[ Page 1285 ]

CONTENTS

Debtor Assistance Act (Bill 77). Hon. Ms. Young.

Introduction and first reading — 1285

Oral Questions

Breakdown of BCFGA negotiations. Mr. Bennett — 1285

White Paper on education. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1285

ICBC refunds. Mr. Curtis — 1286

Increased premiums for volunteer fire department emergency vehicles. Mr. Curtis — 1287

Source of mining profit figure released to NDP News. Mr. Gibson — 1287

Insurance coverage on out of province drivers. Mr. Phillips — 1287

RNABC-BCHA dispute. Mrs. Jordan — 1288

Administration of Justice Act (Bill 2). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1288

Mr. Curtis — 1290

Mr. Smith — 1290

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1292

Mr. Curtis — 1294

Mr. Gibson — 1295

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1297

Administration Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 3). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1298

Mr. Smith — 1298

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1298

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1298

Occupiers' Liability Act (Bill 4). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1298

Mr. Smith — 1299

Mr. Gardom — 1299

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1299

Frustrated Contracts Act (Bill 5). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1299

Mr. Smith — 1299

Mr. Gardom — 1299

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1300

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1300

Crown Proceedings Act (Bill 6). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1300

Mr. Smith — 1301

Mr. Gardom — 1301

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1303

Legal Professions Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 33). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1303

Coroners Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 43). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1303

Mr. Gardom — 1303

Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 44). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1303

Professional Corporations Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 45).

Second reading. Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1303

Mr. Smith — 1304

Mr. Gardom — 1304

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1304

Unified Family Court Act (Bill 49). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1304

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1305

Prejudgment Interest Act (Bill 66). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1305

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1305

Mr. Gardom — 1306

Mr. Smith — 1306

Mrs. Jordan — 1306

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1307

Special Funds Appropriation Act, 1974 (Bill 7). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1307

Mr. Bennett — 1308

Mr. McGeer — 1308

Mr. Morrison — 1309

Mr. Phillips — 1309

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1310

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1311

Mr. Smith — 1312

Mr. Gardom — 1312

Mr. Gibson — 1313

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1313

Division on second reading — 1314

Municipalities Aid Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 9). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1315

Mr. Bennett — 1315

Mr. McGeer — 1316

Mr. Curtis — 1317

Mr. Fraser — 1318

Mr. Chabot — 1319

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1320

MONDAY, MARCH 18, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, in the galleries today is a group of students from Aldergrove Secondary School in Aldergrove, along with their teacher Mr. Doug Ruggles. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): In the galleries today we have His Worship Mayor Van Hansen of the fair Village of New Denver, along with Alderman Ernie de Rosa. I would like the House to make them welcome.

Introduction of bills.

DEBTOR ASSISTANCE ACT

Hon. Ms. Young presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Debtor Assistance Act.

Bill 77 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

BREAKDOWN OF BCFGA NEGOTIATIONS

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Agriculture: In light of the announcement by the BCFGA negotiating group last week as to the breakdown in negotiations for the commodity group which they represent, I wonder if the Minister wishes to comment on his answer of last week when he said they were only apart on two points.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, that's the industry's position that talks have broken down. They have broken down temporarily, but they will be resumed, as I said, when either party has something new to add to the discussion, and my department is working on something new. There still is this two-point difference. One of them is on the amount to be paid for labour which is a factor not only of the amount per hour, but the number of acres and the yield per acre. The other factor is on the cents per pound that they will be guaranteed for their fruit. The question is whether the top grades of fruit will bear all of the packing costs and sale costs, or whether these costs should be charged against all of the grades. Now, there still are only the two points but they are both major ones.

MR. BENNETT: Supplemental to the Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker. Are you not also apart on the amount of acreage that must be...the type of yields per acre on the 26,000 pounds per acre?

HON. MR. STUPICH: We were, but we have agreed to between 22,000 and 24,000 pounds. It's close enough on that one issue that it won't cause a breakdown. We've accepted their figure on the production.

MR. BENNETT: A supplemental again. In elaborating on the labour rate: the information I have is that the government changed their position on the original labour rates which they recommended as of last December 1973, and which they produced to the industry, and have lowered the rate from that.

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, is that a question?

MR. BENNETT: Yes, that's a question. I was wondering if that information is correct.

HON. MR. STUPICH: No, there was no firm figure advanced at that time. We did talk about figures, and as I said, one would have to consider also the acreage and the yield per acre. When we start agreeing on one of these three points, well, then there has to be some agreement on the third, or there's no agreement in total.

MR. BENNETT: Just one more supplemental, When do you plan the next meeting?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, up to this point the meetings have been called at the pleasure of the industry. The next meeting will be called when I have something to propose, which I expect should be within a week.

WHITE PAPER ON EDUCATION

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): May I ask the Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker, whether she'll table in the House the White Paper on education prior to consideration of her estimates?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): (Mike not on) ...hopefully.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister whether, indeed, the report has been fully completed, and whether some Members of the House, namely Members of the New Democratic Party caucus, have already received a copy?

[ Page 1286 ]

HON. MRS. DAILLY: A great number of people have been offering their help and their assistance to me in drafting it. No one at this time, except the people within my department, has actually seen the final draft.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether Members of the government side have received something other than the final draft, but a draft of the White Paper on education?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Yes, they have been asked to give their opinion on a preliminary paper.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the Minister's estimates are likely to come up soon, may I ask the Minister once more whether or not all Members of the House can be provided with the same information that other Members have received, prior to your estimates?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: The point is, as I said before, there is only myself and some members of the department who have the actual final paper, and who have seen the final paper. My intent was that everyone would see it collectively together when it's finally produced.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member, you are pushing it a little far, and Beauchesne at 148 says that you must not seek information about matters which are at this stage still secret and involve advice given to the Crown by its Ministers or its officers or to Members of the government.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, I appreciate your comments, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to point out, however, that the document I referred to — in other words, the draft prior to the final version — was the one I started asking questions on just as soon as I was told by the Minister that the final version was not yet made public. What I find curious is that some Members of this House have seen a second-to-final draft and the rest of us have seen no draft at all.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, there's nothing curious about any government documents being kept privileged until they are ready for production to the public.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, just to be perfectly clear on this point of order, I was not referring to the privileged government document. I was referring to a preliminary draft.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, that really confuses me.

ICBC REFUNDS

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Transport and Communications — and I'll give him an out on this, he may well want to take it as notice. If he does I'll certainly understand. The ICBC insurance rebates: could the Minister indicate how many refund application forms have been printed, and how many refunds ICBC actually expect to make in the course of this insurance year?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications):I don't know how many were printed. I already released a figure, in answer to a similar question — I don't know how long ago; hundreds of questions have been asked in this House this session — that the maximum number we expected would be between 15 and 20 per cent of the total.

MR. CURTIS: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the Minister could indicate, at some time, at his pleasure, how many refund application forms have in fact been printed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Are you asking the number of applications we get, or the number of forms we print?

MR. CURTIS: The number of forms you print.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Because there is not necessarily a relationship between the two. As of last week there were only 12,000 requests.

MR. BENNETT: In view of the figures you gave the House last week that the government would be paying an average of $71 per car, is the government planning on applying for refund because this rate is higher than last year?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I didn't work out an average rate. That's your figure.

MR. BENNETT: I divided the total into the amount of money you said you were paying.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I think perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I could answer this question by saying that that limited figure that's been admitted by the previous governments, in the order form, did not include a substantial portion of costs which the previous government hid — in the Attorney-General's department for all the legal cases that went through the court in this department, and in this department and that department. We found that the previous government weren't telling the whole story; they

[ Page 1287 ]

were hiding in a thousand departments.

Mr. Speaker, the important thing is: no longer will any civil servant in this province have to stand up in court and defend what should have been a government responsibility.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): A supplemental. I'd like to know if this figure includes collision coverage for all the government vehicles, or does it not include collision coverage?

MR. SPEAKER: Are you referring to a present situation?

MR. MORRISON: I am referring to the $75 or $71 average which was given to us by the Minister.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I am quite sure that they are being treated in the same way as every other vehicle of that type. As you know, there is a variety of types of vehicles, and not all vehicles in the province are required to take collision. It is my understanding that they take the same coverage that the others have to take.

MR. MORRISON: A supplemental. Then I would like to know if there are any other fleet-users that are getting this rate. I would like to know if there are any municipalities who are getting this rate because theirs obviously is a great deal different to the one you have just given us.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Of course, you are talking averages here, you see, which includes almost 10,000 different kinds of vehicles. I would have to have a breakdown of every department, every vehicle, every fleet of vehicles, the different sizes.... That is something you could ask in estimates.

MR. D. M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): A supplementary on the same subject. We were talking about rebates, and I would like to know, Mr. Minister, why a pickup truck is not included for rebate. In many families a pickup truck is a family vehicle, used as a car. Why is that particular vehicle not included for rebate?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, you have to draw the line somewhere and that is where the line was drawn.

INCREASED PREMIUMS FOR VOLUNTEER FIRE
DEPARTMENT EMERGENCY VEHICLES.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister with respect to volunteer fire department emergency vehicles: has the Minister received specific complaints about dramatic increases in premiums for those vehicles?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have received one complaint, and I have already referred it to the Insurance Corporation.

MR. CURTIS: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker. Is that particular subject under review by ICBC and yourself? Again, I emphasize that it is volunteer fire department emergency vehicles.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No. I didn't say it was under review; I am not saying it is under review. As I say, I think I have only received one complaint and I referred it to ICBC management last week.

SOURCE OF MINING PROFIT FIGURE
RELEASED TO NDP NEWS.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): I have a question for the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources. I presume he is familiar with the NDP publication called the NDP News, which in the March 1 issue lists $300 million mining profits. I wonder if the Minister would say whether he gave that figure to the writers of the newsletter, and, if so, how he comes at it, because I have been unable to arrive at a corroboration anywhere else.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): No, I did not give that figure to the....

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: No. I didn't say it was a false rumour. I said that I didn't give that figure.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): You said it wasn't authentic.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I did not say it was not authentic....

MR. GIBSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister say whether the figure is correct?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: It is very close, I'd say. (Laughter.)

INSURANCE COVERAGE ON
OUT-OF-PROVINCE DRIVERS

MR. PHILLIPS: I would like to direct another question to the Minister of Transport and Communications in charge of ICBC. If I am a valid driver's licence holder in British Columbia and go to the Province of Alberta and drive a car registered in

[ Page 1288 ]

that province, I am fully covered by insurance, providing the owner of that car has the same coverage as I have at home. If a holder of a valid Alberta driver's licence comes to British Columbia and drives a vehicle, say, owned by myself, is he covered?

MR. SPEAKER: Surely that's a question of law.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, it's not a question of law. It's a question of....

MR. SPEAKER: With great respect, I think it is a question of law.

MR. PHILLIPS: No. It's not a question of law. We're talking about.... Listen! We're just handing out driver insurance premiums, and it's a very timely question, Mr. Speaker. It has nothing to do with law; it has something to do with ICBC.

MR. SPEAKER: If it has anything to do with ICBC; you say it has nothing to do with law. Well, that's a new argument. The Minister wishes to answer the question.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, I don't mind answering the question for my good friend. I don't mind educating him. There is a law governing the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. There is a law governing the automobile insurance part of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. Under the law there are regulations which spell out in some detail where coverage is, or is not, available. It was the intent of the drafters of the legislation to provide the maximum possible coverage to every vehicle with a B.C. licence plate, and to every individual with a B.C. driver's licence. It may be a matter of law, but it is my opinion — let me put it that way — that that vehicle, because it has a B.C. licence plate, is covered.

MR. SPEAKER: Let me point out to the Hon. Members that Beauchesne rules out that kind of question. And the answer given by the Minister only supports my reasons — where seeking information set forth in documents equally accessible to the questioners such as statutes, public reports, regulations or what not. Therefore it is not a proper question in the question period.

RNABC-BCHA DISPUTE

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health. The Hon. Minister suggested on Thursday in question and answer period that there was communication going on behind the scenes in the RNABC-BCHIS dispute. My question is: is part of that communication with the RNABC?

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I think I indicated quite clearly that in these matters there is always an informal kind of communication. I suggest at the present time that there is no.... And BCHIS is not involved. Let's get that straight. BCHA is involved; that's the B.C. Hospital Association. They have broken negotiations off with the RNABC — that's the Registered Nurses Association. I don't think there are any formal talks between either of those two. There are informal talks going around, I am sure, in certain hospitals between people who are interested in both aspects — the delivery of health care, and other people who are interested in the demands of the nurses. On that kind of basis, I think there is communication. But there certainly are no official, formal negotiations going on at the present time, as I understand it.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 2, Mr. Speaker.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ACT

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Mr. Speaker, I have pleasure in introducing Bill 2. Although this is only the vehicle, not the implementation, it represents an attempt to catch up and give a totally new commitment to the quality of justice in this province after 20 years of neglect.

As I say, this is the vehicle, and in order to correct any misapprehension, I would point out that the justice development administration does not, and will not, be running the courts. It is to plan the necessary changes to improve the administration of justice in this province; to consult, to coordinate, to negotiate because we are dealing, for example, with the physical courtroom facilities of some 22 cities, 25 districts, 3 towns, and the whole area that is still unorganized, and therefore directly subject to provincial administration of justice.

It is an interim measure therefore and a vehicle for implementing the essential changes that must be invoked at this time if we are to uplift the administration of justice in this province.

While I am prepared to answer questions in detail at the committee stage of this bill I would like to say we propose that the Justice Development Commission should be headed by the Deputy Minister of the Attorney-General's department (Mr. Vickers). We have on that committee to represent various segments of the justice system: John Hogarth;

[ Page 1289 ]

Ed Epp, who is Corrections; and Jack Cram, who is courts. I want to also express my appreciation to advisers assisting us in the programme as we have gone along. I would my appreciation to advisers assisting us in the programme as we have gone along. I would mention, from the judiciary, Chief Judge Brahan, chief of the Provincial Court; Chief Justice Nathan Nemetz of the Supreme Court of British Columbia; Dr. Matheson; Gordon Cunningham of the RCMP; Brian Williams, representing the Canadian bar; Lloyd McKenzie, the Law Society of British Columbia; Joe Wood, who is representing the bar on our advisory committee; and Rocksborough Smith from the Parole Board. We have attempted and we have secured great community participation in the plans which are so terribly important at the present time.

I want to give the House, in introducing this bill, a little bit of a look at the crisis as I see it in the provincial courts as they have been up to the present time.

To say they are overloaded is placing the matter at its very minimum. The Hon. Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) is nodding his head because he has a facilities programme in Chilliwack which is very serious indeed. But I'm thinking at first of the numbers. In the City of Vancouver, Mr. Speaker, by our last count we had a backlog of 2,600 criminal cases, even though with the good efforts of the judges and the prosecutors' staff as we have known them they were processing 370 criminal cases and 91 drug cases each week. All of our projection figures indicate that the problem I am speaking of today is going to escalate in years to come.

For example, in the first six months of last year, 1973, we had an increase in Criminal Code offences amounting to 24 per cent. The Vancouver City Police have reported that 70 per cent of the serious crimes they detect are drug-related. The drug-related offences have undoubtedly contributed heavily to the escalation and the piling up of the backlog of cases in our courts and to the victimization of the public.

We therefore look not only at the criminal courts but at the juvenile and family courts. We find again, to cite the case of Vancouver alone, that the number of young people or juveniles coming before the family and juvenile courts in the City of Vancouver has increased from 300 young people in 1961 to 1,000 young people in 1971. Increasingly, there is a trend, which is very deplorable, to elevate young people from the juvenile court, because of the inadequacy of that court and its allied facilities, to adult court, which is bad for the young person involved and in the long run very bad for the community.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

We, of course, are faced with the population explosion in the Province of B.C. where our population has doubled in the last two decades.

