that the committee rise and report the resolution.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolution.

MR. SPEAKER: The committee reports resolution as follows: that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty for the public service of the province there be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund:

1. the sum of $7, 776 billion towards defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1985, the sum to include that authorized to be paid under section 1 of the Supply Act (No. 1), 1984.

2. the sum of $392, 717, 000 for recoverable disbursements required for the purposes referred to in schedule C of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1985, the sum to include that authorized to be paid under section 2 of the Supply Act (No. 1), 1984.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the resolution be now read a second time, taken as read and agreed to.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present Bill 32, intituled Supply Act (No. 2), 1984.

Leave granted.

SUPPLY ACT (NO. 2), 1984

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding that the bill is ready for distribution.

MR. SPEAKER: We may now have that bill distributed, hon. members. It will only take a moment.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 32 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

Motion approved.

The House in Committee; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report to the House, recommending introduction of the bill.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

[ Page 4840 ]

Motion approved.

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

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that by leave of the House the rules be suspended and the bill be read a second time now.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that by leave of the House the rules be suspended and the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

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

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Schedule approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 32, Supply Act (No. 2), 1984, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I think that this would be a most appropriate moment to express our good wishes to the hon. leader of the official opposition - and, if I may take this liberty, refer to him as Dave Barrett - and to his charming and supportive wife, Shirley. There is no question that Mr. Barrett made considerable impact upon and contribution to this province and all of its citizens. It's true that our economic and political philosophies are very different and to that I say: vive la différence. His contribution, his style and his policies - like most policies, some were good, some were bad and some were indifferent - will all, I'm sure, be remembered. Within this assembly, Mr. Speaker, as in any assembly, there has been and will continue to be, no doubt, significant, sharp and often difficult differences. But I would very much like to congratulate the hon. David Barrett for his contribution, compliment him, and indeed compliment everyone who is prepared to take on political life and perform public service. It's not the easiest of tasks. There are slings and arrows, often too many, and some satisfactions. I hope he's not suffered too much from the former, and I hope, indeed, that he has received his fair share of the latter. We would like to wish David Barrett, Shirley Barrett and the whole family well in their future endeavours.

MR. HOWARD: On behalf of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, I want to express our gratitude and our thanks to -if I could be permitted to transgress the rule a little bit - Mr. Gardom. We thank the government House Leader - speaking, obviously, on behalf of the government - for his kind words about the Leader of the Opposition, and for his wishes for a happy and contented life for both Shirley and Dave in the days that follow their departure from provincial politics.

The Leader of the Opposition has had a life of, in my view, virtually unparalleled contribution to the political atmosphere and life of British Columbia. Some of us more than others have had the honour and privilege of being able to be associated with the Leader of the Opposition in more than a political way - in a social way, a human way and a very friendly way, and we are all better people for that association. He has a dedication to the humanities, to human beings. He has a heart greater than most people who are in politics. He'll leave a legacy behind him that will, in my view, be difficult and, in many instances, impossible to meet. It will be a legacy that generations to come, I'm sure, will appreciate more and more with the passing time when history looks back on Dave Barrett and remembers and adores the great contribution he has made to this province.

MR. MACDONALD: All of us in the House appreciate the government House Leader for being non-partisan - as we are on occasion in this House. I came into this House the same year as Dave Barrett, and now I'm losing a seat-mate -and it makes me think about myself. Although I may lose a seat-mate, Canada has not lost Dave Barrett in terms of the public life of this country and this province. I don't think so. He was always a zephyr or a chinook, and when necessary a 10-force gale. He is not finished with public life.

[6:45]

Hon. Mr. Brummet tabled the annual report to the governments of the United States and Canada of the Columbia River Treaty permanent engineering board, dated September 30, 1983.

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Finance for 1983.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen tabled answers to questions in his name on the order paper.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development for 1983-84, on behalf of the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips).

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I am informed that His Honour is in the precincts and will be with us shortly. Would members please remain in their seats.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

DEPUTY CLERK:

Builders Lien Amendment Act, 1984

Human Rights Act

Skagit Environmental Enhancement Act

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1984

Young Offenders (British Columbia) Act

[ Page 4841 ]

Home Owner Grant Amendment Act (No. 2), 1984

Hydro and Power Authority (Land Transfer) Act, 1984

Hospitals Amalgamation Act

Education Statutes (Fiscal Year) Amendment Act, 1984

Labour Code Amendment Act, 1984

Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1984

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1984

An Act to Amend the Builders Lien Act

Patients Property Amendment Act, 1984

Bill No. I An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter

An Act Respecting Central Trust Company and Crown Trust Company Supply Act (No. 2), 1984

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to this bill.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires the House shall meet, or until Mr. Speaker may be advised by the government that it is desired to prorogue the second session of the thirtythird parliament of the province of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied or has been so advised, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and as the case may be may transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time, and that in the event of Mr. Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:53 p.m.

Appendix

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

51 Mr. Rose asked the Hon. the Minister of Health the following questions:

1. (a) What was the cost of the Royal Columbian and Eagle Ridge Hospital Boards prior to their dissolution by Order in Council effective April 7, 1984; and (b) what is the cost of operating the corporate organization which replaced the Royal Columbian and Eagle Ridge Hospital Boards from April 7, 1984?

2. What salaries and benefits have been paid to the Public Administrator, Grant K. Moreton, of the Royal Columbian and Eagle Ridge Hospital and Health Care Centre Society from his appointment September 1, 1983 to date?

3. Consultants have been hired by Public Administrator Moreton since September 1, 1983. (a) What are their names; (b) what are the qualifications of each consultant; and (c) what salaries and benefits have been paid to each consultant?

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

" 1. (a) Hospital boards, including the former boards of Eagle Ridge Hospital and the Royal Columbian Hospital, operate as volunteers and there are therefore no direct costs of operation for these boards; and (b) the organizational structures of the Eagle Ridge and Royal Columbian Hospitals have not as yet changed and are still being administered by the Public Administrator appointed by Order in Council. A new society, the Fraser-Burrard Hospital Society, has been incorporated preliminary to the transfer of the operation of the facilities to that society and to date no costs have been incurred by the new society other than the cost of filing for incorporation with the Registrar of Companies ($52).

"2. Mr. Moreton has been seconded from his position as executive director of Shaughnessy Hospital and no additional remuneration has been paid to him other than his salary from the Shaughnessy Hospital.

[ Page 4842 ]

"3. (a), (b) and (c) Dr. Ray LeHuquet, medical consultant, surveyor for Canadian Council on Hospital Accreditation, former medical director of the Royal Jubilee Hospital, fee, $4, 200; Mr. R. Boyd, hospital administration consultant, formerly executive director of Prince George Regional Hospital, Masters degree in Business Administration, 13 years of hospital experience, fee, $9, 600; Mr. B. Forrest, consultant in hospital support services (dietary, purchasing, housekeeping, etc.), former partner in Woods Gordon Consultants, fee, $21, 600; and Caldwell and Partners, national executive search firm, fee, $11, 330."