[ Page 1217 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Transportation costs of rural patients. Mr. Cocke — 1218

Grants to school districts. Mr. Gibson — 1218

Vancouver General Hospital strike. Mr. Wallace — 1218

Victoria recycling depot funding. Hon. Mr. Nielsen answers — 1218

Lease to Halfmoon Bay Developments. Hon. Mr. Nielsen answers — 1219

Fingerprinting of juveniles. Mr. Lauk — 1219

Access to welfare application files. Mr. Macdonald — 1219

Board of inquiry into human rights dispute. Mr. King — 1220

Severance pay for Capilano College principal. Mr. Wallace — 1220

Payments to hospitals. Hon. Mr. McClelland answers — 1220

Saving on discontinuance of paid-escort service. Mr. Lea — 1221

Committee of Supply: Department of Finance estimates.

On vote 66.

Mr. Stupich — 1221

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 1221

On vote 68.

Mr. Stupich — 1222

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 1222

Ms. Sanford — 1222

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 1223

Mr. Nicolson — 1223

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 1223

Mr. Lockstead — 1223

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 1224

Ms. Sanford — 1224

On vote 69.

Mr. Lauk — 1224

Mr. Nicolson — 1225

Ms. Brown — 1225

Mr. Cocke — 1225

Mr. Lauk — 1226

Amendment to vote 69.

Mr. Nicolson — 1227

Mr. Cocke — 1228

Division on the amendment — 1228

On vote 69.

Mr. Stupich — 1229

Division on vote 69 — 1229

On vote 70.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 1229

Mr. Stupich — 1229

Mr. Hewitt — 1229

Mr. Wallace — 1230

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 1230

Mr. D'Arcy — 1231

On vote 73.

Mr. Stupich — 1232

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 1232

Mr. Lauk — 1232

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 1232

Mr. King — 1232

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 1233

Committee of Supply: Department of the Attorney-General estimates.

On vote 10.

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1233

Mr. Macdonald — 1234

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1238

Mr. Gibson — 1239

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1242

Statement

Hospital workers dispute. Hon. L.A. Williams — 1245

Mr. King — 1245

Mr. Gibson — 1245

Mr. Wallace — 1245

Committee of Supply: Department of the Attorney-General estimates.

On vote 10.

Mr. Wallace — 1246

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1248

Mr. Macdonald — 1248

Mr. Nicolson — 1249

THURSDAY, APRIL 29, 1976

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, today in the gallery — and yesterday in the gallery — is an alderman from the city of Vancouver. I would ask the House to recognize Alderman Helen Boyce who serves Vancouver well.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is a group of students from the Georges P. Vanier Senior Secondary School at Courtenay, accompanied by their teacher, Delbert Dahl. I would ask the House to join me in making them welcome.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is a group from the B.C. Federation of Agriculture. I would like the House to make them welcome, please. Also in the gallery, from North Okanagan, is Bill Hesquith, who is a representative of the John Howard Society. I would ask the House to make him welcome.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): In the galleries we have, from Powell River, Mr. and Mrs. Peter Blake and guests from England, Mr. and Mrs. Johnson. I ask the House to join me in welcome.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are two of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Syd Swift of Coquitlam. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my regards to Alderman Boyce, a distinguished former Liberal candidate, and to welcome as well Lucille Partington of Granisle.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to give a very warm welcome to the brother of the former Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr. Lorimer, and his wife. Mr. Lorimer is an executive of the Point Grey Social Credit Association.

MR. W. DAVIDSON (Delta): Mr. Speaker, in the House today are five of my constituents. I would ask the House to join in welcoming today Mr. and Mrs. Hahn and their children, Tony, Jill, Jane and Jennifer.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Speaker, with us ip the gallery is Mr. Dan Wack from the school district of Nelson-Creston, School District No. 7. I wish the members to wish him welcome.

MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Speaker, also attending this afternoon, about 3 o'clock, will be students from the Delta Junior Secondary School and their teacher, Mr. Ian McDonald. I would ask the House to welcome them as well.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, His Honour the Administrator today signed a writ of election issued by the chief electoral officer for an election to be held for one seat in the Vancouver East constituency.

Polling day will be Thursday, June 3, with nomination day Tuesday, May 5. Closing date for inclusion on the voters list is Friday, May 7, and an advance poll will be held Thursday, Friday and Saturday, May 27, 28 and 29.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): It's about time.

MR. SPEAKER Before we start on oral questions this afternoon, could I beg the indulgence of all of the hon. members to refresh all of our memories on what oral question period is all about and what the replies to oral questions should contain.

I'd like to quote first of all from Beauchesne, 4th edition:

"In putting a question, a member must confine himself to the narrowest limits. In making a question observations which might lead to debate cannot be regarded as coming within the proper limits of a question.

"The purpose of a question is to obtain information, and not to supply it to the House." Following that is a long list of items which have been ruled out of order and will continue to be ruled out of order as not being proper questions. I don't intend to cover that this afternoon.

I'd now like to address myself to ministerial replies to questions. Ministers' replies should not be argumentative, retaliatory or taxing. They should not be propaganda vehicles, any more than the question contents are. So I would hope that, particularly when we deal in question period with questions without notice, there would be no criticism of a minister who takes a question on notice, and that the ministers in replying, if it is a long reply, will follow a custom that I would like to see continued in this House, in asking leave to reply, so that they do not take up the time of the question period.

It also follows that if there are to be further questions, they should be deferred to another day in question period, because I do not intend to take supplementary questions after a question has been

[ Page 1218 ]

replied to by a minister by leave.

I hope that all of the hon. members of the House will cooperate with the spirit of what I have said. In that way we'll be able to accommodate as many people as possible during the 15-minute question period.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, I wish to thank the hon. Speaker for clarifying the procedure. Just one point of clarification: Are you recommending to ministers that they reply to questions at length prior to the daily question period, so that we will have an opportunity to ask supplementary questions in that daily question period?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I have made no recommendation in that respect. I believe that that is to be left to the discretion of the hon. minister involved.

Oral questions.

TRANSPORTATION
COSTS OF RURAL PATIENTS

MR. D.G. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Health. In order to create some equity for people in more remote places, emergency health services have paid for escorting patients to hospitals or to places where they are sent for care. I'd like to ask the minister, Mr. Speaker, if he will verify that this service — payment of escorts — is being cut off effective May 1.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, a supplemental question. I would like to ask the minister what he's going to tell his members from the north.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Bad news, Cyril.

GRANTS TO SCHOOL DISTRICTS

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Education with respect to the special grants that the minister announced on April 20.

Since those grants provide no additional relief whatsoever to, for example, the school district of North Vancouver, which is represented in the House by myself and the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, and to other very high mill-rate school districts such as Surrey, those two being the highest mill-rate districts in the lower mainland, could the minister advise the House the basis for the distribution of these special grants?

HON. MR. McGEER: I'd be pleased to, Mr. Speaker. They are based on anticipated population increases in the various districts. The basic education programme does not take into account the possibility that a given school district will have an increase in population, and this is looked after by the special grants.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplemental question by the member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplemental, Mr. Speaker, since I'm informed that districts such as Burnaby, for example, which I believe received a grant of some $450,000, actually had no increase in student population either, I wonder if the minister could tell us if he might give favourable consideration to the request he has received from district 44 board members to meet with him to discuss this further.

HON. MR. McGEER: I'd be most pleased to, Mr. Speaker.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Speaker, to the hon. minister, a supplemental: would he then please tell the House on what basis the special aid funds were given to districts? They were given to districts, I understand, that did not have an increase in enrolment.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I'll take the question as notice and get more details for the members.

VANCOUVER GENERAL HOSPITAL STRIKE

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I'd like to ask the Minister of Labour, with regard to the possible strike of employees at the Vancouver General Hospital, if he can tell the House if he has received the mediation report and if that report offers realistic hope that agreement can be reached without a strike.

HON. L A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): I thank the member for his concern. I wonder if he would permit me to defer my response until sometime later this afternoon, at which time I'll make a statement to the House.

MR. WALLACE: Certainly.

VICTORIA RECYCLING DEPOT FUNDING

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to respond to two questions asked of me in recent days — first, to the second

[ Page 1219 ]

member for Victoria (Mr. Barber). Information was released two days ago — but I just didn't have the opportunity to direct my answer to him — regarding the regional district recycling depot. I'm very pleased to advise the member that a grant of $10,000 has gone forward to the regional district for their use.

LEASE TO HALFMOON BAY DEVELOPMENTS

HON. MR. NIELSEN: A question was put forward by the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) regarding Halfmoon Bay Developments at Porpoise Bay. The member asked if an application approved March 25 of this year was the same application which was rejected last year upon the advice of department officials on the recommendation of the village of Sechelt.

The answer to the question is no, in that the application was not rejected last year upon anyone's advice, according to department officials. The village of Sechelt, in written correspondence, did not recommend against the project. Environment Canada had no objection to the project. The village of Sechelt offered no objection. The water and lands quality group offered no objection. The fish and wildlife branch suggested a more detailed impact study be made. The environmental unit of the land management branch recommended disallowance on the basis of adverse environmental impact.

The application was later approved by the land management branch subject to conditions outlined by the branch. That was March 25 of this year.