Therefore we see the need of moving with dispatch and with all the resources at our command to improve the qualified trained staff to man our important court facilities and to improve the training and availability of prosecutors who cannot only in fairness present a case to the court but also vet out of the court system those cases which should not be before the court at all.

We see the need for modern management techniques in the management of the courts, and we recognize the need, therefore, for qualified court administrators. We are determined as a government that there shall be equal delivery of justice services in all of the areas of the province, not just in the lower mainland, not just in an area where the revenues have made possible the provision of good court services, but throughout the whole of British Columbia.

We see the necessity to coordinate the work of the courts — provincial court, county court, Supreme Court of British Columbia, and court of appeal — which so far have gone their own uncoordinated and almost unrelated ways.

We see the necessity of resolving ever-increasing numbers of cases outside the courtroom itself.

We see the need to upgrade the physical facilities of the Provincial Court of British Columbia which have ranged from a court meeting in a laundromat to courts meeting in police stations and to courts meeting in some cases in very good surroundings. But there is a tremendously uneven quality in the provision of these essential court services.

Sometimes we have municipalities which simply cannot afford to provide adequate justice services to their people. In other cases we have urban centres which are required by the nature of things to look after the court cases of people who live outside of their boundaries. In other cases we have municipalities which simply are not sufficiently motivated to provide the good court services which are essential at the present time.

In terms of cost, the programme of which this Act is, as I say, the interim vehicle for coordination and planning envisages placing into the justice system an additional $6 million to upgrade the quality of justice in the Province of British Columbia. That's why I say it is a major new commitment to improve justice services and the delivery of legal services throughout this province.

Six million dollars is the estimated amount. While we have had, in the past, municipalities depending upon fine revenue for the money they raise to provide justice services, we believe there should be a divorce between the amount of fine revenue that a municipality can collect and the provision of legal services in that municipality so that in no stretch can anyone say the municipality has any kind of a vested interest in maximizing fine revenue and intake in that particular municipality.

[ Page 1290 ]

The situation I have been describing, which as I say represents a crisis in the Province of B.C., will not only relieve the municipalities of the present situation and enable us as a province to throw these additional resources into the fight but will take from the municipalities the burden of the improvements that must be made in the future. Roughly speaking, we've been spending about $7 million a year on the administration of justice provincial-wise; the fine revenue has been a little less than that — but approximately those figures. In terms of the crime figures I've been quoting, in terms of the rising population, in terms of that ever-increasing backlog and the absence of trained people, to leave this burden upon the municipalities would in future years leave them with a backbreaking financial responsibility.

With the approval of the municipalities through the UBCM this government is assuming, as has been done in Ontario in different ways — and I would like to think we are going it better — the administration of justice.

The situation I describe as crisis will worsen; it will not remain static. Unless we tackle the problem of prevention of crime and unless we improve the court facilities and the court procedures, we will have a situation where we reach a point of no return.

In many of the big cities of the world, even on the North American continent, they have reached that point of no return where they've given up on the justice process. Citizens, instead of being ready to spend their money to improve the processes and the preventive and detecting techniques, opt for vacated streets, for commissionaires in apartment buildings, for homes barred and sometimes armed against entry, for a people increasingly alienated and withdrawn. They have given up providing the energy and money that will improve the services and prevent crime and instead have devoted that energy and money to protecting themselves from the effects of crime.

As I say, this measure represents merely a vehicle in terms of the assumption of the administration of justice which we are proposing and a vehicle which is moving very quickly, because we're hopeful that in the municipal thing, the negotiations can be completed by April 1, and the assumption proceed at that time. We have made progress in that respect and we've had the co-operation of most of the municipalities of the province, and the approval of UBCM, and we have been successful in our negotiations with the trade unions representing the various people who are now working in the court services, so that no individual who is now working in the delivery of legal services for a municipality will be able to say he has lost anything as a result of this programme upon which we're embarked. While all of this is going well, we nevertheless think it has to go quickly and that needed resources have to be poured into this very important social programme in the life of the Province of B.C.

I therefore, Mr. Speaker, have pleasure in moving second reading of this Bill 2.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, speaking on second reading of Bill 2, the Administration of Justice Act, I would like to point out that the Attorney-General in his remarks just concluded dwelled at length on just one section of five distinct areas which are covered in the interpretation section of the Act. He touched briefly on the prevention of crime, admittedly, but very briefly in comparison to the balance of his remarks dealing with the courts.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Point of order. I think it would probably be proper to allow the official opposition the chance to lead off the debate.

MR. CURTIS: Well, Mr. Speaker, as you wish. I was recognized.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: For a moment I thought I was in committee.

MR. CURTIS: Are you sure you're not? I'll happily defer if that is the Chair's wish.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: In order to keep things in their traditional form, I'll recognize the Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): I thank the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) for yielding the floor. I thought we would be following the traditional manner and perhaps I was a little slow in getting to my feet because I was running over in my mind some of the remarks of the Attorney-General as he spoke in this debate and then took his place after speaking.

I couldn't help but listen to the Attorney-General with a feeling that I had heard many of the remarks that he made concerning Bill 2 in another debate on another bill. That bill was the Energy Act that came before the House at a previous session. It's obvious to me, Mr. Speaker, that in introducing this bill for second reading the Attorney-General has used many of the same arguments for the necessity for this type of legislation.

He's referred to the backbreaking responsibility that would be that of the municipalities in the Province of British Columbia were they to continue the operation of the judicial system under their administration, particularly as we move into a field of increased law enforcement. He said he's hopeful that negotiations will be completed with the municipalities by April 1, so that assumption of the

[ Page 1291 ]

operation of the courts can start soon after that date. He described it as a crisis situation and he used that crisis as ample justification for introduction of this bill. I would be inclined to agree with the Hon. Attorney-General if the purpose of this bill was simply to streamline and bring into effect new procedures with respect to the administration of justice in the Province of British Columbia, particularly if the procedures were in line with the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission. In reading this bill, I see a very much different concept than that, Mr. Speaker, and that's what I'd like to speak about for the next few minutes.

I'd like to say now that I think the most significant element of administration of justice in this province or in any other jurisdiction in Canada is the doctrine of the separation of powers. It's been traditional and with us for several hundred years, and it is a doctrine that we should maintain in any system of justice if we expect it to be the vehicle that people can depend upon when appealing to the law for equity before the law.

I think that this bill establishes a principle of centralized authority over the enforcement elements of the justice system in the province. It purports to be essentially an administration, coordination and research vehicle, but it goes much further than that. It allows for vertical integration from the top and destroys the principle of a responsive and responsible administration of justice in this province and could lead to the removal of our judicial system and the effectiveness of our courts as we know them today.

The specific purpose of this bill is to establish a commission which would thereafter become engaged in inquiries into all aspects of the administration of justice, together with the power to carry out whatever programme is deemed suitable in the circumstances. This is where I have my greatest concern, because the power is granted through the provisions of this Act to an independent board by the provisions of the Act itself — powers which are far above and beyond anything that is necessary for them to do a complete and independent evaluation of the judicial system in this province.

I'm concerned about the possibility of interference with an independent bar and an impartial judiciary by government activities in the field of the administration of justice. I think, Mr. Speaker, that we have ample reason to be concerned in British Columbia, because this is not a new precedent. It is not a new example that we have had placed before us for the first time this afternoon. We've seen this same pattern repeated in a number of bills passed through this House by the government majority in the past 18 months.

I think the Minister, when closing the debate, should direct his mind to what the function of the commission will really be. Will the commission consult with the public at large in the matter of the development of administration of justice and establishment of policies which will have a direct effect on every resident in this province? For example, will there be hearings to determine whether people want the right of appeal to groups and to commissions, or to such departments as the Department of Consumer Services, or will the commission, once established, be responsible to no one but themselves? Will they be the final authority in shaping policies and the future course of the administration of justice in this province without referral back to the Lieutenant-Governor, or to the Attorney-General or, most important of all, to the Legislative Assembly of this province?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The answer is no.

MR. SMITH: As I read the bill and some of the clauses in it — and I won't refer to it specifically this afternoon, Mr. Attorney-General, because that would be an infringement on the rules of the debate in second reading — I know, and the Attorney-General must know, that the power is there if they decide to exercise it without coming back to you or to this Legislative Assembly.

Will the administration of justice be molded to conform with NDP policies and philosophies, or will it be formed and molded around the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's too much.

MR. SMITH: That's too much? Certainly the power is there, Mr. Attorney-General. You know it's there. You know it is in other Acts — the Energy Act of this province. It's only a matter of the commission themselves determining their course of action without reference back to this Legislative Assembly.

You know, in summary, the bill appears to me to be saying that the government wants to go into the whole court system and administration of justice in the Province of British Columbia and review it, including the matter of police organization and police administration.

The bill says we really don't know how much money it will cost, but as openers we will throw $1.5 million in to get it started, and whatever cost is above that will be provided by the Minister of Finance out of consolidated revenue.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The estimate is already approved.

MR. SMITH: The Attorney-General, in my opinion, places himself in a very ambivalent position. He is consulted on matters of appointment to the bench.

[ Page 1292 ]

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: Just sit and listen for a minute, Mr. Minister. You might learn something.

He is consulted on matters of appointments to the bench and, of course, has complete say in the appointment of provincial court judges.

The Attorney-General is now, or soon will be, responsible for all provincial courts in the province, both civil and criminal. Crown counsel are appointed by the Attorney-General to prosecute offences.

Legal aid counsel are responsible to the Attorney-General, and they defend in this province. Police who make arrests will be under the Attorney-General, and so it goes with respect to vertical integration.

Government now does much business by order-in-council.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: No more than usual, Mr. Minister? Don't be ridiculous. The number of orders-in-council passed in the first three months after your party was elected to office was above and beyond anything approved in the entire previous year under Social Credit administration. Don't be ridiculous.

It has by administrative action denied many people, rich and poor, deserving and undeserving, of recourse to courts — for example: the Land Commission Act, the Energy Act, the communications and transportation Act, to name just a few. Government is now a very big employer, not only in its own right, but through the agency of the Crown corporations.

Government is now much involved in the everyday life of the people of this province, much more so than ever before; therefore, we must have adequate assurance against possible bureaucratic oppression, which is the one thing that we do have as long as we maintain a strong and independent judiciary and legal profession in this province, not subject to interference from the government or a child appointed by the government.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: They both support this bill.

MR. SMITH: They support many of the concepts of the bill, Mr. Attorney-General, as I do. But whenever you insist, for some reason unknown to those of us in the official opposition, on bringing in a bill which not only takes the ideas that have been presented to you by the Law Reform Commission, but goes far beyond that in granting powers to an independently appointed board, then I say that you have gone too far. You have exceeded what is required and you have placed these boards and commissions above and beyond the recall of this Legislative Assembly; and that is not required in law reform in this province, as you well know, Mr. Attorney-General.

If there is one thing, Mr. Speaker, that we will not approve of in the official opposition, it is the tendency of this government to take good ideas and then completely emasculate them by taking the authority away from the elected representatives in this Legislative Assembly. We've seen it in bills before us in the last 18 months. We've seen it again in this bill on administration of justice in the Province of British Columbia. It is an entirely unnecessary step and one which we in the official opposition will never support — not that principle.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): We in this party intend to approve in principle and vote in principle for Bill 2, the Administration of Justice Act.

There will be a fair number of questions that we'll be asking in committee stage. For example, there has been concern expressed by bar association members about the coordination of this group with their own reform and realignment groupings which they have. This is, I think, a very important thing to remember: that there have been up to date many people who have donated vast amounts of their time to come up with proposals for change within the existing legal system and the bar association and the Law Society; and they have done, I think, a pretty good job, considering, as I said, that they were acting generally as volunteers.

We will want to know from the Attorney-General, perhaps when he closes off debate on second reading, what steps he has taken to coordinate with these existing bodies.

It is great, Mr. Speaker, to appoint a brand new and professional coordinating group, such as this one will be, to carry out some very fine objectives, but if you are in the process of doing that, going to wipe out some of the very useful jobs that have been done in the past by other groups, which are volunteer groups, perhaps more thought will have to be given to it.

I am interested by the reference to Dr. Matheson and the role which he is going to play in this. I am pleased that he will be involved. Dr. Matheson came up with a very interesting concept some time ago which relates to the use of computers in law. It is my belief as a non-lawyer — someone who spent three years in a law school grubbing through the books trying to find references and other things — that computer application to the legal field could only improve the delivery of justice in British Columbia.

The computer, I think, could be harnessed very successfully to provide some basic information which people at the present time are not able to get, except of course by going to a lawyer themselves and paying

[ Page 1293 ]

for the information. I think a great deal more could be done with respect to computers, and also within the profession itself, within the delivery of justice. I think the computer has great potential, and I am pleased to see that Dr. Matheson, who has been saying some useful and encouraging things in this area, is going to be on the committee.

The areas which need improvement are numerous. The Attorney-General has pointed out that we may well, in British Columbia, be swamped by crime in our major city, Vancouver, unless we take steps to avoid the fate of some other North American cities. He's perfectly right. British Columbia is top in just about every violent crime in Canada, of all the provinces: murder, rape, robbery with violence. British Columbia always seems to come top. Why? Nobody, I guess, really knows. Excuses have been given; reasons have been given such as the mobility of the population, the climate, or whatever.

Still, we do have the worst problem in Canada, and to date, as the Attorney-General has pointed out, we have been somewhat behind some of the other provinces — I think particularly of Ontario — in efforts to bring the law up to date and bring the delivery of justice up to date, and bring British Columbia into the '70s.

The commission is to develop coordinated plans for future development. I think when you realize what the projections have for us in the future this is enormously important, because we have for too long in British Columbia carried on on the assumption that a little more like last year with much the same legal system — perhaps throw a few more lawyers into it, or a few more judges into it, or a few more buildings into it, either for courtrooms or for prisons — would solve some of the problems that we have.

They haven't been solving the problems. The drug-related crimes are increasing substantially. Crimes related to alcohol are increasing substantially. Straight crimes of violence are increasing substantially. And there seems to be at the present time no reversal of any of these trends of past years, despite the good efforts of the Attorney-General over the last 18 months. I don't think there's been any appreciable change since he's taken over, comparing it with his predecessor.

The research, then, is going to be a major factor, and we welcome that. We trust that in this research work there will be a great deal done with respect to parole. Parole is a touchy subject. It has been toughened up at the federal level. I'm not altogether sure that the results of the toughening up have been what was hoped. It costs some $8,000 to $10,000, perhaps even more now, to keep a man incarcerated for a year. To keep him out on parole costs a very, very small fraction of the total cost of keeping a man behind bars. I trust that a great deal of the work of this commission will be in the parole area.

The record of people on parole committing crimes is not bad, when all is said and done. Sure, crimes have been committed by those who have been given parole — no question about it. But if we realize that society is better protected by taking calculated risks on parolees in the hopes of rehabilitating the majority, or the vast majority of them, I think that society perhaps will benefit in the long run.

The concept of simply locking a man up until his time is through has not proved to be a corrective experience for most who are in that situation, and experimentation in parole, I think, would be a desirable thing. I mentioned that we've had a tightening-up at the federal level. I believe Mr. Street, the head of the parole board, is going on to become a judge in Ontario, and perhaps there will be changes there as well, and perhaps indeed, because of the commission that the Attorney-General is establishing, we in British Columbia may well be able to be in the forefront of change and of new concepts and of experimentation.

Again, experimentation in this area makes people fearful. They think of people who are committed for dangerous crimes being allowed out. They think of these people committing a crime again, and there's no doubt that it does occasionally happen, but to date what we have not had, I think, is an adequate explanation from, in particular, political leaders that this is a necessary risk that society must take, in the interest of making sure that in the future the number of people who do commit a crime again or are recommitted for crimes is fewer than would otherwise be the case.

I trust that this commission will spend a great deal of time in the whole field of parole. I can think of few areas more important, and I trust that the Attorney-General will be encouraging them to carry out as much work as they can.

The suggestion that we're somehow getting an additional $6 million to upgrade services is very good. I'm pleased that the Attorney-General has added money to his budget for this. We are in a curious position, of course, of having passed the estimates prior to considering the legislation, which puts the cart before the horse, but I think that in this situation we're into an area where perhaps the questioning that was done in estimates and the questioning that will come up in the committee stage will pin down precisely what we did vote the money for.

If I can repeat the criticisms I made on Friday, I would suggest that more care in future be taken in preparing budgets of the commission, as well as the Attorney-General himself. The difficulty we faced last week was that when we were questioning on specific line items under the correctional services, we found that many of the things which should have been there, which were indicated by the headings to be there, were in fact tucked away in a blanket vote

[ Page 1294 ]

for this particular commission.

I think that it's important for the Attorney-General to start straightening out where the commission's responsibility is and where it is not, because I got the feeling last week that the voting that we did on the commission's money was a blanket cover for many of the things which should have been put into straight operations expenses. I know the Attorney-General himself looked very unhappy last week when informed by his department....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That was prepared last October before we had the other figures.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: If I could depart from what I said last Friday, Mr. Attorney-General, I would indicate to you the difficulty of knowing precisely what this commission is going to do when we have been told already, on Friday, that it's going to be doing things which are not under 5, under "functions." For instance, improvement of library services, if my memory serves me, was one of the areas where perhaps the commission money would be used in experimental ways to see whether they could not improve library services for the Corrections Branch, in other words vote 34.

The difficulty, as I see it, is that the commission may be overloaded with things which I believe could be administrative. The indication I got last Friday was that the commission would not simply be doing pure research, but it would be entering into operations in a fairly substantial way, perhaps under the guise of experiment, or under the guise of a new programme, I'm not sure which. I fear that if the commission does not get involved in that manner, the results will be that the operations end of things — the correctional service and others — will tend to lose heart and tend to be less effective than they otherwise would.

It is a question of making sure that the existing provincial facilities and the existing personnel are not bypassed so they feel that nothing will be happening under their particular areas of jurisdiction because the commission will be the golden-haired boy and will be getting all the money and will be getting all the new programmes that might come up. I got that impression on Friday and I trust that the Attorney-General will take steps to make sure that the role of the commission is better defined and that we do not have excuses given when we ask for line-by-line analysis of the votes in other areas that, "Well, the commission, of course, will be entering in and providing money off its own bat in many other areas. "

As I mentioned, we will be supporting this in second reading. We'll be questioning it more closely at the committee stage and we wish the commission well.

MR. CURTIS: I must subscribe to many of the views expressed by the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) in his response to the Attorney-General's remarks in opening second reading of Bill 2.

I would like to point out that, as I was saying earlier, it seems to me that the Minister zeroed in on just one particular segment of the total law enforcement and justice administration mechanism in his remarks, with the exception, admittedly, of a brief reference to the increasing problem of crime in our cities and in cities elsewhere in North America. Nevertheless, I think that the balloon could very well go up in connection with Bill 2, as individuals and various groups come to realize just how all-encompassing it could be — and I emphasize that it could be.

I'm not prepared to suggest that this Minister or this government with its present complement would abuse the authority given under the Administration of Justice Act, but I think that a number of those who have had an opportunity as lay people to step back from it and examine it carefully and in consultation with others see the opportunity for abuse somewhere down the line by this particular Minister's successors two years from now, five years from now, or whenever. I think there is considerable concern in those circles where the thing has been examined on a line-by-line basis.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to draw your attention to the statement which I assume was made public over the weekend — it's dated March 15 — by the president of B.C. Federation of Peace Officers. I was prohibited from commenting on this to any great extent during the Minister's estimates last week, but sooner or later, Mr. Speaker, the matter has to be brought on the floor of this House and to the attention of the people of British Columbia. I can assume that the statement was prepared by the president in consultation with other members of the peace officers' federation and I understand that it was released to the news media yesterday or today.

It is very alarmed. It's an alarmed document and it certainly shows that someone — the Attorney-General or someone designated by him — has not done his or their homework in explaining the purpose of this bill to one important segment of the community which is vitally concerned with it. If that were the case, then I assume that we would have sort of general endorsement of Bill 2 by the B.C. Federation of Peace Officers. Instead we have this, and I won't quote it in its entirety because a number of Members will have had an opportunity to read it, but in part:

"We feel it our duty to the citizens we serve to demonstrate that we are a responsible group by expressing our concern and alarm in regard to legislation that provides for such sweeping and all-encompassing power granted to a politically appointed body — the Justice

[ Page 1295 ]

Development Commission.... Never to our knowledge has such complete authority been granted to a non-elected entity in this province that will possess totalitarian control."

Now, that's their statement.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's just not so.

MR. CURTIS: I would feel a little happier with the words "could possess totalitarian control." Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General says: "It's just not so." Well, if it's just not so, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney-General, then why has he not ensured that these individuals, who are dedicated and career people, have not had that explained to them?

Why would they find it necessary to issue a statement that is pretty condemning in its observations on this particular piece of legislation? They've been consulted, but only just. I know a number of them; most Members in this House would know a number of members of the B.C. Federation of Peace Officers.

They're not stupid. They're not slow to grasp it when something is explained to them. So what has happened? Why have they not had all the information they needed in order to clearly understand what is intended by this legislation and therefore not find it necessary to make a very, very definite statement against the bill as it now stands on the order paper? They say;

"We've been consulted, we've been invited and have attended a few meetings concerning the proposed police Act. Now we understand the Administration of Justice Act is to take precedence. If this is the case, we can only conclude we are being excluded for some reason and that the few meetings we did attend were to pacify us. In conclusion, we submit that this type of legislation could be a preface to 1984 and a reflected view of 1939."

Now, Mr. Speaker, there's something seriously wrong in the communication between the Attorney-General and his department and police officers in the Province of British Columbia, the trade union association for police in this province other than RCMP, for them to feel moved to attack Bill 2 in its present form at this time. That's a very strong statement, and I think it's essential that the Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker, not only elaborates on the police section of this bill for this House, but also that he makes every effort at the earliest opportunity to meet with the B.C. Federation of Peace Officers, and other organizations who must be similarly concerned, to answer their questions and settle their fears.

If he does not do that, then we're going to have a great deal of difficulty as this moves through second reading and into committee stage and finally, we can assume, becomes law. Again I have to say, as a layman and on the surface, it appears that the bill could be open to very serious abuse at some time in the future. That is not the kind of legislation that we can support.

Since he touched on it too, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be well for the House to reflect on the remarks made by the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) last Tuesday afternoon. He spoke at length but in part.... Just a few lines. He said:

What concerns me, and I'd like the Attorney-General to assure me that my concern is unfounded, is that we're seeing drawn together in the hands of the provincial government a control over police forces and prosecutors throughout this province which, combined with the control the government already functions in the appointment of judges in our provincial court system, seems to me to establish a degree of control at the provincial government level which might be abused — not by the Attorney-General, I trust.

So we have a Member of this House — not present this afternoon, unfortunately — we have a very responsible organization and other individuals in the province who are saying: "What's going on? What precisely is intended by Bill 2? It looks great on paper, but what about in the implementation stage?"

It's bad law, Mr. Speaker, unless the Attorney-General answers some very specific questions and puts to rest some very serious concerns that are presently at large in this province.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Just some very brief remarks, Mr. Speaker, if I may. The concerns which have been expressed by some of us here today are perhaps a natural consequence of the powers which are insufficiently spelled out for the Legislature to be able to tell how they might be used.

I'd like to suggest to the Attorney-General that there are some ways that he could perhaps lessen that concern. One way would relate, as I see it, to the composition of the commission that the cabinet will be appointing on his recommendation. He mentioned some of the persons that would be serving on the commission.

I wonder if, when he is speaking further to close the debate on second reading, he might advise the House whether he would be giving consideration to appointing to this commission persons from the legal profession, whether from the bar itself or from the bench, civil rights representatives, perhaps, and members of the general public, I would hope, in one capacity or another, who would help to give an open appearance to the commission.

Perhaps he might also describe and make it very

[ Page 1296 ]

clear to the Legislature whether or not the duties of this commission will run in any way to executive action — to the powers or the expectation that the commission might be described as running the police forces or running the courts, or whether their role would rather be, as appears to be the major thrust of the Act, a role of research and development. Will it just be recommendations, in other words?

I would ask him also if he might describe to the House whether as a matter of practice the recommendations of the commission will be made to the Legislature and to the public as well as to the Minister. One of the specific duties of the commission is to report from time to time to the Minister respecting the results of its research, inquiries and investigations and to make recommendations for change, reorganization and general improvement of the administration of justice.

I would suggest to the Minister through you, Mr. Speaker, that if a pattern is established of public reports on the recommendations of the commission — and I'd like to see it stronger than a pattern; I'd like to see it a matter of law that the conclusions of the commission should be a matter of public record — I think that this would go far to dispel some of the concern we see being expressed today, concern which is natural because the powers that people are worrying about could be read into the bill.

The Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) mentioned some of the research needs, areas that he hoped the commission would go into. He mentioned parole in particular, and naturally probation. I expect and hope that they would do that. I hope also that they will inquire into such things as the operation of prisons and correctional centres and better means of rehabilitation than prisons and correctional centres — which I know is a subject very much on the mind of the Attorney-General.

I hope they'll be looking into what is called these days white collar crime, securities, computer theft, which may or may not be an important thing in British Columbia right now but it is certainly coming in this direction. I'd like to know whether the commission in its research might look into better means of resolving the minor civil disputes between neighbours that even with the small claims courts we have now can still be very expensive and complex for the ordinary citizen.

I know in my own riding I looked a couple of weekends ago at a case involving a tree, a tree which is dear to the heart of the owner. The man behind him wants that tree cut down. Together it looks like they'll be going to court sometime in the fall and spending $2,000 or $3,000 between them to try and resolve this dispute. They have no real alternative now as long as they can't agree. If better ways can be found by this development commission to settle that kind of simple, ordinary, everyday thing that affects so many people, this would be a marvelous step forward.

I know that there are experiments that have been tried in other parts of the world that the commission could look at in this context.

The commission might do research into the administrative adequacy of consumer law which has gone some distance with storefront lawyers and storefront consumer advisory personnel. But it has yet to go a long way further before it is too meaningful to the ordinary shopper and the senior citizen and the people who really need the advice and the support of consumer law.

I would hope as well that the commission would do research into the need for an ombudsman, which Members of this party have commended to the House for many years now, and which we continue to believe is an important necessity for the British Columbia legal system.

We were visited with a quotation from Schopenhauer, Mr. Speaker, the other day, and I found an interesting quotation for this debate from John Stuart Mill, saying:

"The disposition of mankind, whether as rulers or as fellow citizens, to impose their opinions and inclinations as a rule of conduct on others is so energetically supported by some of the best and worst feelings in human nature that it is hardly ever kept under restraint by anything but want of power. As the power is not declining but growing, unless a stronger barrier of moral conviction can be raised against the mischief, we must expect in the present circumstances of the world to see it increase."

That's a long way of saying that the more government gets into all of our lives there's more temptation to interfere more deeply and more arbitrarily than it ought to do. That is precisely why we feel the strong need for an ombudsman and why I express the hope that one of the terms of reference, formal or informal, that the Attorney-General might give to his new commission might be to report on the ombudsman concept for British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, to summarize what I have said, the two essential factors, if this bill is to meet with a good reception, seem to me to be, first of all, that the Justice Development Commission should be non-operational. It should clearly and distinctly not have the power, even implicitly, even inferentially, of running the police forces of British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: I think I heard the Attorney-General say it doesn't, but there's been this concern expressed here. We would like to have that particular assurance.

[ Page 1297 ]

The second safeguard — not just a safeguard but a positive benefit in the public dialogue — is a pattern of public reporting and public disclosure of the conclusions, the results and the recommendations arising out of its research.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, perhaps in reverse order I'd like to say something about the thoughtful speech of the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson). I seem to have raised some merriment on that remark, Hon. Member. In doing that, perhaps I'll answer some of the things as we go along.

I recognize the importance of the separation of powers. The Attorney-General and the Legislature are charged with the administration of justice but not with the adjudication of justice. I can say that 100 times but I want to make it very clear that we should never step over that line. In one of the companion bills — I think it's the Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1974 — the Hon. Members may notice there is an amendment on the order paper in my name to make it clear that in no sense are we trespassing over that line. It was suggested to us and we are glad to accede to that suggestion.

This is the administration of justice. There cannot be any interference by me or anybody elected as a politician with the running of the courts as courts. Administration of the courts. We have no option but to provide them and to provide them well but we must not interfere with court decisions. We must not interfere in any way with the independence of the judiciary because that would be a road to tyranny which we certainly don't intend to take. Perhaps it has been taken in other jurisdictions at other times, but it is a road that is fraught with danger and one we certainly intend to avoid.

In terms of public recommendations, I would hope the recommendations of the Justice Development Commission would be made public. I would hope there would be as much community understanding, participation and consultation as at all possible as we go along with these important reforms. Wherever the interest is there with some segment of the public wanting to know what we are doing, I want to make sure that the recommendations and the actions are public and understood.

In regard to the third point as to what was said by the Hon. Member for Saanich (Mr. Curtis), the Hon. Member read from the Federation of Peace Officers' documents. You asked me why I haven't satisfied them and what they get out of this document. I can't answer that; I think they would have to answer that. I think they could have sought the information. I have spoken to their banquet. I don't know whether it was the last one for their annual meeting. My ideas on reform, perhaps including this, have been explained. They have been consulted with respect to the police Act.

I think they were precipitate, really, in getting out this sheet which is based upon a false premise. For example, they say "We understand the Administration of Justice Act is to take precedence over the police Act. That is simply not true. The Hon. Member speaks about the balloons going up and that kind of thing. Let me say, if they go up on this kind of misinformed basis, it will be bad for British Columbia and bad for our citizens. I trust the Members of all parties in this House will, of course with free and full debate, nevertheless seek to allay irrational fears, particularly when they are based simply upon a false premise.

MR. CURTIS: You really haven't explained it to them.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, all right. But should they not come and see me? Really, I have had an open door. I can't explain it to everybody but we have consulted widely. They've been present at two full-day conferences. I don't want to go into that any further. I'll be glad to see the Federation of Peace Officers; I have got along well with them in the past. I'll be glad to sit down and discuss their document, this bill and any other bills. I should have an open door and I intend to have it.

I can't say much more. The Hon. Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) talks about centralized authority, the Energy Act and how the Energy Act denies an appeal — which it didn't — and all this kind of thing. That's the traditional stance of the Social Credit Party with respect to what we are trying to do in this province. They apply that argument no matter what we do.

In this case at least, it's not only wrong but does not apply because this is a transitional Act to plan, coordinate and bring these improvements into the court system. It's subject as much to the Legislature as it has been in past years.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You can ask me in committee. This is a vehicle to implement the reforms; it's transitional, it's interim. Don't ask me what this body is going to be doing in five years' time because it won't exist. I move second reading of Bill 2.

Motion approved.

Bill 2, Administration of Justice Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

[ Page 1298 ]

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Second reading of Bill 3, Mr. Speaker.

ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. MR. MACDONALD: This is another little bill which simply increases to the sum of $5,000 those little estates — it is a small estate today — which can be administered without going to a judge to obtain letters of probate or letters of administration. They can be obtained more simply and without that expense from the registrar. It's not really a new principle because that was done heretofore (I think the limit before was $2,000) and it is being increased.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, perhaps it should, but I move second reading of this bill.