In reply to a further supplementary question by the member for Mackenzie with reference to the political affiliation of the principal owner of the resort company, I have no personal knowledge of the owner or his wife or their political affiliation, nor do I particularly wish to have any such knowledge, and I feel that it is somewhat of a disservice to the senior officials of the department to suggest perhaps this may have been part of their consideration.

AN HON. MEMBER: Part of yours.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The decision was made by department officials. It did not require ministerial discretion or approval.

MR. LAUK: They all do.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The member asked if there's a conflict of interest, and the answer is decidedly no.

FINGERPRINTING OF JUVENILES

MR. LAUK: A question to the Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker. I am instructed that the Vancouver city police are currently fingerprinting juveniles without laying charges. In view of the fact that the former Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald) issued a directive that juveniles were not to be printed unless charged with a delinquency equivalent to an indictable offence, and in view of the fact that adults may not be fingerprinted unless charged with an indictable offence, has the Attorney-General rescinded the previous directive?

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): No.

MR. LAUK: Supplementary. Has the Attorney-General conducted an inquiry into such reports of fingerprinting juveniles without laying charges?

HON. MR. GARDOM: In response to that, Mr. Member, the authority used to justify the fingerprinting of juveniles is found in the Identification of Criminals Act, which is a federal statue. Apparently there is nothing in the juveniles Act that specifically prohibits such fingerprinting. The policy of the former administration is being carried out, and this department formally sent a letter, I'm informed, to all police departments advising that they could fingerprint juveniles who have committed indictable offences but in other offences only with the consent of their parents. That policy's not changed. I am happy to look into the matter which you've referred to me, which you read in the press this morning, as did I.

MR. LAUK: Further supplemental. Would the Attorney-General confirm that this letter has been ignored by the Vancouver city police, and that they continue to fingerprint juveniles without laying charges?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Member, whether it's being ignored or not I couldn't respond to that.

MR. SPEAKER: I believe that's a form of a question that is completely out of order. It is not within the jurisdiction of the minister to confirm something on behalf of the Vancouver city police.

ACCESS TO WELFARE APPLICATION FILES

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Human Resources: is it or is it not your policy, and will you give assurance that under your policy recipients of social assistance would have access to inspect their files upon which

[ Page 1220 ]

that decision as to amount and eligibility is made?

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): I'll take that question as notice and provide the answer.

BOARD OF INQUIRY
INTO HUMAN RIGHTS DISPUTE

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): A question to the hon. Minister of Labour. I wonder if the minister can tell me whether one Roy MacKenzie, in a human rights dispute with Echo Bay Mines, had his case recommended by the human rights branch to the minister's office for approval of a board of inquiry.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.

MR. KING: A supplementary: can the minister tell me why the delay of some months' time in processing that request from the branch?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Before appointing a board of inquiry I've asked for another report from the human rights branch, and I expect to have it at any time.

SEVERANCE PAY FOR
CAPILANO COLLEGE PRINCIPAL

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Education with regard to the investigation at Capilano College launched on March 30 into the severance pay of $47,700 for the principal. In view of the fact that on April 8 the minister stated in question period that he would table the results of the investigation, could I ask the minister what appears to be the reason for the delay in the Department of Education in finding out the basic facts surrounding severance pay of $41,700 for the Capilano College principal?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the department has asked for a report from the college. It has not been received yet. I'll nag them again today and as soon as that report is received I'll table it in the House, as I've said before.

PAYMENT TO HOSPITALS

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to respond to a question which was taken as notice April 15 from the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) referring to payments to hospitals by the hospital programme branch of my department. It was also raised by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) as well. I ordered an immediate investigation of the matter and I would have reported earlier except that I was in Ottawa for the last couple of days.

I'd like to announce at this time, Mr. Speaker, that the payment referred to was made. It was one of five which occurred as a result of an error on the part of a senior official in the department who, without any consultation with his superiors in the department, advanced funds totalling $4.5 million that should not have been advanced to hospitals.

Disciplinary action has been taken against the official involved. The funds have been returned to the department, and I want to assure the Legislature beyond doubt that this amount will not be charged against last year's vote. As a matter of fact, the funds are recovered from the hospitals and have been credited to the 1975-76 vote for hospital programmes. It was no attempt, in other words, to make any padding of the expenditures last year.

Perhaps I could explain just briefly, Mr. Speaker, that advances to hospitals are made twice a month and normal procedure was carried out in all ways except for this further advance without knowledge of our department and without any approval from the department.

I apologize if for some reason I was unable to make that answer before, Mr. Member, but I'm sure you understand. I hope that the answer suffices.

MR. WALLACE: I very much appreciate the minister's frankness and I appreciate his absence in Ottawa delayed the response. I'd just like clarification in regard to the cheque to the Royal Jubilee Hospital. I inquired again, as recently as yesterday, and was told that there had been no change or additional information. Could the minister then clarify his statement that the money's been returned from the hospitals?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, to the member, your call just came a few minutes too early. The action was taken shortly after you made the call to Royal Jubilee, and certainly the administrators at Royal Jubilee were correct in the answer they gave you at that time.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary. I feel very sympathetic for the minister, particularly in view of the fact that I recall very well how they accepted clerical errors with respect to the former government, but, Mr. Speaker, I would like to know the reason why a junior bureaucrat would be able to make an annotation of a loan on that particular money — a loan for 1976-77. That was the annotation.

Interjections.

[ Page 1221 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It wasn't, and I've explained very well what it was. It was a mistake. The difference between the clerical errors made by this government and the ones made by the previous government is that we take some action when that happens.

Mr. Speaker, I have said this was a senior official of the department. It wasn't a junior bureaucrat. It was his direct responsibility to handle this kind of payment, and I've said that he made an error. He has been reprimanded for that severely and, Mr. Speaker, I think that's the end of the matter. I hope that that explains it as well as possible.

SAVING ON DISCONTINUANCE
OF PAID-ESCORT SERVICE

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): A question to the Minister of Health. Now that it's going to become more inequitable to get health services because of the discontinuance of the paid-escort medical service, how much money is the government going to save on that programme of not having medical escorts?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, you're reading into a question conclusions before you've asked the question. If you want to ask a question of a minister ask a question, but don't give a hypothetical answer to the question in asking it, please. (Laughter.)

lnterjections.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

(continued)

On vote 66: taxation administration, $3,991,259.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Chairman, I am going to come back to the question that I have been asking on some of the other votes. We were hoping for a 15 per cent cutback in staff, and I think this is one of the votes that it's rather important there not be any cutback because of the effect on revenue. I am wondering what is proposed here. I am curious that of the 238 people provided for in estimates according to 1975-76...just how many of these are currently on staff and, if we are considering a cutback in this vote, how many do we expect will be on staff in the year ahead?

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mr. Chairman, in answer to the question, in the consumer taxation branch I am advised that the present numbers on staff are 134.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I am looking at a 15 per cent cutback in 157 which would bring it down to that same figure of 134. It's not proposed that there will be any more than the current number who are on staff right now — no lower, but there will be a paper cutback. You don't intend to do with any less staff, and I question the wisdom of that. I wonder if the minister has anything in mind. I am surprised that the printed figures even show, in the consumer taxation branch alone, a reduction of two. Now I was under the impression from the short time I was Minister of Finance that it was important to have more people in this particular branch and that the additional revenue would more than make up for the cost of having these people. I question the wisdom and I wonder if the minister has some plans.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Now, Mr. Chairman, I might say, just by way of information, that the 15 per cent reduction directed by Treasury Board does not apply to three departments: the controlling and audit branch, as we discussed yesterday, the data processing branch and the revenue auditors. I note also that in the consumer taxation branch the two audit accountant positions have been transferred to the income taxation branch. But the existing numbers on staff are 134, which would represent approximately the 15 per cent reduction from the establishment numbers.

MR. STUPICH: Well, I did ask about the vote in total, although I appreciate getting the information by branches. I wonder if the minister could go on and give us the same information for the income taxation branch and the real property taxation branch — that is, how many are currently on staff. You dealt with (a) consumer taxation; (b) is the income taxation; (c) is the real property taxation. Are they the same figures?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes, the income taxation branch — on staff there are at present 52; real property taxation branch, 27; Purchasing Commission, 89; controlling and audit, 120....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Minister of Finance has the floor.

MR. STUPICH: Yes, but he's moved to a different vote and I can't keep up with him.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Oh, I'm sorry.

MR. STUPICH: Now the other side of the column

[ Page 1222 ]

then, Mr. Chairman, but in the same vote. Under income taxation we now have 52 people on staff. It is proposed in the printed estimates that there will be 55. When we apply the 15 per cent reduction, will there still be 55 in this branch or is this one of the branches that will be obliged to get along with 52 or something else? What is the goal with respect to...? I am just hoping, Mr. Chairman, and I am assuming at this point that the 15 per cent is not just a magic figure that has been thrown in because it looks good in the estimates but that there really is some plan in all departments. I expect the same question will be asked when we come to all departments.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I was only going to explain with regard to the income taxation branch, which is the next vote, that the 15 per cent reduction would apply there with the exception of the auditing staff within that number.

MR. STUPICH: Real property taxation, the same question; we now have 27 and the estimate is 30. So a 15 per cent reduction would be down to about 25.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, they have not reached their objective of the reduction. In other words, they are sitting at 27 at the moment.

Vote 66 approved.

Vote 67: Assessment Appeal Board, $100,000 — approved.

On vote 68: government agencies, $4,393,789.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I am going to try two approaches here: one, to ask my same question. That is, how many of these 354 are currently on staff, and what is the goal for the total in the estimates before us now? Then I would like to come to the Nanaimo agency and ask the same question specifically about the Nanaimo agency.

The question first, then: with respect to vote 68 we are dealing with a total in last year's estimates of 354, and it's the same figure for this year; how many people are currently on staff? Of that 354, how many do you have on working today or yesterday?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, 298.

MR. STUPICH: A 15 per cent reduction of 354 would bring it down to 298. Is it proposed to live with that figure, then?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

MR. STUPICH: Now I realize that this figure may not be immediately available, but I notice 12 in the estimates for last year and 12 for this year — in Nanaimo. If you don't know, I can certainly understand that not being immediately available. But if you do know how many people are currently employed in the Nanaimo agency, I'd be interested in finding out.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Member, I do not want to provide the wrong information, so if you like, I will provide that for you later. But obviously, if a situation develops where there is a commanding need for adjustment, we'll have to look at it.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I think that's the point I want to make with respect to Nanaimo. I was made aware of pressure from two agencies. I won't deal with the other one right now; I am speaking in this instance as the MLA for Nanaimo.

There was substantial pressure from Nanaimo to try to get additional staff to deal with a rapidly expanding workload in that area — it must be one of the fastest-growing areas in the province. I would urge the Minister of Finance to have a look at the workload that we do have in the government agencies around the province. I think these people are doing an extremely important job in looking after not so much the problems that other departments have, but in simply dealing with people in an expeditious manner, in a businesslike manner, and making them feel that they are being treated properly.

I would urge him to look at this whole question and really consider whether this vote should be reduced by 15 per cent. I'm just afraid that over the years the Department of Finance has been one area where they have asked for a little bit less than they should have had to conduct their business efficiently, rather than asking for a little more, as I feel some other departments have done. I think the Department of Finance has been too low already. I am disturbed, really, that that 15 per cent formula is applying to Finance as well.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I have the numbers on Nanaimo here. The present staff is 12 plus one temporary. The member should keep in mind, Mr. Chairman, that these numbers are not including temporary staff, which are applicable in many cases.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Chairman, I share somewhat the same concern as the member for Nanaimo with respect to the workload of the various people who work in the government agencies. I have three separate government agencies within my riding, and am always impressed by the way in which they handle their jobs and feel that they are under a great deal of pressure all of the time.

In Campbell River, for instance, they are housed in

[ Page 1223 ]

very, very small quarters and have virtually no room at all for the public to sit down while they are awaiting service in that particular building. During the time in which they were having their licences renewed and their insurance paid, at the end of February, there were line-ups and they had to stand out in the rain while they were awaiting service. There is room for only one chair in the service area in Campbell River at the government agent's office.

I have made attempts before to see if we can't get this particular problem resolved. I was informed last year that plans were going ahead for the construction of a government agent's office — a provincial building, which would include two court houses — in Campbell River. But it is my understanding that the court house and the government building is not going to be constructed during this next fiscal year. That is unfortunate. I recognize that comes under the Minister of Public Works, but in view of the fact that they are so crowded, I wonder if the minister would consider making available for them some additional space, because they are that crowded. As I say, I have followed this up last year.

In the Courtenay office I notice that there is one deputy government agent 4 who does not appear in this year's estimates. I wonder if you might have any information on that. That's for the Courtenay office alone.

I would also like to mention briefly, Mr. Chairman, the situation at Port Hardy. The government agent at Port Hardy is sharing rented space with various other governmental departments, and I'm always alarmed at the amount of money that we pay out in rentals for these various government agencies and government services. For instance, in Port Hardy, to house the fish and wildlife, Health, Human Resources, probation, and government agent, the government is paying $4,176 a year to pay for the rental there. At the moment they're on a five-year lease, which totals $250,680 for the five-year period.

Now it seems to me that it's important that we try to construct more of these buildings throughout the province in order to cut down on the tremendous rents that are being paid. Both Campbell River and Port Hardy are anxiously awaiting the construction of a courthouse. Campbell River is in particularly dire need. Mr. Minister, I'm appealing to you to at least find some new space for the government agent if the construction of the courthouse in Campbell River is not going ahead during this fiscal year.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I would just point out that although I appreciate the information on the current high rentals in some areas, as the member is probably aware, these become a charge to the Department of Public Works. They establish the priorities for these. I'm quite aware of some of the instances where there have been appeals made for separation of government agents from the combined duties of courts and so on, so this is a thing we are looking at.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): I've always been impressed by the work done by government agents' offices. It's very important to those of us who represent rural ridings. Certainly the job of an MLA would be that much more onerous if it weren't for the high-quality service that I've experienced. I notice no additions to the establishment and no deletions. My colleague was asking if there was to be a 15 per cent reduction. However, are you going to keep this up to complement?

What I would ask more specifically is what the role of the government agent's office is as concerns offering ICBC insurance, particularly automotive insurance. Of course, traditionally they sold licence plates; then, when ICBC came in, people had an option. Because of the fine work that is done in the Nelson and Creston offices, I think a great number of people elect to go there for their licence plates or decals and, of course, for their ICBC insurance. So I would like to know if this work is to continue — if the agents are to continue offering ICBC as one of their duties.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, yes, we are continuing the service of ICBC where requested. As a matter of information, there is a considerable amount of service provided for ICBC customers through several government agencies. We intend to continue this.

MR. NICOLSON: You said, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister: "We intend to continue in most places." Is it your intention in Nelson and in Creston for the government agents' offices to continue offering this service?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I think so, Mr. Member. We'd have to explore those individual ones. I'm not aware if those are cases.... I presume the services are being provided now, are they?

MR. NICOLSON: Yes.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Just a few brief questions to the Minister of Finance regarding government agents. In my riding, of course, we have a fine government office in Powell River serving approximately 30,000 people living in the regional area. It is my feeling — and I've seen the line-ups — like the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) that the government agent in that area is overworked and has more work.... In other words, he does require more help. I would appreciate it if the Minister of Finance would look into that situation, perhaps for that office

[ Page 1224 ]

and offices like it throughout the province.

But we have a more serious problem in my riding, Mr. Minister, and that is in the Sunshine Coast area which takes in an area from Howe Sound up to Jervis Inlet. There is a total population at times of up to 20,000 people approximately, and no government agent. The problem there is that people have to go to Vancouver for various of the functions that the government agent normally performs. They usually have to go to Vancouver to have these functions performed. Now with the possibility of vastly increased ferry fares, it will become more expensive still. Certainly in the central coast area of my riding people either have to go to Vancouver Island; drive up to Williams Lake if they live in the Bella Coola Valley; journey up to Prince Rupert. In any case it's several hundred miles in any direction you would care to name.

So I am suggesting to you, Mr. Minister, that you look into the possibility of having, opening or establishing an office in the Bella Coola valley where the bulk of the population of the central coast area lives, which serves the areas of Ocean Falls, which we hope will remain there for some time to come, as well as the community of Bella Bella and several smaller communities in that area.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, the member might be interested in knowing that there have been nine new agencies added during the year. The present total is 52, as compared to what I would imagine would have been 43 a year ago. So there have been new agencies added during the current year, the last year.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I'm interested in following up.... The minister did not indicate what the situation is as far as Courtenay is concerned with the removal of deputy government agent 4. Does this mean that they are going to be faced with fewer staff? The same applies to Campbell River, by the way. Are they expected to carry on the workload with fewer staff? Is that what it means?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I think, Mr. Chairman, that the change here just represents the change in classification of what was formerly deputy government agent. It has been changed in classification under the Public Service Commission to programme administrator 1. I would take that to be the same person.

MS. SANFORD: Okay. Thank you.

Vote 68 approved.

On vote 69: interest on public debt, $40 million.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Well, Mr. Chairman, we cannot let vote 69 pass without some comment.

This is described as an interest on public debt, when the opposition has not only claimed but proven that there was no necessity to loan money. It is not only claimed but proven that $181 million transferred to the ICBC, a Crown corporation, was totally and completely unnecessary, and that it was nothing more or less than a shell game because in the same day the money was loaned back to government at an interest rate. Presumably part of the sum in vote 69 provided for interest will be paid to the insurance corporation for that loan, money that they never received, money that the government does not have. It's flim-flam.

Vote 69 represents flim-flam, or, to put it another way, Mr. Chairman, the wages of flim-flam is an interest charge.

I think that it's reprehensible indeed for the Minister of Finance to bring forward vote 69 after the opposition so effectively proved, or at least exposed, the hoax. Why doesn't the Minister of Finance withdraw this vote, admit that their little gamesmanship has failed, cancel that ridiculous loan and make a direct subsidy to the ICBC corporation through the gasoline tax? Of course, if he did that, Mr. Chairman, he might have to encourage the corporation to lower its insurance premium rates to the people of British Columbia, who are paying through the nose three and four times the amount they paid last year. No, he wouldn't want to do that, I suppose, but it would be honest. It would be straightforward. He would give himself great stature as the Minister of Finance, forcing his cabinet colleagues to come clean.