MR. SMITH: I'll be brief on this because we agree with the principle of the bill. I think the main question in the mind of anyone, including the Members of the government side of the House, is: where did you obtain the arbitrary figure of $5,000? Really, $5,000 is not an estate today, it's a pittance. While it may be all the chattels and goods a person possesses, it still is a very small amount. I would have thought the Attorney-General, in presenting the bill which is relatively a good suggestion, would have considered a figure higher than $5,000. Certainly by today's standards it could be three or four times that amount, in my opinion, without losing revenue to the Crown. By the same token, it would set up a situation where people would not have to go to the expense of getting letters probate for the administration of the estate.

The amount, really, Mr. Attorney-General, is probably less than the Attorney-General himself would like. I would hope that he would consider amendments in committee stage of the bill.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Once again I would like to rise, saying we approve the principle of the bill. However, the question raised by the Hon. Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) is perfectly valid. We wonder, indeed, why his party didn't raise it before.

Two thousand dollars is absurd and $5,000 is pretty close to absurd. The fact is that a large chunk of every estate is used up in administration — probate, lawyers' fees and the rest of it. It's far too much. While I'm sure that all the paraphernalia and all the procedure have some merit, there's great opportunity, I feel, for perhaps the Law Reform Commission to look into the whole question and work out something a great deal more simple and a great deal cheaper. The amount taken away from estates, which are quite often the estates of widows, of course, is too much.

I feel that it might well have been a much better idea to raise the five figure to maybe 10 or even higher, but certainly this is a minor step in the right direction and we will be supporting it.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, in closing I may say that the figures are in the Probate Fees Act and, I think, the Succession Duty Act as to an estate where under no circumstances would those returns have to be filed. However, I'll take what the Hon. Members have suggested into consideration, because I too believe that subject to the danger of fraud, false applications, false relatives or false wills — you can't underestimate all of those things in an estate. I believe that we should make it just as simple and inexpensive and expeditious as possible.

I move the question on the motion.

Motion approved.

Bill 3, Administration Amendment Act, 1974, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 4, Mr. Speaker.

OCCUPIERS' LIABILITY ACT

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that's supported by such bodies as the Commissioners on Uniformity of Legislation for the whole of Canada, by the Law Reform Commission of the Province of Alberta where it has been enacted into law, by our own Law Reform Commission...

AN HON. MEMBER: Explain it.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, I'm trying to sell it first and then explain it later.

...by England, which has the English Occupiers' Liability Act, and by Scotland where it has been enshrined for some time — and there's the cognomen — Scottish Occupiers' Liability Act of 1960. So it is an Act with unimpeachable ancestry and antecedents.

It would eliminate the confusing categorizing of people by the common law when they come upon premises and they suffer injury and seek redress or damages for that injury. If you come on as a trespasser, your rights are so much; and if you come on as an invitee, your rights are so much. This has led to uncertainty in the law. It has made it difficult for people to understand their position and the new

[ Page 1299 ]

reform in this field of the law envisages a Common duty of care towards people who enter upon the property of another, and the extent of liability of an occupier is governed by the circumstances of the case.

I move second reading.

MR. SMITH: In our opinion this bill really codifies the common law in this province so that it conforms with other provinces in Canada. It is the type of housekeeping legislation that we think is desirable.

We see it as an attempt to provide flexibility in what was before an inflexible position with respect to common law in the Province of British Columbia, and it's in line with the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission, as the Hon. Attorney-General has pointed out. We'll support the bill.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver-Point Grey): The object of the bill obviously, as the Attorney-General has stated, is to relieve the courts of the many worries that they have had in the past reaching decisions as to the special categories of individuals on premises. It appears to establish, as the Attorney-General has stated, the degree of reasonableness which one finds in the common law of negligence. It's unfortunate that once again we find the Crown immunity is here, and that the Act doesn't apply to the Crown in right of the province. So again we see the umbrella of big, socialistic government in B.C. taking every protection it can, even under this modest little statute, not prepared to subscribe itself to the same laws as every other little citizen in the Province of B.C.

With those remarks, Mr. Speaker, I sit down with tears in my eyes, but apart from that we'll support the bill.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, this little bill does say that the Crown is bound, except in respect to roads and things of that kind.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Doesn't it? "...the Crown and its agencies are bound by this Act." Am I not right?

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes. So section 8 refutes what has just been said by the Hon. Member.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 4, Occupiers' Liability Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 5, Mr. Speaker.

FRUSTRATED CONTRACTS ACT

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, contracts are often frustrated. The courts have a set of rules as to when a contract runs into such a dilemma, and we're not seeking to change those rules. Sometimes it's an act of God, sometimes it's a fire, sometimes it's a force majeure, but the working out of what the parties have put into the situation after frustration of the contract is something where the law falls down at the present time. This bill simply allows a settlement of claims to be worked out.

Up to this time — and I don't want to get too technical about the thing — a person who was into a situation where a contract was frustrated could recover if it was a total failure of consideration. Partial failure; he couldn't. This enables the court to work out accounts.

It's a bill which was introduced in 1972 into this Legislature. It has since been examined by the Law Reform Commission and again the Conference of Commissioners on Uniformity of Legislation in Canada. I move second reading.

MR. SMITH: I agree that this bill follows the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia, and the Conference of Commissioners on Uniformity of Legislation in Canada.

We agree with the principle of the bill in that it tries to provide for settlement of contract in the event that external influences over which neither party has control act to frustrate a contract.

It is, in our opinion, a pruning Act, really, which takes the unworkable parts of common law and adjusts them to the actual present-day practices and interpretations, and in that respect it is the type of thing that we should be looking at when we consider revision or updating of the statutes of the Province of British Columbia. This is one of the reasons for appointment of a Law Reform Commission — to review some of the statutes that may have been with us for some time, where the actual practice in common law today varies quite widely from what might have been an acceptable practice 10, 15, or 20 years ago.

It's a type of legislation which we think is now due in the Province of British Columbia and we will accept and support the principle of the bill.

MR. GARDOM: It's a fairly pedestrian but necessary measure, Mr. Speaker, and we indeed support it. But I'd just ask the Hon. Attorney-General one thing: does the Frustrated Contracts Act apply to

[ Page 1300 ]

unhappy marriages? Or doesn't it go that far?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Oh, yes.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: One further question, Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney-General. The Frustrated Contracts Act would seem to me to apply to the contract presently in existence between the Province of British Columbia and the Seattle City Light on the Skagit Valley. If the decision is to be made that this is not to be flooded, as a political decision at both federal and provincial levels, it would appear to me that this Act would apply. After all, the contract is in existence, dates for many years and moneys have been received by the province under the Act. Now we no longer wish to go ahead, and I think that we could probably describe a political decision of both levels of government as adequate reason for frustration. In other words, it would be equivalent to force majeure.

I just wonder whether the Attorney-General in closing would like to comment upon how successful we will be in using this Act with respect to Skagit Valley.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: In closing, may I say, as I have said before, that we do not believe that there is a valid, enforceable contract between the Province of British Columbia and Seattle City Light with respect to the flooding of the Skagit. Therefore the Act would not apply.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: But if you're wrong....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: This government is never wrong, Hon. Member. Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 5, Frustrated Contracts Act read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 6.

CROWN PROCEEDINGS ACT

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, this bill is a major reform in the Province of British Columbia, and that goes without saying.

We seek to give the biggest corporation and the littlest citizen their day in court whether or not government or private industry is involved. Notwithstanding the hysterical shouts and outcries that we hear out in the community and on some radio programmes, this government has done more for the rights of the individual in 18 months than Social Credit did in 20 years. The very fact that the Social Credit Party will stand up today and support this bill in principle which they for 20 years refused to bring before the Legislature is evidence of what I am saying.

We seek to abolish in British Columbia a relic of the mediaeval age when the King could do no wrong. The doctrine of the fiat system where the subject had to go on bended knee to seek from Ministers of the Crown the right to sue the Crown is a relic of the time of the divine right of kings and should have no part in our modern jurisprudence. We are in this bill correcting an age-long inequity. We are providing that there shall be no special privilege in the eyes of the law accorded to big government that is not accorded to the littlest citizen or the biggest corporation.

Mr. Speaker, having said that I might deal with one or two points arising out of it.

There's a very valid question, for example, as to whether or not there should be trial by jury in cases under the Crown Proceedings Act. It is nevertheless almost universal in legislation reforming Crown procedure that there shall be no jury trials in suits against the Crown. Now the fact that it is not a precedent in Canada or elsewhere does not however end the merits of the matter.

I would say that there is no danger in trial by jury, where the people in effect would be trying themselves, that politics could creep into the courtroom. If I could just repeat what I just said, and try to remember what I said, and hope that I am consistent in what I am saying, it is important I think that the political composition of the jury should be something that is of no concern to the lawyers either for a plaintiff or for the defence. Because of our governmental system being founded upon party politics, I think it would be a mistake, and an unnecessary mistake, because redress can be had from a judge to go the route of trial by jury.

In terms of injunctions, again, the bill that we have presented follows the model bill of the Commissioners for Uniformity of Legislation in Canada. We are not seeking to be different in this respect from our sister provinces. And we do insist that while the remedy of injunction in certain circumstances is inappropriate in suits against the Crown, we do say, however, that the court should be armed with the power to give full redress to the subject in terms of damages or compensation or such other relief which to the courts may seem meet. But the remedy of injunction which, as I say, is not featured in other legislation is not necessary or desirable in our own.

Finally, I'd like to say, because Hon. Members opposite often refer to sunshine, Mr. Speaker, that again this government is letting the sunshine in. We are giving — and this has been a contested point in the past — we are giving by way of discovery of documents or evidence, the right of the subject in

[ Page 1301 ]

litigation against the Crown to see the workings of government, and to make sure that all of the evidence that is relevant to his case is brought to the surface. And we give the judge in court that power to order discovery, which again is a protection of the rights of the individual. I move second reading of this bill.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. After that stirring address by the Hon. Attorney-General I'm sure that all of us will have to vote in support of the principle of this bill. But I would say to start with that his interpretation of the bill as written and mine vary a little bit. I think he holds out much higher hopes for this bill than he has any right to do.

It's maybe a carrot-on-the-stick proposition, as far as the Attorney-General is concerned, and he hopes it will appear to be that way in the mind and the eye of the public. When you read closely the provisions within this bill — and I know that I can't refer to the specific section without abusing the privileges and rights in speaking to the principle of the bill in second reading — we seem to have a vehicle which in the minds of most individuals would provide them with the means of suing the Crown. But unfortunately, in certain provisions within this Act, Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General has removed the wheels from the vehicle and the engine as well. And I don't think that it's going to work nearly as well without the wheels and the engine as he would like to suggest.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Are you going to support it?

MR. SMITH: I would like to suggest that in certain instances the previous situation where a fiat must be obtained would be perhaps preferable to some of the provisions within this Act itself. Really, Mr. Attorney-General, when we get right down to it, you can stand in your place and suggest that you have by this bill let a little sunshine in. I'll stand in my place and have to remind you that if you really wanted to provide a proper vehicle for people, big or small, to sue the Crown and correct this long-held assumption that the king can do no wrong, then you could have gone much further than you've done in this particular aspect.

While it's true you make provisions for people to launch a suit against the Crown, you also provide a number of restrictive covenants within the clauses of the Act which prevent them from exercising that particular right which was supposed to have been granted by the bill.

There's one thing that I would like the Attorney-General to comment on specifically before he closes second reading on this bill and that is: would he tell the Members of the opposition what litigation is presently before the courts, or is pending, that this bill will affect? If there's not, would he make that point abundantly clear? I would like to know if there is any action presently pending or before the courts.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: They're under the old system until this bill is proclaimed.

MR. SMITH: Yes, but will they be proceeded with under the old Act, or will you allow them to sit there until this Act is proclaimed? I think perhaps the Attorney-General should enlighten us as to the number of cases and the involvement in that respect before he closes second reading on this bill.

As I said when I first rose to my feet, in some respects it would appear to us that there are less rights now than under the old system of obtaining a fiat to sue the Crown. The bill, while it grants rights to people, should not be taken by the average public to mean wider rights, unrestrictive rights. As we read the bill, while it's a step in the right direction, certainly you have protected the Crown through many of the clauses inserted in this bill so that the result may be more frustration than letting sunshine in.

MR. GARDOM: Well, Mr. Speaker, if a case for plagiarism would be authorized under the provisions of the new Act, I think it would almost be an open-and-shut case.

We welcome the remarks of the Attorney-General, and had he only introduced the similar bill that our party has been introducing, together with using our speeches, we would have had something that would have been a little more appropriate for the people in the province.

There's no question of a doubt that the concept that the Crown can do no wrong is something that should have perished with the divine right of kings. It certainly does appear demonstratively well-evidenced over the past few weeks in the Province of British Columbia that your king is indeed a king that can do a lot of wrong. So I think it's a very nice thing that this measure has now been introduced.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: What a terrible thing to say.

MR. GARDOM: A terrible thing to say, my foot. Apropos of that, Mr. Attorney-General, I just wonder whether or not this legislation will extend to the master-servant rule in the field of law as to whether or not the government will be responsible for the tortuous acts of its servants. For example, would the Government of the Province of British Columbia be responsible at law if, say, the Premier slandered somebody? Could a lawsuit initiate against the province or would the Premier have to pay for his own slander by himself? — an interesting aspect of

[ Page 1302 ]

this legislation which, so far, is not too well explained.

We are pleased with the measure on the whole. But there are some very important caveats, Mr. Speaker. It's definitely a proclamation bill. Until proclaimed, the doors of the courts are still slammed shut to any cases against the Crown; until proclaimed, any earlier causes of action do not exist. Since this is a new government, one would have thought, since they are very interested in bringing in retroactive legislation when it suits them, this legislation would have been retroactive to the day this government took over power in the Province of British Columbia. I recall there was one dismissed civil servant who wished to bring an action against the Crown, and the Attorney-General refused to grant a fiat. Well, I would tend to think it would only be fair that this bill should cover an individual such as that.

It is terribly unfortunate that jury trials are not permitted, as the Attorney-General mentioned. Injunctions are not permitted. It is not possible to have any orders for recovery of land nor for any attachment proceedings. All of these four items — jury trials, injunctions, orders for recovery of land, and attachment proceedings — just boil down to the declaratory statements of the court. If the court does make such a declaratory statement, the only hope that a litigant can have, which is indeed a faint hope, is that the government would act compassionately.

So far as enforcement of the judgments of the courts are concerned, the only one that can be enforced is a judgment for money. Any of the other court remedies of enforcement are not possible within the terminology in Bill 6.

Crown corporations are still, on the whole, largely protected. The statute itself, as the earlier speaker mentioned, is subject to all the defences to the Crown in any other statute. So this is not an overall Crown proceedings Act at all; it is a very restrictive Crown proceedings Act. It is restrictive to certain kinds of proceedings and restrictive as to remedy.

Rights against the Crown, I think, in the Province of British Columbia, notwithstanding this measure today which we are going to support, are still going to be the exception rather than the rule.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, for a moment there I thought the Attorney-General was going to break his back with self-congratulation over bringing in this particular bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. McGEER: As I recall, it was first introduced in this Legislature by the late Mr. Justice Gregory in the late 1950s.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I thought the Liberals were non-partisan.

MR. McGEER: It was then introduced on a regular basis by Mr. Justice McFarland and Mr. Justice McKay. And once or twice the Member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Hon. Mr. Dowding) got the bill introduced before the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom).

I would have thought, Mr. Speaker, that this would have been the very first thing the new Attorney-General would have introduced upon taking office. I would have thought that. He has waited about 18 months, and in the interim dismissed a civil servant and denied that man his opportunity to bring suit against the Crown. It doesn't speak terribly well for the motivation of that Attorney-General and the government.

We notice as well that the bill follows the form for uniform legislation in Canada. I presume the Attorney-General would have pretty well been forced to bring this bill in, regardless of whether he was in favour of it or against it, merely to keep British Columbia up with the rest of the nation. We all know in matters of human rights that British Columbia has been the laggard in all of Canada, and still continues in most respects to be behind the other provinces. You've got a long way to go, Mr. Attorney-General, and your own record in office is not an unblemished one.