I therefore, Mr. Chairman, reluctantly move the following motion:

Moved by the first member for Vancouver Centre and seconded by the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), that vote 69 be amended by deleting the title "interest on public debt" and substituting therefore the following sentence: "subsidy for Crown corporations" and, further, that vote 69 be amended by deleting the sentence beginning "provides for the payment" and substituting therefore the following sentence: "provides for the payment of a subsidy to the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Members, the amendment to the motion reads that vote 69 be amended by deleting the title "interest on public debt" and substituting therefore the following sentence: "subsidy for Crown corporations" and, further, that vote 69 be amended by deleting the sentence beginning "provides for the payment" and substituting therefore the following sentence: "provides for the payment of a subsidy to the

[ Page 1225 ]

Insurance Corp. of B.C."

I would refer the House to Beauchesne, 4th edition, at page 205 and the subsection (3) which says: "Amendments proposing in a money resolution to substitute a loan for a subsidy to change the destination" — and this is the section I want to draw to your attention — "to change the destination, purpose and conditions of a subsidy, attaching a condition to a subsidy, affecting the ends and provisions of a subsidy must be moved by a minister with the recommendation of the Crown." So regrettably I must call the amendment out of order.

MR. LAUK: Before you so harshly cast aside this well-thought-out and carefully prepared amendment, may I be heard? I couldn't agree more with Beauchesne. I have never agreed more with Beauchesne. I would argue, Mr. Chairman, that this is an interest payment that is, in effect, for all intents and purposes, a subsidy to ICBC. They call it interest on a loan. I was trying to tidy up their language a bit because it's really a subsidy to the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia. Therefore I submit we are not affecting the amount. We are not affecting the nature, how it's to be paid, or the destination. We are saying only that the language is incorrect in vote 69. We're assisting the Minister of Finance, and I'm sure he'll agree to accept the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Member. We appreciate your observations. I would suggest that you get the endorsation of the minister, and it would be in order.

MR. NICOLSON: The expression from Beauchesne you've just read refers to substituting a loan for a subsidy. This would in effect be substituting a subsidy for a loan. It's the other way around, Mr. Chairman. So of course I think when you consider that you'll see the amendment is in order. We noted that in Beauchesne and, of course, we realized that had we tried to reduce the amount, change the amount, so on.... This is a loan and not taxation. So that was ruled out as an avenue. I would submit upon your rereading the section from Beauchesne that we are not substituting a loan for a subsidy, but this would in effect substitute a subsidy for a loan.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate the hon. member's observations. However, the remarks that you have made apply only to the first portion of the amendment, still leaving clearly out of order the entire last section of the amendment, and we must rule it out of order.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): On your decision not to annul the amendment, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could clarify for you that really what we're involved here with is cosmetic surgery. In fact, all that we're doing is changing the wording. We're not changing the spirit, or, as the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre said, we're certainly not changing the destination.

What we're assisting the Minister of Finance to do, through you, Mr. Chairman, is to call a subsidy a subsidy, rather than to call it a loan. There really isn't any substitution. What we are dealing with is correcting in a cosmetic way some vocabulary, really. That's all it is. I'm sure that a more in-depth reading of Beauchesne with the very able assistance which I perceive on either side of you would cause you to reconsider your decision and recognize that this amendment is indeed very much in order. I think the Minister of Finance was about to accept it when you hastily brought down that very harsh decision of yours.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate your observation as well, Hon. Member. Nonetheless, the amendment does appear to be clearly out of order, and there's no way that we can allow a full debate.

MS. BROWN: The minister is going to accept it.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I wish to support your ruling in this matter and would agree that the amendment is out of order. I realize the members opposite — and I respect this — are trying to help me in every way. It's not this kind of help that I really want.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Chairman, I understand what's happening here. However, just to speak to vote 69.

I think, Mr. Chairman, you will acknowledge that something occurred a little earlier today. You probably weren't too perceptive of what it might be because at that time you weren't in the chair. Nonetheless, possibly you heard rumours of what occurred in the House earlier today.

The fact was that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) stood in his place and admitted that there had been some movement of money into the hospital system on the basis of a loan which we've been talking about for some weeks with respect to other departments. We all saw what occurred around the....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, you will relate this to vote 69?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, this is related to vote 69 in that we are paying interest now on the loan that was borrowed to pay for all this.

[ Page 1226 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am waiting eagerly to hear the relationship.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, that's it. The $40 million is related directly to what I am talking about in that respect. We talked about the fact that the loan wasn't necessary that has demanded the $40 million be put in the Minister of Finance's votes. I would suggest that the Minister of Finance should talk to all his colleagues and find out how many of them moved and shifted money around in order to place us in a position where we would have to be paying this kind of an interest rate.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Yes, that's what we'd like to see in this province — just a little bit of law and order — certainly not this kind of hanky-panky where now the people of British Columbia are going to be paying $40 million of interest on a loan that was not necessary, a loan that was devised, a loan just like the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) talked about with respect to the $181 million.

I certainly suggest that some kind of an amendment should have been accepted. However, it failed, and therefore, Mr. Chairman, I suggest to you that we are in opposition to this $40 million, regardless.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I regret deeply that the Minister of Finance did not accept our motion to amend the description of this subsidy. I therefore....

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you talking about? Why don't you go back to Penticton!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The first member for Vancouver Centre, proceed, please.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the members of the Social Credit back bench should learn some manners when we are dealing with these important matters. In committee they constantly interrupt the opposition members. I think that's very disappointing and they should be reminded of some of the rules, or at least have pointed out that....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I agree, Mr. Member. Now please proceed.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I thought you might.

As I say, I'm disappointed the Minister of Finance did not accept this amendment. He is probably acting without advice from his colleagues who happen not to be here. And I don't blame them for not being here, Mr. Chairman, because they're embarrassed.They're embarrassed with vote 69, and they let poor Evan come in alone to face the music. Now that's a sad situation.

MR. COCKE: There's one minister in the House.

MR. LAUK: One minister of the Crown sitting in Committee of Supply; I've never seen anything so embarrassing.

We're trying very hard to support the Minister of Finance in his legitimate goals, but it seems to me that vote 69 should not have been left on the book of estimates for voting in Committee of Supply because we proved there was no need whatsoever to borrow $400 million or anything like it. We proved that it was just a political game to try and put blame on the previous administration for deficits that never occurred.

AN HON. MEMBER: Prove it.

MR. LAUK: They tried everything. They got the Clarkson Gordon report, they fed them figures from various departments and said: "Come up with a deficit." And they came up with one. We have yet to know what the minister's explanation is in that he received an incomplete draft before the Clarkson Gordon report that was released to the public was dated. What went on with that report, Mr. Chairman? I'll tell you what went on: they created a deficit that didn't exist; they issued an NSF cheque — old Evan, the paperhanger, and rubber-cheque Bill.

MR. G.H. KERSTER: (Coquitlam): Rubber tongue Lauk.

MR. LAUK: They issued an NSF cheque and it bounced all over the place, but it didn't bounce long. It took less than 24 hours for it to get back to the government. They wrote a cheque for which there was no money and they took that sum of money and borrowed it back from the insurance corporation. This was all done very quickly because you know the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) spoke, or had the ear of the president of ICBC, because they're the same person....

AN HON. MEMBER: Your microphone is off.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Can I address the Hansard console? His microphone seems to be off.

MR. LAUK: Thank you very much. I think it was a mistake by Hansard, unless there is an insidious plot by the member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) to cut off my mike. He's been angry with me ever since I pointed out that he buys his suits in Calgary, and not from the merchants in his riding, to avoid the sales

[ Page 1227 ]

tax which has since risen by 2 points. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are on section 69.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: You check with Ralph Long about that.

Now, Mr. Chairman, unfortunately the amendment was found to be out of order, and although I disagree, you are the Chairman, and I am only a little opposition member.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Is that true your law partner doesn't want you any more?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Let's not distract the hon. member who has the floor.

MR. LAUK: You don't even know who my law partner is. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Yes, that's right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On vote 69, please. Please proceed.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Do you go through the wastepaper baskets over here, or what? (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Hon. Member. Please be serious,

MR. LAUK: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. In all seriousness, the $40 million in this vote is a high sum, an unnecessary sum in the estimates. It's purported to be interest charges. We have proven that there was no money that needed to be borrowed. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), that vote 69 be reduced from $40 million to the sum of 40 cents.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I must point out, Mr. Chairman, that the 40 cents is to cover the bank NSF charge that would be applied to the cheque.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment appears to be in order.

On the amendment.

MR. NICOLSON: I couldn't say how unusual it is; I've only been in one previous legislative assembly to this one, but here we are debating the estimates of the Minister of Finance, and normally by this time we might have had a chance to have gone through other estimates.

Now today we got, as the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) pointed out, information from the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) that part of the funds that were advanced and part of the cash position of the province, a sum of $4.5 million, had it not been for the work of members in the opposition in the questioning to the Minister of Health in the question period, which is only 15 minutes long, it might have been possible that besides finding discrepancies like this $4.5 million, and besides finding the history of the rubber-ducky cheque to ICBC back....

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, Pat isn't here and someone's got to keep her traditions alive here. But the history of that cheque written on March 30 is that it was not authorized by the Lieutenant-Governor — the order-in-council covering it wasn't approved until March 31, and there's no legislation allowing the province to go into debt.

The province was to be debt-free at midnight, March 31, but they went ahead and without adequate funds in the bank wrote a cheque for over $181 million. Then we find out that the transactions took place on the same day, so we have the $4.5 million in the Department of Health, which had it not been for the vigilance of the opposition, and I give credit there to the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), not taking any credit for this myself.... But one can only wonder what we might have found in the Department of Agriculture. Was there $4.5 million in the Department of Agriculture that was forwarded improperly in the wrong fiscal year — something that might have been advanced, or maybe $4,500? Were payments made in the Department of the Attorney-General, and in Education?

MR. COCKE: That's $4.5 million that we know about.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, there's $7.5 million that we know about — and how much that we don't know about? These are the things that have gone to make up the cash position which would supposedly justify having to pay $40 million in interest for the first time in British Columbia in a goodly number of years.

What might have transpired in the Department of Environment? We would have had questions to ask. So before we've got to the Department of Finance we could have found more, had we pursued the normal

[ Page 1228 ]

alphabetical order of the estimates book. We can appreciate that we might not start out with the Premier's estimates; he is away at a very important conference. But we started with the Minister of Finance, and there might be good reasons for doing that in other times.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, may I interrupt you just long enough to remind you that in debate on an amendment, the material which you are covering must be more precise and must limit itself to the amendment itself, which means that you must limit yourself to the discussion of the reduction.

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, right. Well, of course, the formula for calculating interest is principal times rate times time. That's the basic formula. Of course, it becomes modified when you're talking about amortized interest. I believe that is.... I forget some of the formulas of figuring out the rate of interest — for instance, given the principal and an amortized loan of so many years and so on. I could work it out from basic principles, Mr....

MR. LAUK: The minister wants to write that down. Repeat it for him.

MR. NICOLSON: Yes. Interest equals principal times rate times time.

MR. LAUK: Have you got that, Evan? And no rubber cheques.

MR. NICOLSON: If you're not too good at per cent, then you just put it over 100, write it down and forget about the per cent sign. So we have to talk about the principal, Mr. Chairman, if we are going to talk about the interest. The principal amounts: $7.5 million in the Department of Education; $4.5 million in the Department of Health; a $181 million rubber cheque to ICBC. These are some of the principal amounts upon which the interest of $40 million has been computed. What will unfold as we go through the other estimates in the book? Really, to have at least struck gold in two different departments in terms of the $7.5 million and $4.5 million — or at least a pretty good substitute for gold; several millions of dollars — just with the question period to work with, then the mind boggles at what one might find with the generous time that we have in the estimates.

I must say that based on the percentage of time we've had — if one extrapolates the amount of time that we will have in the full estimates, when we get into them, department by department in these departments in which grants can be made — I would submit that at the rate that we have made ground in the question period, 15 minutes a day — those have been very valuable minutes; we have accounted for about $12 million — I submit that it is possible, although it is very difficult to make predictions, that we could account for the amount that has been advanced so far, the loan that was taken out, the order-in-council. We might account for the $400 million, given a reasonable amount of time in the estimates. Therefore this amount is not necessary.

Certainly, on the evidence that has been submitted to date and what we have seen to date, it is hastily considered, it's sloppy, and your house is not in order. You are running a disorderly house, Mr. Minister. You've got to have a bit better checking of signing authority before authorizing extraordinary expenditures of $4.5 million and $7.5 million. I think that the methods you are using.... Certainly expenditures in the Department of Housing of that order came to the then Minister of Housing (Mr. Nicolson). I think that expenditures of that order just can't be dismissed as a clerical error.

So I support this amendment, and I hope that everyone in this House will see the wisdom of doing this so that such shenanigans cannot take place again.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, briefly in support of the amendment, I had a great deal of difficulty deciding to support the amendment, because it has attached to it a price tag. I have argued right from the outset that the original amount that was borrowed was not necessary. Certainly there are political judgments made around the whole question of borrowing the funds — the fact that we have included Crown corporation borrowings, and grants, and grants in lieu of loans, and so on. I felt that possibly my colleagues had gone too high at 40 cents — that it should be zero. But I can understand their motivation, and particularly the argument that that was what was required — that or possibly slightly more — to pay for the NSF cheque that was made out to the ICBC. So in that event, Mr. Chairman, and with some reluctance, I will support the resolution brought forward by the member for Vancouver Centre.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

NAYS — 27

[ Page 1229 ]

YEAS — 12

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

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I can appreciate that the government would not accept the opposition amendments on this vote, as reasonable as they might be, but for partisan, political reasons they have decided to go this route and they're determined to carry on in this way. But I do think that perhaps the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) himself might adjust this. I'd like to invite him to move an amendment that the government members would vote for.

It's obvious that there is a substantial cushion in this $40 million figure, Mr. Chairman. The government to date has borrowed not $400 million but $250 million. So if that is the maximum figure, and even if it is borrowed for the full time, the amount required in this vote will be something less than $25 million, rather than the $40 million provided for in vote 69. It's obvious then that in vote 69 there is at least $15 million more than the amount required to meet the expense described in this vote. On that basis I'd like to invite the Minister of Finance to move an amendment.

Vote 69 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 13

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

On vote 70: grants, contributions and subsidies, $$5,050,000.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make an explanation on this particular item. There is a printing error in the estimates. The members will observe, under vote 70, an error at the top in the summary totals. The figure of $34,450,000 should read $9,450,000. On the right-hand side the summary total of $80,050,000 should read instead $55,050,000.

This is going to be distributed, along with about five or six other new sheets which represent printing errors only, either later this afternoon or tomorrow. The other sheets involve other ministers' estimates. None of them change the totals — just the make-up of some of the totals.

I would like to cover one other matter while I am on my feet. In answer to questions raised by the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), I have answers to his request for a breakdown of the joint-service programmes revenue for the coming year and, secondly, the amount of refunds made to amputees during the previous year. I'd like to send these over to the member.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the payment of natural gas producers' federal income tax on deemed income, I believe one of the things we were waiting for was the regulations that were being prepared by Ottawa. Have these come forward yet, or are we still estimating this? I'm not questioning the estimate, I just wonder whether we do have the regulations from Ottawa yet.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, this is merely an estimate at this stage. I'm not sure that we have the entire matter resolved to the exact amount at this stage.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, that's really the point I wanted to establish, that not only were we unable to do it in the last fiscal period, but even by April 29 we are still unable to determine this accurately, and it is still not an account payable as such. It is a provision, and it should be included at this point, but it so far has not become an account payable as we are unable to establish the amount.

MR. J.J. HEWITT (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to vote 70 and the one item in the power subsidy which is noted there at $3 million.

Mr. Chairman, I brought this up in the debate on the budget, and I would like to add to the comments I made at that time. This deals with the rural electrification assistance programme, and I have here the 1975 B.C. Hydro annual report. It states in a

[ Page 1230 ]

section:

"During the year ended March 31, 1975, the government of British Columbia continued its annual grant of $3 million to B.C. Hydro to provide financial assistance for the electrification of rural areas of British Columbia. As a result of this grant, commitments were made to extend financial help to 179 projects serving 1,004 customers in various areas of the province, such areas being Inverness Passage near Prince Rupert, the Queen Charlotte Islands, East Egmont, Sechelt Peninsula."

Mr. Chairman, this is a good programme and it certainly has taken power into areas that I'm sure have assisted the residents of those areas.

Also, on April 1 in the Agricultural Farmer Institute newsletter, it has been announced that the rural electrification grants have been increased and there have been changes to them to, I guess, help offset the cost to the customer. The first $1,000 of capital cost going into this rural electrification assistance fund would bear that. The next $3,000, the rural electrification fund would bear 90 per cent of it and the customer 10 per cent, and a further $3,000 the same thing. So there is a maximum now of $9,000 per customer, which the customer would be assisted in getting the capital expenditures to get power into the rural areas.

Mr. Chairman, the reason I stand at this time — and I'm sure you're aware — is because Boundary-Similkameen is served by West Kootenay Power and West Kootenay Power does not participate in this programme. I feel that it is important. It is an important programme. I think it deals with the people, the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia, and I think West Kootenay Power users should benefit by that programme to expand electricity into rural areas.

Also, Mr. Chairman, I understand that the federal Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act, 1966-67, under which the Government of Canada refunds 95 per cent of the income taxes paid by investor-owned utilities to the province, which, as I understand it, means that the West Kootenay Power's income tax as a utility company would come back to the province of B.C. and go into general revenue. That being the case, it would appear that users of West Kootenay Power do have a right as taxpayers in the province, and users of West Kootenay Power.... And because of the fact that West Kootenay income tax comes back into the province under that federal Act, I think it would be worthwhile to expand the programme, not the dollar figures, but the programme, to cover West Kootenay Power as well as B.C. Hydro. I would ask the Minister of Finance, since the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) is not here today — he's with the Premier — if he would take that to cabinet on my behalf and on behalf of my constituents, to discuss the matter fully.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the information from the member and will be happy to do that.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, since the minister raised the matter of an error in this vote — the recorded figures — I intended to raise the matter in another vote. So I don't know whether it would be in order to pursue his statement now or wait until later. But I just wondered why the figures, regardless of the correction which the minister has mentioned, that the figures on the left-hand column in our estimate book showed that the 1975-76 estimates were $114 million, and yet the book that we got at this time last year, which projected the estimates for 1975-76, showed a $53 million estimate. Now I realize that estimates are just that and that the government spends less or more as the case may be. But how come the figure on the left-hand column of our present estimate book is so far removed from the figure that was published by the Department of Finance a year ago as being the estimate figure for 1975-76?