I don't quite understand one of the sections of the Act. I know we mustn't discuss section 14, but it looks to me in this particular section as if the Crown corporations of the province, and indeed the Crown itself, will plan to take advantage of a lot of oddments lying around on our legislative books that might work to the advantage of the Crown in defending itself against a legitimate suit brought by an aggrieved individual or corporation.

So, Mr. Attorney-General, this particular bill wipes out an absolutely shameful blot on our legislative record which is a holdover from Social Credit. It was done with a good deal of pompous self-satisfaction. I think it would have been gracious, Mr. Speaker, to mention some of the very fine former legislators who, in the opposition side, brought this bill forward as a regular procedure and helped to coach the present government in responsibilities for office should they take over, which they did.

HON. MR. BARRETT: John Hart — he was a Liberal.

MR. McGEER: And, Mr. Speaker, at the same time I think the government needs to examine its conscience just a little bit since it took office and perhaps consider, during the committee stage, bringing in amendments to this legislation to give those people who have been aggrieved in the past an

[ Page 1303 ]

opportunity to have their day in court similar to those who will be aggrieved in the future.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, more can be said in committee and I ask the question be put.

Motion approved.

Bill 6, Crown Proceedings Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 33, Mr. Speaker.

LEGAL PROFESSIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1974.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There are a number of provisions, none of them of any consequence in terms of controversies, to this bill, which is sought by the legal profession and approved of by the Attorney-General. I think questions might more appropriately be answered during committee.

I move second reading.

MR. SMITH: I agree with the Attorney-General that we can probably discuss this bill more profitably in committee than we can in second reading.

MR. GARDOM: Yup. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The question.

Motion approved.

Bill 33, Legal Professions Amendment Act, 1974, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 43, Mr. Speaker.

CORONERS AMENDMENT ACT, 1974.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, this is really a follow-up bill to the debate we have had. In the assumption by the province of the responsibility for the delivery of legal services to the people of the province, one of the matters which requires reform attention and assumption of responsibilities by the province is, of course, the coroners' court. This Act would have the effect of enabling the courts of the province to proceed accordingly.

Jurors are paid for the first time since in 1973 we made that change, if the date is correct. They receive the same as a juror in a supreme court trial: $10 a day.

I move second reading.

MR. GARDOM: Just in support of the matter, there is one point I would like to reiterate, and I've stressed this in the House before. I think everybody appreciates the fact, Mr. Speaker, that jury duty is one of the responsibilities of citizenship. But it certainly does become backbreaking economically in many cases. The figure of $10 is totally incommensurate with today's standards, and the government should give immediate attention to raising it.

We don't have to have a protracted debate about that. I believe the Law Society recommended $25 a day. I might be incorrect in that but that's my general recollection. Certainly the figure of $10 is not commensurate with today's costs.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Question on the motion that Bill 43 be read a second time.

Motion approved.

Bill 43, Coroners Amendment Act, 1974, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 44.

PROVINCIAL COURT AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, again, this bill is ancillary to the programme of the government to assume the responsibility for the administration of justice in the province. It speaks for itself. There will be questions, no doubt, under the clauses, perhaps with respect to costs or other matters, which I will be glad to respond to in committee, but I think we've had the debate. I move second reading of this ancillary legislation.

Motion approved.

Bill 44, Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1974, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 45.

PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT

HON. MR. MACDONALD: This little bill has the effect Of repealing, but repealing I think in a phased way, the Professional Corporations Act, which was passed by the Legislature three or four years ago, if my memory serves me correctly.

[ Page 1304 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: No, 1970.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: 1970? It became really a dead letter, because frankly the income tax advantages sought by those professionals who wished to incorporate under its umbrella proved to be illusory, as a result of the attitude of the federal government. Therefore the bill is standing upon the statute books of the Province of B.C. really without purpose and should be removed. If at any time there should be another look taken at this kind of situation, then it should be by fresh legislation at that time. I would move second reading.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, we agree with the Attorney-General that because of the provisions of the Income Tax Act at the present time this is an obsolete bill on the books of the statutes of the province. It has no practical purpose for being there now, and we'll support second reading.

MR. GARDOM: My recollection of this is not the same as the Attorney-General's, and I would commend him to look at one aspect of it for the reasons that I'm going to suggest.

I recall that the former administration introduced this legislation. Then, I believe, they brought in an order-in-council to the net effect that it rendered the bill inoperative. The net effect is that the individuals — and I don't think there are too many — who took the necessary steps to incorporate really have got absolutely nothing of value for their expenditures. There couldn't be too many people involved in the Province of B.C.; I bet it's well under 100. I think it would be a very fair thing to remit to any person who has incorporated under this Act any fees that were paid to the registrar of companies for incorporation.

I think I'm getting some sort of a message that that's going to be done. Is that being done?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, okay. If that's the situation, and there is going to be a remission of fees, I would be totally in accord with the thing, save and except....

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Section 27 (3)? Well, that's fine and dandy.

Just one other thing, Mr. Attorney-General. Would a professional corporation, incorporated under this statute, be able to convert? I assume it would, under the provisions of the Companies Act.

Well, there's a lot of shoulder shrugging over there, but I tend to think that if somebody did incorporate under this statute, which is no longer useful at all, that individual could have it made available to him to be able to convert to another company under the Companies Act.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I would assume that if somebody wanted a personal holding company or something of that kind they might be able to so amend the articles and the objects of this as to have that, but I think they might be better to start afresh.

Question on the motion for second reading of Bill 45.

Motion approved.

Bill 45, Professional Corporations Amendment Act, 1974, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 49, Mr. Speaker.

UNIFIED FAMILY COURT ACT

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I move second reading of this bill. It is modeled upon the recommendations, of course, of the Hon. Mr. Justice Berger, who in addition to carrying on his court duties — because he has continued to try cases — accepted the commission from this government to look at the family court and the juvenile court set-up of this province on an urgent priority, crash basis. I say "urgent" because the kind of family and juvenile situation that we have is a festering ground where family breakdown leads to juvenile crime, and juvenile crime in the course of the years escalates to a very serious crime problem in this province.

One of the Hon. Members referred to a case in the Vancouver court the other day. It's a case that has been very much in my mind, and I'll just mention it. This boy from the age of eight was in some kind of reform school or jail until the age of 26, which he is at the present time, with only two-and-a-half of that span of years outside of custody. On release, he was picked up, accused and, in fact, convicted of a particularly gruesome murder.

Now, is it not possible that we in this Legislature, with the resources at our command, and the people who are willing to lend their help, cannot prevent children — and I use the word "children" right down to the age of eight, but higher too — from embarking upon that kind of a lost life, with all it entails? I think it was the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis), but I may be wrong, who brought up that particular case. It's very much in point.

[ Page 1305 ]

Now, this is a commission — the family court commission — with a difference, as I've said, and I don't need to repeat it here. Not only is this commission studying family law, and not only have they committed themselves to bring in their recommendations within a year, but in the course of their work as commissioners in studying family law, they want the power, and we want them to have the power, to establish the pilot project for a unified family court. They have proposed the South Fraser Judicial District and they have prepared under this bill to proceed with a unified family court with family counselors, with the probation and welfare officials and officers attached to that court which will make that court a first in Canada, and something I would hope that the Legislature and the people can monitor, but something of which they can be proud, because in this field and with this kind of speedy action, Mr. Speaker, it is my conviction that British Columbia has stepped out ahead of the rest of Canada. I move second reading.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, we have a number of points which will be more appropriately dealt with in committee on this bill. We would like to raise them at that time.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I want to say a few words on this bill.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Don't filibuster my legislation.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few comments.

This bill has a historic context to it that I think the House should be reminded of. In the post-war years, up until the early '50s, British Columbia led in North America in pioneering legislation dealing with family court matters and especially with child welfare service. At one time we had in employment of this province one Ruby Mackay, unfortunately dismissed by a former administration, who was the pioneer along with James Sadler, who is still on our staff, along with a number of other people who have served this province faithfully in providing leadership in this particular area. I think that with this bill we're going to set the atmosphere for us to allow the province to regain the status it had under the coalition administration in leading in this field in North America. I just want to say that this day, for me personally, is a good day in that we are stepping into leadership in North America in this particular field with this bill — a leadership we once had but lost since the early '50s.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved.

Bill 49, Unified Family Court Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 66, Mr. Speaker.

PREJUDGMENT INTEREST ACT

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, this bill is a little penny larceny, because it's true that the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) raised this subject two or three sessions ago in this Legislature, and it was a subject that commended itself to me as being something that was right and equitable to be done. As a result, we referred the matter to the Law Reform Commission and they brought in their report, and the result is this little bill.

I think Hon. Members appreciate the principle, and I don't need to expound it at any length, but it means simply that a plaintiff who has X dollars in damages, which should be his redress, loses the interest on that amount from the time of his injury until it comes to trial or until it goes on to appeal. So really what he's receiving by way of his redress is that X amount of dollars minus the interest. In the meantime, somebody else has had the interest. It may be ICBC, or it may be some big corporation, or it may be a large retail store where the person had a fall or an injury of some kind. It could be any kind of an institution of that kind or it could be an ordinary defendant, just an individual.

As long as the old system prevailed, there was an incentive on the part of defendants to string the thing out, because until that final judgment day, they had interest-free money, at least until the judgment at the date of trial. Even then at the date of trial, the amount that was awarded on a judgment would be that of the Interest Act of Canada, which is still 5 per cent, unless I'm mistaken. So again there was an interest incentive for somebody to carry the case forward to the Supreme Court of Canada, and two years later have some interest advantage, even though they finally lost the case.

I would move second reading of this bill.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): This is a good move. I'm sorry that the obligation to pay interest is mandatory.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I don't think so.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Section 1:  "...shall add on to a pecuniary judgment...."

It occurs to me that there are many instances

[ Page 1306 ]

where it is appropriate for the court to award a judgment with interest, and the cases that the Attorney-General mentions are well-documented — cases involving disputes over a person's pension rights, and so on, which go on for many, many months, and sometimes years after the right to pension arises, particularly in the case of a deceased workman. There's no reason why the beneficiary — the widow or children of the deceased — should not have interest when the judgment is finally brought down.

But there are instances, Mr. Speaker, and I'm sure the Attorney-General will appreciate the fact, when it is no fault of the defendants at all that there has been delay in the proceedings before the court. It seems to me that the court, in its wisdom, could determine those matters at the time of the hearing as to whether or not there has been any untoward delay. I'm thinking of cases involving personal injuries, when counsel for the injured party would well advise the injured party that they should not proceed to trial until a static situation has arisen with respect to recovery from those injuries, in order that evidence as to the exact nature of the injury, possible handicaps or permanent disability could be determined.

Therefore you have these situations where there is no delay necessarily on the part of the person who may be called upon to make the payment in the final instance. I think that the judges of our courts, if they're wise enough to make a decision as to right and wrong and the amount of the judgment itself, must also be wise enough to determine the time when it would be reasonable to expect that such a proceeding might be brought to trial, taking all those matters into consideration, to make some order which would properly compensate any judgment creditor in respect of interest without placing a burden upon the judgment debtor for what that judgment debtor was not really responsible.

I appreciate that it would require the exercise of equitable jurisdiction of the part of the judge in making that decision, but after all, they're called upon to make similar decisions each day. I think they could be counted upon to treat the matter fairly in that respect.

I hope the Attorney-General would take that into consideration and perhaps we could have some discussion about that before the time when amendments disappear.

MR. GARDOM: It is very warming to see the introduction of this measure today — the Prejudgment Interest Act — and also the family forum concept and the right to sue the Crown. They are all matters which have been raised here over the years. I'm happy that they've come in, and I indeed commend the government. I hope that this is a sign of government action, and that in the fall we can look forward to seeing an auditor-general and an ombudsman and fair expropriation laws.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Then what would you run on?

MR. SMITH: This bill is one we will support. We have heard arguments both for and against awarding interest as part of a judgment. I certainly followed the remarks of the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) when he spoke just a few minutes before me, but I would suspect, without really knowing the statistics, that more people have been grievously affected by not being able to receive interest than the other way around. I would hope that the Attorney-General in the implementation and operation of this particular statute would watch closely the situation to see if we are, in actual fact, setting up a precedent that we would not want to continue.

I do think that quite often there is a tendency, for one reason for another, to spin out an action before the court, particularly when the defendant knows that when the judgment is handed down there will not be an additional fee for interest involved. So it's to his advantage, if he feels a conviction might be the result of the judge's decision, to delay proceedings. Quite often, frankly, this does have the effect of putting financial stress on persons who should not be put in that position.

We'll support second reading of the bill.

MRS. JORDAN: I just have a couple of questions I'd like to ask the Attorney-General, if I could. Does this bill — the mandatory levying of an interest charge — apply in judgments under the Testator's Family Maintenance Act in estates?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, it wouldn't.

MRS. JORDAN: It doesn't apply. That answers my first question.

If I understand the bill correctly there is interest payable by the party causing the injury and from whom the award is made, and your reason for it is on the basis of undue delay towards paying damages. My second question is: is there any recourse or the need for recourse if, in fact, the delay in court proceedings is caused through action of the lawyer? Does the defendant then have an opportunity to take action against his lawyer without going to court for these interest payments?

I don't mean this facetiously and I don't mean it unkindly, but we do know that frequently this happens. If the defendant is going to be levied the interest charge, should there not also be the opportunity for that defendant to go before an impartial board if, in fact, they felt they had suitable evidence that the lawyer had been delaying the

[ Page 1307 ]

action, perhaps not intentionally but through his own workload, through holidays, through other business commitments which mean it wouldn't be possible for him to appear in court, when in fact it was convenient for the defendant?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, we'll consider the point raised by the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams). I'm not saying that I'm sold on it, but that's something to be considered. It may be that the words "appropriate in the circumstances" and appropriate rate do not give sufficient leeway to the learned judge trying the case, but we will have a look at that.

In answer to the final thing, I would hope that litigants who feel that their lawyer is unduly delaying their case, whether it is plaintiff or defendant, would get in the habit of writing to the Law Society if they really feel that they are being badly done by, because there is a shortage....

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: They don't. Then we should publicize that they do have an avenue — I wouldn't say of complaint, but also of inquiry — so that the Law Society can write to the lawyer and say that the client would like an explanation of the length of time this suit is taking. There is nothing wrong with the client so inquiring, whether or not interest is involved. I move second reading of Bill 66.

Motion approved.

Bill 66, Prejudgment Interest Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 7, Mr. Speaker.

SPECIAL FUNDS APPROPRIATION ACT, 1974

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Special Funds Appropriation Act, 1974 sets out the proposed uses of $140 million of surplus revenue: $40 million more for the issue of first and second mortgages under the Provincial Home Acquisition Act and $10 million more to encourage the building of recreational facilities under the Community Recreational Facilities Fund Act. This is a very popular programme, and the original $10 million was very quickly spent. An additional sum of $5.5 million was added by warrant this year, and now another $10 million is to be provided. I understand even Oak Bay is going to take advantage of this. I hope too that Columbia River is making a move.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Very nice suit.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It fits me, for the first time. (Laughter.)

There is $5 million each for the British Columbia Cultural Fund and the Physical Fitness and Amateur Sports Fund to assist the activities sponsored under those Acts. Hon. Members will recall that the interest earned from these funds is used for the activities. The funds are invested in bonds, schools and hospitals. There is $10 million each to establish funds to provide financial requirements under the Farm Income Assurance Act and the Farm Products Industry Improvement Act to strengthen and safeguard our agricultural capacity.

This is in response to those critics who felt that under Bill 42, the Land Commission Act, we would not be moving to assist the farmers of this province. Mr. Speaker, this is tangible evidence of the intention of this government to ensure that the little people, the farmers of this province, get a break no matter what kind of pressures we get from those big, multi-national, vertical-integrated farm corporations that are trying to squeeze out the little entrepreneur in this province.