Interjection.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I think you should try a new word, Mr. Member. Perhaps terminological inexactitude would be more appropriate.

To the member for Oak Bay, Mr. Chairman, I'm looking at my estimate book on the left-hand side of vote 70.

MR. WALLACE: I beg your pardon. I meant the whole Department of Finance vote.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I could answer that by saying it's been put on a comparable basis to the current year's accounts. In other words, there have been adjustments to last year's figures which are for the purpose of putting it on a comparable basis to the current year's budget. It's the same in every department.

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether we could get a little more definite explanation, because surely the word estimate means just that. The whole purpose of the left-hand column telling us what last year's estimates were surely is to give us, as the opposition and each member of the House for that matter, an opportunity to see by what percentage the coming year's fiscal estimates are.... I don't see how the figure that we debate as an estimate for 1975-76 can be any different now. That's the figure that we debated in last year's budget

[ Page 1231 ]

debate. Am I now to understand that this figure in the left-hand column of our books in every department is different from the estimate figure that was put forward a year ago?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I think this is an ongoing programme to put the various accounts through the comptroller-general's department onto a more modernized approach of distribution or of classifications. I can get him the information of where those changes were made in any department if he wishes.

But it's part of an ongoing programme, part of which was done, I believe, a year ago and part of it in the current year. If you'd like a breakdown of the reasons for the differences in last year's individual figures from a year ago, I can certainly get you that.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, maybe I am not the brightest person at understanding figures, but this is so basic to what I understood estimates debate to be, all about — that the right-hand column this year will be the left-hand column next year. For example, this year our estimate of $164,764,505. Now am I to, understand that that figure will be a different figure when it comes up next year? It's an estimate; it's not what the government plans exactly to spend to the last dollar. Yet I find that the figure that is before us as having been last year's estimate wasn't last year's estimate at all, because the book we had last year said...I am sorry if I am just very slow at learning. There are a lot of slow learners in B.C., I understand, and I may be one of them, but I am not really satisfied with the explanation the minister has given. An estimate is an estimate. If an estimate as at March 31, 1975, was $53,855,000, how did it become $114 million in this book we are now using as a comparison for the coming year? It's very puzzling.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, we will endeavour to get the member the reasons for the differences. It really only applies where there has been a change from one department to another, as I understand it. It's only to put it on a comparable basis. So when you look at the new estimates for the coming year and you look at what was spent last year, you're really looking at a true comparison. It's not intended to distort anything, but there are changes in departments as well because of the new ministerial appointments and so on.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, could I take one last stab at understanding this? Does it mean then that there were certain estimates, for the sake of argument, under Municipal Affairs or Highways or some other department which, in drawing up this left-hand column this year, have been transferred to the Department of Finance? Were they estimates that were somewhere in the total book a year ago but under a different department and are now included under this department?

HON. MR. WOLFE. Mr. Chairman, I think the major item that would probably distort those totals is the salary contingencies figure. In last year's estimates book, the salary contingency amounts were in individual departments; in the current year's budget, they are reflected entirely in the Finance department for all departments. Therefore we have lumped the salary contingency figure for last year's estimates all in Finance. This is the biggest reason for the difference.

MR. C. DARCY (Rossland-Trail): Mr. Chairman, I would like to follow up on the point raised by my colleague from Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt) regarding West Kootenay Power and also make some remarks regarding the Inland Natural Gas Co., which finds itself in exactly the same situation of seeing 95 per cent of their federal corporate income taxes, which are going to 15 per cent this year, rebated to the provincial government and seeing that money simply lost in general revenue in the consolidated accounts.

I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this is a rather discriminatory situation. In the case of West Kootenay Power, it amounts to 8 to 10 per cent of those customers' electric bills every month, were it to be rebated in the manner of Calgary Power and a number of other companies in the public utility but privately owned field in Canada. In the case of Inland Natural Gas it would amount to 4 to 6 per cent per month of the natural gas bill. I would note that with the increasing costs of energy to consumers, to industry and to institutions such as hospitals and so on, this is getting increasingly discriminatory in that this is a tax which the public in the southern interior — those areas served by West Kootenay Power and Inland Natural Gas — are paying which residents of other parts of British Columbia served by British Columbia Hydro are not paying. I would suggest that this is rather an unfair situation.

I realize that you are probably the fourth Finance minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, to have had the opportunity of dealing with this problem, but I would hope that some consideration could be given to allowing these two companies and possibly the Princeton utility as well to rebate these tax dollars directly to their customers.

Vote 70 approved.

Vote 71: interest on funds and deposits, $2,503,500 — approved.

Vote 72: incidentals, $768,510 — approved.

[ Page 1232 ]

On vote 73: salary contingencies, $53,320,243.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister could tell us anything about how we arrived at this figure. I'm certainly intrigued that it is carried out to eight significant figures. I know the same thing was done last year, but I don't have to answer for last year; I'm asking the Minister of Finance this year as to how this can be calculated so precisely that it is taken to eight significant figures. I am interested also that it's substantially less than last year and I thought he might have some comments that he'd like to make at this time about salary contingencies.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, about all I could say to that is that this is an estimate of salary contingencies which were included in the amounts voted for individual departments in the previous fiscal year and which have been consolidated into the Finance department, which we've covered earlier.

The amount is necessary to pay for increases already committed under existing contracts for all British Columbia public service employees, and it has been covered in the budget address on page 15 on March 26.

At this stage I don't have any other breakdown than that that I could get the member, but it's an estimate of the committed amounts in wage contracts in the public service.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the minister has told us, but I am still intrigued that it can be carried out, since it is an estimate, right down to the last three dollars when you're dealing with something in excess of $50 million.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance has indicated that vote 73, which my colleague the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) has pointed out is so accurately calculated and represented in the estimates....

AN HON. MEMBER: That's the way we do business.

MR. LAUK: Yes, it's the way they do business. He says it represents a figure on existing commitments in contracts. Is the Minister of Finance speaking on behalf of the government, or does he not know that there are contracts that are coming up for negotiation? If so, what contingency fund is set aside for that purpose? That's the first question.

Second question. Can he confirm the suggestion that the drastically reduced amount for salary contingencies is because the government fully intends to ramrod an agreement through when those negotiations are taking place, or are about to take place? I'm particularly concerned about the ferries.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 73 pass?

MR. LAUK: I don't think that this vote should pass without some comment by the minister. My first point is that it has been reduced, and I suggest that the reason is that they intend not to bargain in good faith with the civil servants. That's why it's been reduced.

Secondly, the exact figure represents only that already committed in contract negotiations. It reveals the lack of good faith. Can the minister deny that suggestion?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes, I deny that suggestion. This amount is an estimate of the amounts required under existing contracts, some of which have considerable retroactive pay. As we're aware, there has been considerable escalation in the pay of all public servants over the past three years. This has been well canvassed, but this is an estimate both of that and ongoing responsibilities that might arise. I cannot give you any more than an estimate covering the full amount.

MR. LAUK: Are you against civil servants receiving high pay?

HON. MR. WOLFE: The answer is no.

MR. W. S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): I just wonder further to the minister's answer on the question of calculations of contractual obligations which are now in place and those which loom for the coming year whether or not part of this reduction results from plans to reduce the ferry staff in a very significant way. Has the calculated saving or the publicly announced saving that will flow from the layoff of 450 ferry employees been calculated in providing the reduced amount for salary contingencies? Can the minister tell me that?

Mr. Chairman, I'm asking a very simple question. I'd like some response from the minister. This is just one example I'm using. I wonder if cutbacks in the employment levels of the Ferry Authority and possibly various other branches of government — perhaps the Highways department — are being calculated in terms of a reduced amount for salary contingencies. It would be helpful to gain this information and I hope the minister can just give me an indication.

Mr. Chairman, I try not to intimidate the Minister of Finance but every time I rise to ask a question he becomes mute. Gee whiz, we're on the last vote here. I would hope that he'd maintain his spirit of cooperation that we've seen the last day anyway and try to give me some information.

As my colleagues have pointed out, the amount that is budgeted for salary contingencies is a very

[ Page 1233 ]

precise amount. It's rendered down to $3, as the Member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) says. Now surely there must have been a fairly precise way of calculating that salary contingency vote. If that's the case, then it shouldn't be too difficult for the minister to tell me whether it embodies calculations of reduction in staff of various government departments, including the ferry authority.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, yes, the figures contemplated or estimated do cover the anticipated 15 per cent reductions in staff and were made as accurately as they could be made at the time they were Made, which now goes back maybe about two months — a month and a half ago — so one has to keep that in mind. It's an estimate covering the coming year, covering many imponderables, and it's very difficult to be too exact on the answer to that question.

MR. KING: One final thing, Mr. Chairman. I hope that the Minister of Finance, and the government generally, in striking their policy of a 15 per cent cutback in staff, are conscious of the contractual obligations that they have with B.C. government employees so that any cutback is accommodated in complete conformity with the collective agreements that are in force with the Public Service Labour Relations Act which governs and prescribes the mechanism for the cutback of employees. I'm concerned that in the government's attempt to cut corners and save money at the expense of both services to the province and employment to citizens of this province there might be a tendency to ignore the legal obligations on the government in terms of staffing requirements. Hence, they could subject themselves to high costs of arbitration and unnecessary litigation that could flow from that kind of action.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I can only say that measures of this kind you can be sure are done in a responsible manner. In regard to the 15 per cent cutbacks or reductions and so on from staff establishment, these were measures adopted by the previous government which we have really continued. They were Treasury Board directives from the previous government.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I'm not aware of any policy statement until one was announced by the current Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) with respect to the lay-off of ferry staff in precise terms. Certainly there was, under the previous administration, a freeze on hiring, but I was completely unaware, and I disagree with the Minister of Finance that there was any precise policy to actually lay off from any authority, Crown agency or department of government, large sums of employees. My point is that any kind of lay-offs should be done in strict conformity with both the collective agreement which the government holds with that unit of employees and also in conformity with both the Public Service Labour Relations Act.

Vote 73 approved.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT
OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

On vote 10: Minister's office, $88,952.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): I think on a lovely afternoon like this probably the best thing for us would be debating this very modest little sum of money in this modest little vote in this modest little department perhaps in the lovely outdoors in the sunshine.

Mr. Chairman, this is a very encompassing department and it embraces just about everything dealing with the rule of law. It covers no end of areas of complexity, difficulty and controversy and, I'd say, with great ongoing demands for immediacy both in initiating and in responsive action, and again all within the confines of our heritage of democratic jurisprudence. All of those people who are involved in the process, they work hard and they work long, and I'd say at the present time in very unsettled times, but with most dedicated commitments to the concepts that I've mentioned. Indeed, without such commitments and without such concepts the only thing that could replace them would be anarchy and chaos.

The debates within the process are pretty well ongoing. They always have been, and they always will be. Very divergent views are expressed, and I think that's a very good thing, but I think they're all dictated to the hope and expectation for improvement within all areas of the legal system, because it's the job of that system to provide the mechanism whereby mankind can live in justice and peace and harmony, and free from fear or oppression.

Now under our democratic system I think we'll all agree that no one group of people, no one political party, has a monopoly on justice or virtue or good ideas, but for human betterment. It is with those kinds of observations that I'd like to open these estimates.

First, I would like to express myself — and I think, indeed, on behalf of the House — my thanks to the many so highly dedicated people who are within the confines of this department, people whose service has been to support and perform the concepts that I have mentioned for the good of all British Columbians.

I would like to say, both for myself and for all former occupiers of this chair — every one of whom I

[ Page 1234 ]

know received complete assistance from those people who are in the department — that I think the occupiers of this chair, and the former occupiers, are much more aware than those who are not so closely related to the administration of justice of the devotion for service and the level of performance that exists within the Department of the Attorney-General.

I think if I named some people I would be remiss in not mentioning others. But to accept an accolade on behalf of all, I would certainly nominate the Deputy Attorney-General, Mr. David Vickers, who I am most pleased to announce is here and remaining. I would nominate him to accept, on behalf of the people of the province to those within the Department of the Attorney-General, these sentiments: thank you; your efforts are known and we are most appreciative.

[Mr. Bawlf in the chair.]

I am looking forward to the remarks of all members. I will make notes, indeed, of their suggestions and I shall endeavour to answer their questions. Where helpful proposals are raised, they will not be forgotten; they will be considered within the guidelines that are facing all of us at the present time — dollars and cents, society's priorities, long-range suitability.

Mr. Chairman, as I said in opening this vote, we are not in untroubled times. I think we have to have the commitment of everyone in society to support one thing, and that is to support law and order. I am sure we will have the support of all members of the House insofar as....

Interjection.

HON. MR. GARDOM: And justice and equity, that's right.

So, hon. members, I suppose there is going to be very limited debate in each and every one of these estimates — if we could wrap it up by about 4:30, the sun will still be shining. But in the event we can't, I know that the moon tonight will come up and the sun will come up tomorrow morning as well — so, let her go! (Laughter.)

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment — I am glad the Attorney-General did — the people in his department, and the officers. If Mr. Vickers is taking the accolade on behalf of all of them, that's fine. But don't forget he is under a two-year contract.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, no.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, he signed a two-year contract. I couldn't change the two years, but I always reserved the right to change the opening start of that two-year period. By virtue of your office you still have that right. I hope that Mr. Vickers continues in government because he's making a public service — and I am not saying that politically at all — to the whole of the people of the province of B.C., and so are the others whom I see over there.

I don't want to proceed on the basis of a long speech, Mr. Chairman. I would rather raise a few matters now, and then raise some others a little later.

Point No. 1: I hope that the Attorney-General will not allow other ministers of the Crown in his own executive council to poach on him. He had a poach on what should be a justice function. For example, I pick up the newspaper and I see here: "Alimony Collection Agency Planned By Vander Zalm." I'd like to suggest that that is a justice function — it involves the enforcement of court orders — and that there exists, of course, the enforcement division of the Vancouver family court, situated in Vancouver.

I think more has to be done in terms of the enforcement of collection orders. I know it is a very difficult subject, but I suggest, Mr. Attorney-General, it is your function; it is not a welfare or social assistance function. You are administering a court order; you need the force of law to make the collection when it is in arrears and the court order is not being obeyed. That means that the person who is being charged with the arrears has the right to come into court and make his case, whether that case is based upon need, or upon an improper order, or an order that needs varying. But it is your function. I suggest that this planned bill by the Minister of Human Resources is entrenching in a justice area, and ought to be abandoned. I rather suspect there is not proper co-ordination over on that side of the House.

The other place where I am afraid there could be poaching is from the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) — I don't see him in his seat. Yet at the same time I am well aware that the question, say, of impaired driving, which is so serious — I think that of all the cases in our courts it takes up the largest portion of the time of the criminal courts of B.C.... Well, possibly the drug thing, now with some of these long trials, has come up there as a second and possibly passed it because of the long trials. But I would hope that the Attorney-General will assure the House that it's his department, not the Minister of Health. I think you have to work in conjunction with him — not the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) — but the initiative, again, remains with the Attorney-General as a justice function.

I suggest the two ways that can be considered are these. I think you should expand the impaired drivers training courses. I think, at the present time in B.C., there may be about nine of them that are operational, possibly more, and they've had a number of — what'll

[ Page 1235 ]

we call them? — students who've gone through the impaired driving.... But the record of repeaters — I've not heard that there are repeaters coming back to those impaired driver training courses. I can't think, apart from the traditional sanctions against the drunk driver of the courts, the fines, the payment of the lawyers' fee, the possible jail if it's a second offence, the suspension of licence, the acquiring of points by ICBC.... While all of these are important, there is nothing more effective than to put that culprit, who has become a menace to himself and a menace to society, in school. If you want to make the courses longer and tougher as a condition of probation, do so.

But the loss to the whole community of the province of B.C. — the taxpayers — well, the whole load, the financial load of this problem of drinking drivers is staggering in the province of B.C., running into, I would think, $300 million or $400 million a year when you look at all the costs and their side effects. So I say it isn't Marc Lalonde in Ottawa that can take the initiative in this thing in B.C. It's the Attorney-General of the province of B.C. He should expand those impaired drivers training courses as rapidly as he possibly can find the trained people. They started in Salmon Arm on a voluntary basis, but it's one of the exciting, effective things that can be done.

And the other one I would stress, Mr. Chairman, is public education. I can still remember some of the ads about impaired driving that were done on radio.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, you advocated this, and about Christmastime — I think it's a couple of years ago — I was driving along in Peterson's car and I would receive these ads over the radio, because the car was equipped with a radio...

AN HON. MEMBER: Were you reading ads while driving?

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: ...and I just want to tell you they seared the daylights out of me. Because they said that a lawyer's going to charge you this much, you're going to go to jail, you're going to lose your wife, you're going to lose your car, you're going to walk to work, and the whole.... But it was effective. We've scared this young fellow already.

AN HON. MEMBER: He lost the car!

MR. MACDONALD: There's nothing wrong with that car. But if you put on the brakes too quickly, there's a bit of a problem there.

I really mean this, that you ought to have the funds available in the Attorney-General's budget for a very strong educational programme on drinking driving, including print media as well as radio and television. I would say that those would be saved dollars as far as the total obligations of government are concerned, because this thing is costing us, through the social services and many other ways, and especially court expense and loss of life, a bundle in the province of B.C. It is a major problem, perhaps the major problem: alcoholism. Because drugs is a specialized one affecting a lot of people, but not as many as the alcohol problem.

I say it's a justice function. You shouldn't let the other ministers poach, and I think you should work with them. I appreciated the A.G.'s opening remarks, but let me just add to that that the justice function today is so closely related with other departments that you're really providing a kind of a social service. You should carry on with close co-ordination with Human Resources and Health and Education, particularly those three, but it involves all of them and you should maintain a cabinet committee so that justice is not seen as a fragmented, separated thing from what's happening in the rest of the community.

That brings me on to just a couple of remarks about the global budget. It's too small, Mr. Attorney-General. You see here $111 million. It seemed to me that we were going to spend last year, allowing an overrun.... We couldn't compete in an overrun with some of the other departments but we did pretty well. We had a pretty good overrun coming up there because, you know, we did have expanding demands out there in the community. The money was being well spent, but there was going to be an overrun, and I think our overrun was going to be $10 million or $12 million.