MRS. JORDAN: Otherwise known as the government.

HON. MR. BARRETT: And if I may tuck my thumbs in, I may do a little reminiscing for others who know what I am talking about. (Laughter.)

There is $50 million to embark on a programme to carry out our stated policy to remove school tax from homes and farms over a five-year period.

In the first year 20 per cent of the school tax levied on homes and farms above the minimum amount of the homeowner grant to a minimum of $30 and a maximum of $40 will be paid from this fund.

My friends, where there is no school tax payable of less than $30.... You couldn't run a peanut stand over there. Isn't that reminiscent? (Laughter.)

Where there is no school tax payable or less than $30 school tax payable after deduction of the provincial homeowner grant, this bill proposes a resource grant of such amounts as are necessary to increase the amount payable to $30. In other words, the bill proposes to give the one-resident owner of each home in the Province a grant of between $30 and $40, the amount over $30 being dependent on the amount of school taxes payable.

There is only one thing wrong as I proceed with this bill, Mr. Speaker. The timing should be 10 minutes to six with hushed lights. There is $35 million to the Ferries Capital Expenditure Fund to provide for construction and additions to the ferry

[ Page 1308 ]

fleet, the terminals and the wharves, Mr. Speaker.

There is $10 million for a fund to be used to plan and start construction of the B.C. Medical Centre in Vancouver.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, this bill, not inspired by Bill Clancy, is the setting aside of $140 million from surplus revenues for these special purpose programmes. I now move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): While we approve of the principle of special funds and the fact that it would guarantee some continuity for the projects they set forth to fund, we are concerned about two or three items in here.

One thing I am concerned about is the $40 million that is set out for housing. We are concerned because we had the announcement from the Housing Minister (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) that he is going to bring in amendments to the Housing Act. We feel, when you are appropriating $40 million to this fund, that the amendment should be discussed at the same time as the money is being allotted.

We feel, Mr. Premier, that the amendment should be before us when you talk about bringing $40 million forth to that fund. Right now we are asked to vote $40 million to a fund but we are told that the direction of the fund is going to change. We feel that they should be discussed in conference.

We also notice that the way the money can be invested will be under the terms of the Revenue Act and, of course, we have some concern about the advice that the Minister of Finance gets when he invests these funds.

Other than the fact that we feel the amendments to the housing Act should be brought in as we discuss this, we will be discussing the sections in committee.

MR. McGEER: This particular bill is one of the end results of phony budgeting. I think British Columbia is probably the only province in Canada that consistently brings down a deliberately false budget. Mr. Speaker, it's perfectly true. Every year. Every year.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I ask the Member to withdraw that statement,"deliberately false." It's an attack on the people of this province.

MR. SPEAKER: Did the Hon. Member (Mr. McGeer) mean to attribute it to any particular person in this assembly?

MR. McGEER: No, no, Mr. Speaker. I would not attribute it to any Member of this assembly. It's just a very striking fact, Mr. Speaker, that every budget that's been brought down, in my memory, has been out by a full year's financial growth. You know, Mr. Speaker, that our revenues in this province have been growing at a rate compounded annually of 17 per cent per year, so every year the budget is out by 17 per cent.

I'm not accusing anybody personally of being false. I merely say that the budgets are consistently out by 17 per cent, and these particular bills — and this is only one of a number — are the end result of that kind of unconventional budgeting.

I don't see why we can't bring down true budgets in British Columbia. Is that a strange thing for a Member to suggest? It wouldn't be strange if we made that suggestion in the national government. I don't think it would be strange if we made that suggestion in the House of Commons in Britain. It wouldn't be strange if we made that suggestion in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario or any other province of Canada. It's only strange that one makes that suggestion in British Columbia.

Somewhere in the deep, dark past the practice grew up of presenting revenues in the budget based on last year's actual returns. As provincial revenues grew, the discrepancy began to reach enormous proportions.

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, Hon. Member, we are not discussing the budget now. I'm sure you can relate your remarks to the bill before us.

MR. McGEER: I'm doing my best, Mr. Speaker. What I am doing is discussing the principle that lies behind this bill. The principle that lies behind it is the presentation of a false budget to the Legislature which requires a bill to be presented every session of this kind, stripping off the extra money, taking it out from the legitimate realm of expenditure and placing it in a bunch of slush funds.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Slush funds!

MR. McGEER: What we're doing is we're voting....

MR. SPEAKER: Do you have a point of order? Will the Hon. Member be seated for a minute. Do you have a point of order?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I ask the Member to withdraw the words "slush funds." It has indecent connotations, subject only to Liberal interpretation. (Laughter.)

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I would say the size of these funds is liberal indeed. But how would you describe funds, Mr. Speaker...

[ Page 1309 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: People's money.

MR. McGEER: ...that are taken outside the realm of the ordinary estimates that we discuss in the House and put in the hands of groups of people who are not directly accountable to the public via debates in this assembly?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Vote against the bill.

MR. McGEER: Of course, we're going to vote against the bill...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. McGEER: ...as we voted against every one of these phony bills. And we'll continue to do it; we'll continue to stand up here in the House and demand honest budgeting in British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I know this raises eyebrows in the official opposition and the government. They think it's appropriate to enter into this financial sleight of hand. They think it's quite all right to bring in bills every year stripping off surpluses that were created by estimates based on false expectations of revenue. The procedure is totally wrong. It's a peculiar.... Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, Hon. Member. I've been pondering your words "slush funds" and the point of order taken on it. I think "slush fund" relates to a rather unpleasant activity outside of the use of government funds entirely and is not the sort of thing that should be used in respect to government funds. Will you think of another word perhaps?

MR. McGEER: I'm struggling, Mr. Speaker. As you know, I have difficulty with vocabulary describing some of these.... Well, I'll call them hush funds, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Did you say "hush funds"?

MR. McGEER: Yes, because of what you do with some, of these funds. Let me take the British Columbia Cultural Fund, for example. That's a fund created by the Legislature where money is given out to various groups around the province by Members of the government. I don't think a Member of the opposition has ever sat on one of these committees which dispenses funds created from budget surpluses. We've always had government Members, and they give out these grants to people here and there. I'm sure people who receive those grants are so grateful that they would never complain to the government. They would be hushed up.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member again is probably using inappropriate words because there is something almost sinister about the word "hush."

MR. McGEER: Well, how about "stash funds"?

MR. SPEAKER: The word "hush" has never been heard in this assembly.

MR. McGEER: How about "stash funds," Mr. Speaker? We could call them stash funds, because we're stashing away surpluses which then are used for things that would not be particularly acceptable were they placed directly in the budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. McGEER: I've already stated that I'm against it. I merely tried to communicate the reasons to Members of the cabinet benches who weren't present during the period when this dark practice developed. I'm not going to call it a sinister practice, but I do say that we don't come clean in British Columbia when we present our budgets. The light of day does not shine in. Because the light of day does not shine in, we're forced every year to debate this kind of bill.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party stands for straightforward, direct, honest budgeting in British Columbia where the expected revenues are frankly declared and where the expenditures are laid against those revenues. If there is going to be a surplus to be used for ferries or for anything else, we state that at the beginning of the year. There's no reason why the Minister of Finance of this province can't, be a perfectly direct handler of income and outgo just like Ministers of Finance are traditionally in the British system. It's a matter of regret, Mr. Speaker, that we don't have straightforward financing in this province. The Liberal Party stands for the introduction of this basic principle of the British parliamentary system.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I would like at this time to remind the Minister of Finance that unless this government does something about inflation, the 15 per cent we're facing in 1974 and the 10 per cent which we experienced in 1973 is going to defeat a great deal of the accomplishments he has in mind for some of these funds. I think inflation is probably one of our most important items. I want to continually remind him that we have to begin to take some action.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a few words on this Special Funds Appropriation Act, 1974. I certainly agree with many of the principles inherent in this bill.

[ Page 1310 ]

I certainly agree with the principle of perpetual funds, for the interest on that money goes on to provide services for this province and the young people of this province and the older people of this province, people from all areas of this province, year after year after year without incurring more taxes on the general population. I'm afraid the uncle of the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) (Mr. Gerry McGeer) would turn over in his grave if he heard him talking the way he is talking because he was certainly a proponent of this type of monetary reform in his day.

HON. MR. BARRETT: He's attacking his uncle.

MR. PHILLIPS: However, Mr. Speaker, be that as it may, I feel that the moneys in here for the agricultural industry in British Columbia are insufficient.

HON. MR. BARRETT: There will be more: $20 million.

MR. PHILLIPS: There will be more. Well, why not put it in here? Where is the money going to come from to stabilize the fruit industry in British Columbia?

As the Premier was standing up and rightfully being so proud of all the money that's being appropriated, I have to think that this is only twice the amount of money that it is costing from the budget of this province to pay the increased cost of the civil service this year. I have to relate this waste and extravagance.

When you start thinking about $5 million as a great amount of money to be put in the cultural fund, $20 million in the agricultural fund, it seems like a lot of money. But when you relate that amount of money to the increased cost from 1973 to 1974 of close to $70 million to build up the government's bureaucracy, some of it doesn't seem so great. Everything is relative, Mr. Speaker. If that $70 million were added into this appropriation bill, that would make it $210 million. Think of the increased benefits to all of the people without recurring taxes. But the problem is that the $70 million increase in cost of the civil service and the bureaucracy is going to continue year after year after year and is going to grow and grow like Topsy. The benefits of using the interest from this Special Funds Appropriation Act, 1974 are going to be far more than offset by the increased cost of our civil service. I think if we are going to really do what this Act is intended to, we must use a great deal of discretion in all of government spending, Mr. Speaker.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I listened to the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) in this debate, I thought he was belying the words with which he began his remarks. He said he was in favour of these funds because they should be perpetual and the interest should be returned to the fund to go on and on and on. As he kept talking it became obvious that he didn't think the funds were big enough. He hadn't taken the trouble to read the bill to realize that the interest doesn't go back to the funds; it goes to consolidated revenue. He's all mixed up.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's the sunshine. You're not getting the sunshine.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: There's so much sunshine in the bill, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Member for South Peace River thinks he's back in the Peace River area.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's right.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: He's so blinded by the beauty of all that surrounds that he had not seen what's going on in the bill.

But he raised two very specific points which indicate clearly the wisdom of the position taken by the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) with regard to farm income assurance. The amount provided in this bill, Mr. Speaker, won't even pay the farm income assurance costs for one commodity group, the milk producers. There's not enough here to pay that. That's just for starters.

Another fund is established to build ferries. The amount in the fund won't even pay the cost of the ferries as announced in a recent contest.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's 60 per cent too low.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Six per cent too low.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, you are wrong.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: So you see, Mr. Speaker, the truth of what these funds are designed to do, as the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) has said, is to enable the government to slip the surplus out without budgeting for it properly.

As has been said in past years — I've said it and I'll keep on saying it as long as we continue to budget in this particular way — if the expenditure of moneys of this kind is essential for the proper administration of the affairs of the Province of British Columbia, then place these moneys in the hands of the Ministers responsible as part of their estimates and allow them to be accountable on the floor of this House and in Public Accounts in respect to those expenditures.

Why do we have to have a $35 million capital fund for ferry expenditures? If you look at the estimates

[ Page 1311 ]

for the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) you'll already find a massive fund for capital expenditure in connection with ferry terminals, docks, et cetera. Increase that fund by $35 million; don't place it in legislation of this kind.

The same applies to matters such as the cultural fund. Give it to a Minister. Give it to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford); give it to the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) in his estimates. Then we will deal with the expenditures of those funds in the normal way. Please don't try to conceal from the people of the Province of British Columbia the precise nature and amount of your revenues and the way in which their expenditures should be budgeted.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: As indicated by the financial critic of the Liberal Party, we will be voting against this bill. We find the principle of incorporating $140 million worth of expenditure in this way is simply the wrong way of going about it.

I'd like to give an example to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett). He has clearly forgotten what happened last year with the Alcohol and Drug Commission. I'm sure the Deputy Premier (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) has not forgotten because I tried to find out what would happen, where the money was being spent and how it was being spent. I checked with the Attorney-General; I checked with the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi). I finally discovered that the responsibility for that fund wound up under the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly). I think she remembers too. It was a surprise to both of us, as I recollect the debates of last year, because it seemed a very unusual type of expenditure to be placed under her general control. Indeed, I don't think she was, at that stage, fully aware of the $2 million worth of programmes and expenditures of that group at that time.

It never really came in under estimates. Therefore there was no proper way of examining on a year-by-year basis as to how this $2 million, which is a substantial chunk of money, was being spent.

We did get some very unsatisfactory debate, and I think even the Minister herself would remember how difficult it was for her at that time to be aware of this particular fund and the particular sum of money — I believe it was $2 million — which she had. Pretty clearly she was trying hard to pass responsibility for it over to the Minister of Human Resources.

There is a pretty good example of what is wrong with funds: there isn't the direct responsibility there should be. If you don't have the direct responsibility, if you don't come up for annual review in estimates, pretty clearly you don't have the proper accounting that should take place.

Last year the Minister of Finance in his budget was very tentative about these funds; he said he was going to take another look at them. He said, yes, he would increase some of them but he wanted to re-examine the whole question of funds. Those, I think, were the words he used at that time. In this very budget he stated that the funds were going to be re-examined with a view to considering terminating them and putting this into regular budgeting. Well, obviously he has considered them over the last year and he has decided, far from abandoning the fund method, to increase the funding substantially. In this bill he increases it by some $140 million.

The $35 million to establish this new fund in the provincial Treasury called the Ferry Capital Expenditures Fund is apparently going to be thoroughly inadequate. The Minister of Finance questioned when it was suggested it would be 60 per cent too low; perhaps it was 50 per cent, perhaps it only needed half as much again to bring it up to the point where the ferries in question can be constructed. But it's extremely unlikely that we're going to get those ferries with the propulsion units, with the interior decorating, with the life-saving equipment as it might be that eventually gets on it, under $55 million — $50 to $55 million, perhaps $60 million; it's in that range there. Yet this fund only sets up $35 million.

I really don't see why that section was included unless, of course, there are plans to construct the ferries elsewhere or there's some better way of getting a cheaper price we're not yet aware of. But the bids that came in when the tender went out, the bids from British Columbia manufacturers and shipyards indicated we're going to have much more in the way of expenditures than $35 million. I wonder whether the Minister in closing the debate would indicate how much more.

I would add, Mr. Speaker, that in this particular fund, the interest of the Ferry Capital Expenditures Fund goes to consolidated revenue. Therefore, I'm sure my hon. friend from North Peace River (Mr. Smith) will be happy to vote against this bill because it doesn't do what he suggested it might do. It's the type of fund where the interest does not go for continuing purposes but back into general revenue.

Mr. Speaker, on page 2368 of Hansard of last year, under the Special Funds Appropriation Act, 1973, the first words of the Minister of Finance were as follows:

Mr. Speaker, as mentioned during the budget address, this government has not had time since taking office in September to properly assess the desirability of maintaining all these funds in their present forms.

He then goes on to talk about the various bills. But he made perfectly clear there, as he made clear during the budget debate, that these funds were under re-examination. It strikes me as very curious and it strikes our party as very disappointing that, despite

[ Page 1312 ]

the re-examination of the past year, apparently there is to be no change in this regard and we are to carry on as before.

Mr. Speaker, the third crossing fund is one that I think is important to comment upon at this time. There we had $27 million voted for a fund and what happened? The government simply changed the name of the fund and put it to another preference. So you can see how funds of this nature can be treated in a very fast and loose fashion by a government. By re-designation of title, they can change the fund's purpose in its entirety.

I personally believe that that type of financial management is not what we should be getting in British Columbia at this time. What we should like instead is proper budgeting; we would like the accounts of the various Ministers to be examined correctly during the period of the estimates. In this way we think the province would be generally much better off because we would have a much clearer idea of what our financial situation was.

We feel because of this there is no way we can support bills of this nature.

MR. SMITH: In dealing with this particular bill it becomes apparent to me that really what we have before us is a bill that deals with two different situations as far as the responsibility of government is concerned.

I agree wholeheartedly with the funds that have previously been set up to a great extent for the purposes of helping in the field of physical fitness and amateur sports, and the cultural fund. I think that type of a fund lends itself to a programme which can be financed from the interest earnings of the capital applied. The programme can therefore be enlarged or curtailed according to the amount of money available from the interest earnings of the fund each and every year.

When we get into the idea of financing a farm income assurance plan, for instance, or helping to purchase capital equipment for the ferry operation of the province, we deal with a completely different concept in my opinion. That money should not be set up as an appropriation out of surplus but should be included each year as part of the annual budget of the province.

It seems to me we would have to know, for instance, what programme the Minister of Agriculture wished to put forward at any given time before we would really know what amount of money he would require for the financing of a farm income assurance plan.

The concept of setting up a lump sum in a bill such as this is perhaps not well founded, when you take into consideration that one programme alone might involve the company and the government in expenditures of far more than $10 million in any fiscal year.

So it should be good fiscal management, therefore, to include that amount of money whatever the programme was, and whatever would be required to finance that programme in the current budget for the current operating year. I think the same could be said about the appropriation of capital funds for the expansion of our ferry services. Then we could deal with it as it became evident that funds in any particular year would be required.

Other than that particular differentiation between those funds that can be financed either wholly by capital grants — or can be financed through the use of interest on a fund — and those programmes which must, of necessity, require an expenditure of capital not necessarily known immediately to the Legislature....

It throws up two different concepts, in my opinion. While we support the bill, we would hope that the Minister of Finance will take that into consideration in future years and try to separate those moneys which should be approved and appropriated under the budget for the current year and those funds which should be operated separate and independent from the budget.

MR. GARDOM: Well, it is very difficult to comprehend, Mr. Speaker, the position of the official opposition — notwithstanding their historic interest in the funding process — when they are so concerned about this government's accountability, about full disclosure, so concerned about government mis-spending and leaking of information, that they are able to support this kind of carte blanche emasculation of the legislative process.

To me, Mr. Speaker, this Bill 7 is a bill of admission; it is corroborative of the government's budgetary deficiencies. We have flim on the one hand consisting of the budgetary shortcomings and flam on the other side with the setting up of this political kind of Band-aid that we see under Bill 7.

I suppose it is the old divide-and-conquer principle that the Premier is following here: give a fund a good motherhoody kind of a name and try to bolster the ineffective performance of some cabinet Minister by establishing it beyond his control, beyond legislative vote, beyond legislative inquiry, beyond the procedures of proper accountability. As I said, Mr. Speaker, Bill 7 is demonstrative evidence of the fact that we are abdicating the function and the powers of this assembly.

We don't find any sunshine here at all. There is no capacity for full disclosure or any, for that matter; and still, Mr. Speaker, we find the government bringing in a measure such as this, authorizing the expenditure of up to $140 million without any means of effectively checking the programmes, the expenditures, the use of the funds.

[ Page 1313 ]

And still we don't have an independent watchdog in the Province of British Columbia to look into these kinds of things, Mr. Speaker — something that has always warmed your heart, being the fair man that you are – an auditor-general. One would tend to think if the government is as rash as they are to bring in a measure such as this, that they would only have the good conscience at the same time to introduce into the Province of British Columbia the office of an independent auditor-general.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I'll be very brief. I just want to make it clear that it's unanimous and 100 per cent in this party that we are against this particular method of flim-flam budgeting. It is very apparent that the Minister of Finance took his lessons from the old master in putting forward this kind of legislation. It is a removal from proper control. It should be under the proper accountable Minister. It is adding to the difficulty that the citizens of British Columbia have in interpreting their public accounts and the way the money is spent, and it is a smokescreen to buy popularity...

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. GIBSON: ...in particular popular ways by setting up funds to cover them.

Mr. Speaker, I'm against it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak in this particular debate, but I am,compelled to draw a few parallels and make a few statements.

I wonder about the future of that little Liberal group, who, except for one or two, are the judges. The rest are in deep trouble.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, their financial critic gets up and...can you imagine any other jurisdiction in the world where this happens? — the financial critic of the Liberal Party gets up and attacks the socialist government because we've got a surplus.

Now how do you figure that one out? Does that really mean that they had hoped that we would be in a deficit position so that it would be more understandable to the Liberals? The Liberals have been in deficit positions for generations.

How do you expect the Liberal economic theorist to understand a government that actually has a surplus? It is incomprehensible to them because they believe correct financial dealings means you have got to go in the hole more every single year like they do in Ottawa. They go out of their way to go in a hole in Ottawa.

When we're cautious, and we find that because our caution has given us more money, they attack us. And what are they attacking, Mr. Speaker? — $40 million for first and second mortgages. They are going to come in here in the estimates of the Minister of Housing and say,"You're not doing enough." They are attacking $40 million. They are going to have to vote against this $40 million.

I am sure someone is going to get up and call division, and it is going to be on the record, and we're going to have to go around and tell the people of this province that the Liberals voted against $40 million for housing.

What are we going to do? It is bound to get out, Mr. Speaker. And what's going to happen? Then we're going to have $10 million to encourage the building of recreation facilities...

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You can't keep a secret around here.

HON. MR. BARRETT: ...for religious groups and ethnic groups and cultural activities. That's going to get out too, Mr. Speaker.

There'll be $5 million more for the cultural fund, $20 million for farm programmes, $15 million...$35 million for ferries! I don't want to see one Liberal MLA on a ferry, Mr. Speaker, especially the new one. Mind you, the one wonderful thing about this bill is that if we had brought this up at 3 o'clock on Friday there would have been no opposition to it at all.

They're not on the ferry; they're on the airplane. So, Mr. Speaker, they should have waited until Friday before they said a single word.

Here we are: $10 million for the fund to start the Medical Centre. Mr. doctor Member — the medical centre. You are going to have to go in there....

Mr. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), please don't do it. Don't tell the medical colleagues that he voted against the $10 million for the Medical Centre. Somebody else will, but don't you tell him. (Laughter.)

What about the review of these funds? Every single Minister...you can get up during estimates and ask him about the programmes.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are a very confused group. They remind me of the Japanese kamikazes. The only thing is that they have no target except themselves. The internal kamikazes! They are shooting each other down and they go down in flames....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, Mr. Member, you don't have to worry. You're okay. How many senator spots have we got left in B.C. — three? Three senator spots. One judge, three senators. (Laughter.) Well, I guess the other one can go back to the rowing team, because he ain't going anywhere. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, someone suggested that this kind of

[ Page 1314 ]

legislation had something to do with politics. I find that an agreeable suggestion. It certainly has a great deal to do with politics. It is a demonstration of how able this government has been in running this province. And what's wrong with that?

When we were in opposition they used to say we couldn't run a peanut stand. I remember that we'd get insulted every time — the 10 to 6 speech. "You couldn't run a peanut stand."

And the bathtub rubber duck that used to sit down there, sometimes known as the Minister of Trade and Industry (Mr. Skillings) who wanted to go on unemployment insurance for the five years he was a cabinet Minister.

That bathtub rubber duck used to come in and say,"You can't run a peanut stand." (Laughter.) I remember that. He'd sit back there and the Liberals self-righteously would go out and into their kamikaze dive and vote against it.

Now I'm going to have to go to Point Grey. (Laughter.)

MR. GARDOM: That'll be a one-way trip. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: And I'm going to have to tell them at Point Grey, West Point Grey. Well, I'm going to have to go out and tell them what these fellows.... And West Vancouver. I've got relatives in West Vancouver.

MR. GIBSON: You'll be a long time getting across the bridge.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm going to have to go over and tell the 1,400 relatives I've got in one poll (Laughter) what the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) said.

They're against removing $40 off the school taxes for every one of their constituents, every single one of them. So every Liberal in the whole part of the lower mainland should refuse to take this $40, because they should follow their party policy. If it isn't debated right, don't deduct it from your taxes. I have yet to see one person write in and say,"Don't give the 40 bucks." Nobody's going to do that.

Liberal Members, you really are suicidal. I don't understand you. You get up and you criticize us for having a surplus; you criticize us for spending it on the people. You hoped that we'd have a deficit.

Now, these fellows over here, Mr. Speaker, they've got to vote for it. They're not saying very much because they instituted this approach to the use of surplus funds which we voted for when we were in opposition because we knew they had learned a basic lesson of socialist economy: return the money to the people. (Laughter.) That's right. They realize us socialists know what we're talking about, and we're returning the money to the people in a better way than they could. They were hard-hearted Hannah's when it came to sending the money back. We're not that way; we know what socialism is all about. Share the wealth. And that's exactly what we're doing, and we'll have to tell the voters that that's exactly what we're doing.

Mr. Speaker, I don't like being political in this Legislature (Laughter) especially with a group that's alleged to be non-partisan. They're non-partisan, the Liberals; didn't you know that? They don't play politics.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're like chickens. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: There are no secret meetings. They don't go to secret meetings, Mr. Speaker.

These are special funds for the ordinary people of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, and I think it deserves the support of all the people in this House because it's the people of British Columbia that created this wealth. So, Mr. Speaker, I now move the question.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 42

NAYS — 5

Bill 7, Special Funds Appropriation Act, 1974, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting f after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading; of Bill 9, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 1315 ]

MUNICIPALITIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, this government is aware of the increasing financial demands on municipalities. To assist them in meeting these demands and to reduce the amount to be borne by the property-owners, this bill proposes an increase in the per capita grant to $34 from $32.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Where are the pom-pom girls?

MR. CHABOT: Would you like to adjourn debate on that one?

HON. MR. BARRETT: In the 1974 budget, this bill was part of a plan to financially assist municipalities. In addition to this direct grant increase at the cost to the province of $3,700,000 that we're giving to the municipalities...

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: ...the province is also assuming the costs of court administration from the municipalities and lowering the contribution of social assistance from 15 down to 10 per cent.

Vancouver has announced a surplus; they've got surplus in their budgeting, a $2.5 million surplus in their budgeting. What other large municipality or city in the whole of Canada allows themselves to have a surplus because of the wonderful magnificence of this new government here in Victoria, Mr. Speaker?

Does Montreal have a surplus? No, they've got Drapeau. Does Toronto have a surplus? No, they got snow. Does Vancouver have a surplus? Yes, they've got the NDP. That's what it is, Mr. Speaker, a $2.5 million surplus for the people of Vancouver under this government, and we're still giving them more. Why? Because we love them, and also the back benches fight hard for them.

Mr. Speaker, not to take up too much of your time, we know that everybody in the House will vote for this bill except the Liberals. So let's get on with it. And if Gerry McGeer were alive today, and in the memory of Dr. Telford, I want to say that this is another socialist move on behalf of the little people; and we expect criticism from the vested interests of big business sitting right over there.

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't fight about it. Remember the United Party.

MR. BENNETT: I was so enamoured, Mr. Speaker, by watching the green suit perform, that I got carried away.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Us Irishmen stick together.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, in dealing with Bill 9, we feel that the whole topic of municipal financing must be reappraised in this province. The problems that are facing the municipalities now clearly won't be met by raising the per capita grant by $2.

Municipalities have problems, problems of housing and problems of meeting pollution control standards, and water systems. And yet they're not participating in the growth budgets of this province, the growth revenue. Instead they get $2 a year increase in the per capita grant. Even if we were to meet the inflation factor of 10 per cent from last year, Mr. Speaker, that per capital grant should have been $3, if we were going to accept forever that in these days of inflation and increasing costs and increasing responsibilities for the municipalities that the per capita grant is the answer.

But I don't feel that the continuing answer is the per capita grant. I think we've got to look at new methods of municipal financing, new methods that will be more in keeping with their additional responsibility and more in keeping with the growth revenues that this province is experiencing.

Now we have over 60 villages in British Columbia and some of them range in population from 500 to 6,000. But say most of them average out around the 2,000 mark. It doesn't take much arithmetic to figure out that if, say, there are 2,000 of them, that at $2 per head, $4,000, will barely meet the salary cost of the increase of the public works department. And yet this $2 per capita grant is supposed to help the municipalities meet the cost of inflation.

Furthermore, very few of these small villages and these small unorganized areas and organized areas have anything like a solid commercial and industrial tax base. They can't raise taxation through the normal field of the property tax, Mr. Speaker.

Pollution control standards in recent years have fallen most severely on these 60-odd village municipalities. And yet the urgency of solving the problem remains because they can't raise the capital costs, or the costs from their normal taxation means, and the per capita grant isn't helping them solve their problem.

So the problem we have is exceeding responsibility to meet urgent problems from municipalities and very little means of them raising the money through the sources that they have available to them. They can't really count on handouts from government, after they have set their budgets for the year, to solve those problems.

The solution we need is a totally new approach to municipal and provincial budgeting and financing.

[ Page 1316 ]

Provincial governments and all forms of local governments should be brought together in the fall of every year, Mr. Speaker, in a series of budget conferences at which the total projected costs of the province as a whole, and of municipalities and local governments as a whole are projected and laid on the table and taken as a whole. The municipalities in the province would put priorities on the directions in which they want the total financial picture of the province and the municipalities to take.

The budget and the funds will be allocated at these meetings to meet the priorities of the province, realizing that municipalities are suffering the growing pains in the province and yet are not reaping the benefits of the extra revenues that are coming to the provincial coffers these days — benefits that are coming as a result of inflation in world markets. Yet they are suffering the brunt of the costs of inflation in these municipalities. I think we've got to discuss, and we've got to look at new ways of financing municipalities. The per capita grant is not the continuing answer.

We see 10 per cent inflation; maybe it will be 15 per cent inflation, and we know that their budgets will be falling behind year after year after year. They will not be able to take the direction they need and show the direction in solving those local service problems.

Now decisions, as I've said, made at these budgetary conferences with the province should solve and lay out programmes for pollution control expansion so that the communities can absorb housing. Right now, Mr. Speaker, we have a housing problem in B.C. and yet the communities can't afford to take them; they can't afford the cost of providing services to absorb housing which we need so much. They are part of the detrimental factor of not encouraging housing in the municipalities, because they don't have the funding or the financial base to be able to support the facilities to provide lots, serviced lots, for the required housing in the province.

What I say again is that although $2 is nice to have for a municipality this year, it certainly is just a pittance; it's a picayune sum in regard to just meeting the inflation requirements that they suffered last year. These municipalities have a problem.

If we can get together with this co-operative budgeting and advance budgeting, we can end the competitive system by which these municipalities in the province themselves now compete for revenues.

I can't hear, Mr. Speaker; the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) is making so much noise.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. There are two Members out of their seats and they're making quite a noise. You are supposed to go back to your seats to make a noise, in which case you'd be out of order anyway.

MR. CHABOT: Name them; name them.

MR. SPEAKER: I can't think of their names right now. (Laughter.) But would they get back to their seats!

MR. BENNETT: In summing up, Mr. Speaker, the whole picture of municipal and provincial budgeting should be under review. And we should be taking a definitive look at what problems we're going to have to face in the future, and budgeting that will help the municipalities who have the increased burden for meeting the need for services in this province, to have them participate in growth budgets in the future, and a whole new way of budgeting in this province. As for the per capita grant, while it's very useful this year, we should be taking a serious look at the whole picture of municipal and provincial financing next year.

MR. McGEER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, this bill labels the NDP as the "two-buck boys." It's an insult to the cities and municipalities of British Columbia: a 6.5 per cent raise for the cities and municipalities, when the provincial government has had a 25 per cent raise from the public. I'm talking about revenues.

They've had well over 100 per cent raises for themselves. The first thing the cabinet Ministers did was to raise their salaries to the highest in Canada for elected politicians. No hesitation in looking after themselves. Then they did very well, Mr. Speaker, in taxing the public — natural resource industries and the little man. Make no mistake about it; half the revenues of the province are coming from the lunch bucket contributions.

Now the Premier had the face to stand up when he was introducing this bill and say that it was going to reduce property taxes in the cities and municipalities. Mr. Speaker, inflation, the increase in salaries, this year is averaging around 10 per cent. If the cities and municipalities....

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Don't you talk about high salaries, Mr. Premier. You're the highest paid politician in Canada and you don't earn your money. Make no mistake about it!

HON. MR. BARRETT: He spent $147,000 on his house. He spent $6,000 to buy a plane out here. Don't give me that stuff — $147,000 on his house last year!

MR. McGEER: Mr. Premier, your responsibility, through you, Mr. Speaker, is to look after the cities and municipalities in the province in a completely fair

[ Page 1317 ]

and decent manner. It's a responsibility of your cabinet, and it was at the time your government took office. You had lots to say about the treatment of cities and municipalities when you were in opposition. But never, never did the provincial government insult the cities and municipalities to the extent that this bill does — $3.7 million to them out of a total increase this past year of about $400 million.

That isn't fair treatment. I think the Leader of the Opposition was quite correct in saying....

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: I agree; that added a little to it, but what they should have been getting was at least a 25 per cent increase because that was the increase in revenues to the province. The 25 per cent increase would have been an $8 per capita raise. That might have done something about property taxes; that might have done something about getting on with transit and the problems of congestion that plagued all of our cities and municipalities in British Columbia.

I'm not sure, Mr. Speaker, whether some of the smaller cities and municipalities, particularly the northern ones in British Columbia, shouldn't get more than the $2 per capita increase. I had a letter from the Mayor of Prince George (Mr. Moffat) who pointed out the increased costs of snow removal, general maintenance and construction in northern cities that are hit with much harder winters than we have here in Victoria and that are experienced in the lower mainland. They've got to put their services further underground. The Member for Quesnel (Mr. Fraser) well knows the added costs that go to the northern and Interior cities of British Columbia that have to face the harsh climate of winter.

MRS. JORDAN: The Liberals haven't done anything about it.

MR. McGEER: We're doing something right now, Madam Member; we're speaking up for those northern cities and municipalities. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) didn't do it, but we're going to. We think the cities and municipalities in northern British Columbia ought to have a break.

MRS. JORDAN: Hollow words, hollow words.

MR. McGEER: We think the former Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) didn't give them enough of a break.

The increase given in this particular bill is totally unsatisfactory. It's an indication of why the NDP will be a one-term government and why so many of these backbenchers, particularly the ones who come from the larger cities of British Columbia that are being treated even worse by this government than by the former government, will be among those who will not return to this assembly at the next general election. I refer to the Members for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Hon. Ms. Young and Mr. Cummings).... There are two of them over there conversing.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker! I think the Second Member (Mr. Cummings) is consuming the First Member (Hon. Ms. Young). Both of them should be up speaking on behalf of the City of Vancouver and the terrible treatment this NDP government is giving the City of Vancouver. The Members for Vancouver East (Hon. Mr. Macdonald and Hon. R.A. Williams) should be up complaining about the treatment the Minister of Finance is giving the City of Vancouver, The Members for Vancouver-Burrard (Hon. Mr. Levi and Ms. Brown) should be standing up complaining about the treatment the City of Vancouver is getting.

Mr. Speaker, it's a bad budget for the cities and municipalities....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. McGEER: A budget prepared by a bad Minister of Finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CURTIS: I too enjoyed the Premier and Minister of Finance's enthusiasm earlier this afternoon when he was speaking about the per capita grant. I would like to, if it's possible in just a few moments, point out some of the shortcomings of this $2 which is being given to the cities and municipalities in British Columbia.

Of course, we have to support it. Half a loaf is better than none. "One slice," the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) suggests, and it may be rather stale.

Again, as I indicated in the budget debate, I would like to refer all Members of the government party to the Plunkett report, which was a study into municipal finance commissioned by the UBCM (Union of British Columbia Municipalities) a few years ago, that should be recommended reading. It should be required reading for Members of the NDP who sit here and feel that somehow the province is being very kind to municipalities.

Also, I think most Members have seen this document which is dated September, 1973: "Report on Municipal Taxation and Financial Matters," a committee report endorsed by the convention of UBCM in Prince George last fall. On page 14 and over onto page 15 this is what it has to say about per capita grants.

[ Page 1318 ]

"If, for example, the per capita to B.C. municipalities have reflected gains in provincial personal income tax revenues since 1969, when the grant was established at a flat rate of $25 per capita and had remained at 31 per cent of personal income tax per capita as it was in that year, the per capita grant would be $41 for 1973 and $52 for 1974."

For 1974 it would be $54 on the basis of the document that was prepared through the first part of 1973 and, as I said, endorsed by the municipalities convention last September. They, at that time, did not know of the tremendously significant growth in provincial revenues which would become apparent to all of us as we got into the budget just a few weeks ago.

I agree with the earlier remarks that the Leader of the Official Opposition made: the per capita grant is no longer a useful means of transfer of revenues from one level of government to another. It has outlived its usefulness. The recommendation of the UBCM urged

"the provincial government to recognize the impact that economic growth imposes on local government's ability to provide services to meet citizens' demands and to introduce an automatic annual percentage escalator factor to the unconditional per capita grant which will be tied to income tax revenue received by the province.”

Now, how did this report get started? Well, that's interesting. The letter of transmittal to the UBCM members and to all MLAs and to all British Columbia MPs pointed out that in December of 1972 the Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs for British Columbia (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) invited the UBCM to prepare a report for him on any aspects of municipal taxation and financial matters. That's how it started and this is recommendation No. 1. This is the most important single statement made, I think, with the possible exception of assessments; the most important statement made in this very thoughtful and detailed report.

So perhaps the whole question of provincial-municipal sharing could be examined. Surely there is talent in the government's backbench, and in the Treasury benches of individuals who have served on municipal councils. As I tried to say earlier, surely they have not forgotten the problems that face municipal councils when they come down to the budget crunch each spring. The situation has not changed that significantly since this party came to power.

Do away with the per capita grant as soon as possible and get on to a sensible and continuing basis of logical revenue transfer from the provincial level to local government.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. CHABOT: He wasn't even standing up.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, he stood and then started to falter....

AN HON. MEMBER: Then fell down.

MR. SPEAKER: I've already watched him twice and hoped that he was standing.

MR. CHABOT: A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: No, no. (Laughter.) I may say that you can always put a motion as to whom should be heard first.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to add a few remarks on this Bill 9, Municipal Aid Amendment Act. I think the municipalities have never had a fair shake in this province, and there's no change, with the new Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, oh!

MR. FRASER: If the prior Minister of Finance was a Scrooge, this fellow has got to be super Scrooge...

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, oh!

MR. FRASER: ...as far as the municipalities are concerned. This per capita increase is 6.5 per cent. We all agree, I think, that the minimum rate of inflation is 10 per cent so they certainly are the losers on this.

I acknowledge the fact that possibly the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) can't get the ear of the Minister of Finance, but I acknowledge the fact that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) can. The cost has been reduced from 15 to 10 per cent. I'm sure the municipalities appreciate, and I know they do. I repeat on that that I hope they are not given added responsibilities by any other government department to take up the slack they have been relieved of at 5 per cent.

On the matter of justice, they're being relieved of the cost of administration of justice. I think that will be of some help. But I understand that for the municipality of Burnaby it's going to cost them more. I wonder what's going to happen with two cabinet Ministers representing the municipality of Burnaby (Hon. Mrs. Dailly and Hon. Mr. Lorimer) and how they'll report to their constituents on hat.

I think it's a step in the right direction if the Minister of Finance will also listen to the Attorney-General and maybe take all the police costs off the municipalities and absorb them as they should as a provincial government.

[ Page 1319 ]

There was a comment in the introduction of this bill, Mr. Speaker, by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) that the City of Vancouver has a surplus. I noted that the other day myself and I'm glad to see it. But what the Minister of Finance didn't say was quite significant. After his budget was introduced I noticed that the Vancouver city council said that even with the increases that they had out of the provincial budget, the taxes to the taxpayer would advance an average of 10 per cent this year. So I don't think we should get any confusion here. The taxes all over this province in municipalities are going to advance quite sharply this year, and this is most unfortunate.

Another observation I'd like to make, Mr. Speaker, with regard to municipalities is that I've never known why the municipalities of this province have their fiscal year coinciding with the calendar year and the two other levels of government have their fiscal year ending March 31 each year. I think that at least discussion should take place with the municipalities on changing this over so they have uniform fiscal years. I think it would cut down a lot of complications regarding budgeting and so on. I don't believe it would have a detrimental effect.

I go along with the brief from the UBCM that the Member for Saanich (Mr. Curtis) remarked on. I think we have to look at tying municipalities into these revenues that have a great growth rate under conditions of inflation. This would be a distinct help to them and I don't think too much harm to the provincial treasury.

The First Member for Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) referred to the northern municipalities and I think this is another valid point that should be looked into. They have higher costs, and if we're going to stay with a per capita grant, maybe the ones in the central and northern part of the province should be entitled to a higher per capita grant or some other form of assistance to offset the increased costs they have in costs such as snow removal. Down here in the banana belt, you dig a water and sewer ditch at four or five feet. In the central and northern Interior, they have to dig them 8 to 10 feet at additional cost, and still they're on the same per capita level. There seems to be an inequity there.

All in all, I'm very disappointed, Mr. Speaker, that there is only a 6.5 per cent increase here. It should be at least 16.5 per cent.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I couldn't let this bill go by without expressing my disgust at the government's treatment of the municipalities of British Columbia. It's not like the treatment of the educational structure, be it a school system or the university structure, where they've given them the opportunity to come with their tin cup and ask for more dollars. That opportunity does not exist for the municipalities of British Columbia. They're frozen in, Mr. Speaker, with a $2-per-capita increase. Shocking! There's a 28 per cent increase in the budget — their budget — and all they can give the municipalities.... My friend from Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) says 6.5, but he's being generous when he says that, because in actual fact, Mr. Speaker, it's 6.2 per cent. Pretty poor treatment!

The Premier talked, when he introduced the bill, of the great help he's going to give the municipalities. He talked about the relief that they're going to give on the cost of welfare to the municipalities. Certainly the municipalities appreciate that temporary form of relief, temporary as it is, reducing from 15 to 10 per cent their costs.

One only has to look at the budget of the Department of Human Resources to see how temporary it's going to be. We see that their budget is being increased by 28 per cent, Mr. Speaker — $55 million more. How long will this relief, which the Premier's so proud in saying he's giving the municipalities, be a relief to the municipalities with the kind of spending we see the Minister of Human Resources advocating and budgeting in the estimates this year? It won't be long before the assistance they're telling the people is going to aid the municipalities' dissipates itself in the fog of night. That's where it's going.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Vote against it.

MR. CHABOT: We see here in this legislation this penny-ante treatment of the municipalities by that government over there.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you voting against it or for it?

MR. CHABOT: This government believes in playing with blue chips, and all it'll give the municipalities are the crumbs off the table. That's all the municipalities will get from that government. I'm sure you've been told on numerous occasions that this isn't good enough.

You fail to realize and understand that a municipality is a creature of the provincial government. It's a child of the provincial government, if you prefer. This is the kind of treatment which that government's giving to its child. Even the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) wouldn't give that kind of treatment to people on welfare which the Minister of Finance is advocating be given to the municipalities.

I'm surprised this evening that we see such silence in the backbench. We've seen the Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) say: "We'll ask the government to give a little more money, a little more

[ Page 1320 ]

per capita grant." She hasn't stood on her feet and fought for the people of her riding. In fact, none of them have. None of them have!

I suppose they'll go back to their riding, and say: "Oh, we advocated more money for the municipalities, but we weren't successful." Well, we'll tell those people of those ridings, be they in Vancouver or be they in the north, that those people were silent when it came time to speak out, when it came time to convince the government that there was a need to help the municipalities in their plight — a plight created by that government over there through its lack of consideration for the municipalities.

It wasn't too long ago that the Premier, just on the previous bill, said: "Socialist economics is returning the money back to the people." Here is an excellent opportunity under Bill 9 to show that you have faith in what you say. Here's an excellent opportunity. I urge you, Big Daddy, to show that you have faith in the municipalities of British Columbia.

If you're going to treat them this way, the least you can do, Mr. Speaker, is give them a tin cup, like you gave a tin cup to the universities and the public school structure in the province. Open the door as you did to the public school structure.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You've got a tin cup philosophy.

MR. CHABOT: You've suggested that they can come and ask for more. You come up with a good idea and we'll help you out. But I want to say they haven't even given that kind of consideration to the municipalities. It's crumbs on the table for the municipalities; that's the policy of that government.

Mr. Speaker, I think the government should withdraw the bill, amend it and show some faith in the municipalities of British Columbia.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) was quite right when he mentioned that the municipalities are children of the provincial government. Mr. Minister of Finance, you're guilty of child neglect. I think the Hon. Attorney-General should have a unified family court for the municipalities in the province. As a social worker, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance would never be able to go before a family court and justify the treatment that he has accorded to the municipalities of the Province of British Columbia under this Municipalities Aid Amendment Act, 1974.

I'm speechless. I'm speechless when the Premier talks about the love approach. So that's where it's going to be for all the small municipalities, all the small communities in the province.

MR. CHABOT: Love, no bread.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That's right. No money. The Premier will go around and love you to death. That's exactly what he's doing — smothered with kindness.

Well, that's not going to assist the municipalities, particularly in the small centres in this province, who face growing populations, expensive projects in order to provide the services they must provide for the people who move to those communities, and whose populations are insufficient to receive any benefits from this $2 increase the government is offering at this particular time.

I thought it was significant when the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) talked about the situation in the City of Vancouver. The City of Vancouver, with the largest population of any of the municipalities entitled to aid under this particular legislation, ended up their last fiscal year with a $2.5 million surplus. Now, I would wonder how the City of Vancouver can justify using that $2.5 million, or a significant portion thereof, in respect of unbudgeted capital projects, at the same time increasing the taxes that they will have to levy upon the property owner this year.

It seems to me, Mr. Minister of Finance, that in applying this per capita grant again this year you might recognize the significance of the situation which is created by the City of Vancouver. They, and they alone, can benefit on a per capita basis. Per capita is a simple method of spreading money around, yet it does not take into account the vastly differing expenditure problems confronting the various communities throughout this province.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) mentioned housing as being a problem — "problem" is scarcely the word. Yet we find, when considering the housing problem in the Province of British Columbia, the claim made that municipalities, by their zoning and other bylaws, are deterring the construction of housing, because that's not the kind of development that produces the kind of revenues that they need in order to perform their services.

Mr. Speaker, to give a $2 per capita assistance to those municipalities is not going to encourage them to change their attitude. At a time when we hear the Premier, as we did this afternoon, brag about the performance of his government with respect to the economy of British Columbia, ever-increasing revenues and ever-increasing surpluses, to treat the municipalities and their financial problems in this way is absolutely unforgivable of a government and of a Minister of Finance who claims that he is returning to the people of British Columbia their just share of the revenues of this province.

The government that means most to the individual is the government which is closest to that individual, and that happens to be the municipality. Fire protection, police protection, the sidewalks, the ditches, the health services — all those things that

[ Page 1321 ]

mean most to the individuals in our communities are provided by the municipalities. They are the ones who should get the aid — increasing aid and increasing shares in the revenues of the province.

Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate to the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Strachan files answers to questions 34, 39, 47, 58, 73, 78, 94, 131, 139, 158, 163 and 164.

Hon. Mr. Barrett files answers to questions 199, 51, 110, 36, 135, 144, 145, 146, 147, 149, 151, 157, 162, 50, 117, 8, 89, 86, 52, 75, 93, 148, 31, 152 and 150.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:03 p.m.