Now here you are, almost at the same stage we were at last year, and I don't think that's enough, and it shows up in areas like legal aid. I don't think the Legal Aid Society can get from the Legal Services Commission enough money to make sure that we don't begin to drift back to the days of cash register justice in the province of B.C. There are all kinds of people who need the money — are in need of the funds to pay for ordinary private legal services — who are drifting into the legal aid offices, and they're going to be rejected. Maybe possession of narcotics, maybe shoplifting...and so the whole thing is tightening up. You know — I've already said it — I don't agree at all with Justice minister Ron Basford when he says that we have equality before the law. Of course we do in a textbook sense, but in a real sense, of course, we don't.

Who can put up bail? Who can get a good lawyer? Who can appeal the case? So we have very unequal justice — we still have, to a very considerable extent, a law for the rich and a law for the poor in the province of British Columbia.

[ Page 1236 ]

The legal aid budget of $7.1 million or something for the Legal Services Commission is not going to enable them to be able to spend enough money, particularly with the big cases that you have, to prevent us beginning to drift back. I'm sure the costs have soared throughout all Canada, but this, again, is an essential social service because good legal aid can be preventive. Say it's shoplifting, or say it's impaired driving, and you go through a proper stage of legal advice and help; you're less likely to be a repeater. There's a preventive element in having a proper legal resource, knowing your rights, instead of banging your head into a court situation, getting a conviction or a fine, walking out and then repeating the experience — and that can happen very, very easily. So I think it's a social service in the area of legal aid that should be continued.

I think the most exciting thing you've got going are the community law offices, although I think that the time has come to.... I regret that the Minister of Human Resources has quickly prejudged the community resource board concept. I think he's left five going — including James Bay, as an example of a very good one — and the rest are reduced to advisory. I think that decision was taken much too quickly. I think it was a mistake, because here was community involvement, here was tying in of the various social services of government, and legal services should be part of that.

I think out in James Bay in the community resource board you've got a doctor, nurse, job-finder, marriage counselling and so forth. Legal help and advice should be tied in under community resource boards; there's a saving all round.

The Consumer Services offices should not be independent. There's no use having one, as happens with the federal. I don't want to make a long speech, but you've got a federal consumer service office, and a few blocks away you've got a provincial one, then somewhere else you've got a legal aid office....

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, that's right. So, you know, when you do have the community resource board concept under good controls, you bring these services of government under some sort of co-ordination, and then there's a saving in providing the total service — because whose problem is a consumer complaint, whose is a legal one and whose is a social assistance one? It's very often much the same thing, with many sides to the same problem. But legal aid should have been beefed up, and we're going to suffer.

I would add to that that there are problems in the court. I hope that the Attorney-General — and I'm sure he will be — will be continuing to work on them. Trial tracking and trial scheduling are very important to make the courts more efficient, fair and expeditious in their working. But there have also got to be basic legal changes, and the Attorney-General should be down there in Ottawa asking the Minister of Justice of Canada to get on with some essential reforms in the Criminal Code and procedure of Canada before our justice system swamps over with too many cases taking too much time and costing too much money,

The two things I can think of at the moment are obviously this preliminary inquiry in a long drug case — it is ridiculous, if I may say so. You go through maybe 30 or 40 days of preliminary inquiry and then you do the whole thing all over again. I realize that in your position you can't just say: "Well, I'm going to change everything procedurally by doing everything by direct indictment." You'd be kind of breaking the spirit of what's in the present law.

But you should be down there telling the Minister of Justice to get rid of those preliminary inquiries, and make them, in this kind of conspiracy case, the exception, not the rule — where you provide for good discovery and exchange of information between Crown and accused. There should need be no abuse of the rights of the accused person by eliminating the preliminary inquiry in drug-abuse cases. But those preliminary inquiries, some of them are costing the taxpayers, through legal service, oh, I would think up to $100,000 for a preliminary inquiry alone in a major drug case. What the Crown should do is open up its files and its evidence on a discovery basis, and make that available to the accused so there's no abuse. That procedure is just becoming too costly, technical and cumbersome.

Another thing is the Privacy Act. While there are amendments there under the laws of evidence, I think that very considerable improvements can be made. There's this business of having tapes through electronic surveillance that sometimes run over many days and weeks. Then having to provide the accused with a transcript of the whole thing — and possibly it has to be translated into another language — when the Crown is only going to use this: "Thursday night the 13th you said this...." That's what's coming up into court. But this idea of typing the whole thing out is an extremely costly procedure.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, under the present law. But I think there are changes in the law of evidence that will be fair to the accused and fair to the community that is conducting the case as well.

On the question of organized crime, I would hope that more would be done than we have done in the past in terms of getting at, let's call him, Mr. Big. Although we're not reverting to the past, I think a heck of a lot has been accomplished through CLEU.

[ Page 1237 ]

You've got a very good policy board, and I hope the member — you probably know who I'm referring to — will stay on for a short space of time, too. He might have to resign, and will in time. It's been a very good policy board, but I think more should be done.

We've had in the province of Quebec the de Oleo case, where the federal government kind of took it in the chops legally in the Supreme Court of Canada, and the Quebec government won, and that enabled a province to proceed along the route of a crime commission.

I've never been too strong in all cases on the right to silence. It seems to me sometimes when you're in a situation with somebody in the community — a neighbour or group that have been badly hurt by some activity — that there are times when you owe an explanation to your fellow citizens. Yet Mr. Big, of course, hides behind the right to silence. He says, "prove it beyond a reasonable doubt," and he does far too many things through underlings, doesn't get his own hands involved. Or he finances the thing in the background and grows big and rich on the profits of the drug trade, but to nail him is sometimes very difficult. The guys with the prostitution rings are in the background, too, and it's very hard to get them.

What I'm adding up to saying is that I think you have to consider and receive the advice of your policy board of CLEU as to whether or not we should not have crime commission hearings, as appropriate, in the province of B.C. We now have the constitutional authority. We don't need that federal amendment even, but that would mean that people who were obviously growing fat — and we almost know who they are from the pattern of activities — on organized criminal activities would be required to come forward in a public forum with a lawyer at their side, but answer questions that the community wants to ask them.

I think that unless we are going to be swamped by the forces of organized crime to the point where public officials are intimidated or bribed — that's happened in many parts of North America — and the thing becomes too big a cancer in society to be rooted out, we should be prepared with mobility to consider crime commission hearings, providing you assemble the necessary essential data first. It is no use going into them blind or just on a speculative basis. So I hope that will receive serious consideration.

I said I'd raise two or three things and then sit down at the present time and resume about 9.30 tonight. I've got quite a few things that I'd like to ask about, but let me ask about the RCMP contract. I should say something about that, because now we are without a contract. We have no contract at the present time for the federal contribution to RCMP provincial and municipal costs for the province of British Columbia. It expired on March 31 last.

All I can say about that is that I would hope that the Legislature is unanimous in its opinion that Ottawa should not be allowed to go around talking about law and order and then demand the necessary financial resources to the front-end guys — and also gals at the present time — who are the first to receive the hint of trouble in the community. They are the front line, and they're developing exciting preventive techniques to prevent the thing ending up as a court case, with a prosecution and a jail sentence with all that attendant expense. They're developing techniques of team policing, where they travel around with somebody from the probation office or the Human Resources office, or a student, and they can divert trouble before it happens, particularly with young people. So this new preventive role of the police forces in society which is so essential should be encouraged.

Yet at the present time the federal government are pulling back. I know they are pulling back now in health and human resources too, but they never did give the 50-cent dollar for justice, which is the front line. I think it's disgraceful that Ottawa should be making these speeches about the enforcement of justice all throughout Canada, and the protection of citizens on the street and elsewhere, and pulling back on the dollar resource contribution, because without that contribution municipalities are not going to fill up their complements to meet community needs. It's as simple as that.

In the provincially patrolled areas, as the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) probably could tell us, you've got so many officers patrolling an immense area, with islands out there, and they are short-handed, and they are overworked, and they are working overtime. So we do not have too many officers out in the community; we have too few,

At this point I would like to ask the Attorney-General — he could just nod his head — if the RCMP request for manpower additions last fall was met. Has that been met in the current budget? It may be that with the formula up in the air he can't answer that question. I'm not sure, but I hope that you meet their request because they have been minimal in the past and they have to pass through the Ottawa Treasury Board too. I hope that their requests will be honoured, as we honoured them, because, as I say, they're pretty minimal.

Now I'm going to close by criticizing the Attorney-General. Who is the Chairman? Is that in order? Well, if it's out of order, I can't do it.

The Attorney-General has rent control under his jurisdiction and I would like to ask why, after this complete report on rents in the province of British Columbia by Karl Jaffary, who is a household word in Canada so far as housing and rental costs are concerned....

Interjection.

[ Page 1238 ]

MR. MACDONALD: No, that one we filed. I'm talking about the Jaffary report. Don't mention that other one. That was years ago. But the Jaffary report was there and it came in with a recommendation for a mean ceiling on rents of 8 per cent. Then suddenly — and I hope the Attorney-General wasn't the only one; I presume it was a cabinet decision — that was increased to 10.6 per cent.

I would like to know what research or justification there was for 10.6. With one swoop of a cabinet edict, you increased the rental on accommodation rents for 1976 throughout B.C. — it varies, of course, from apartment — by about $2.50 or $3 a unit per month. You suddenly presented the landlords with from $5 million to $7 million in additional rent in a period of inflation which it didn't seem to me they were really demanding. They were always mad, but they were no madder at the time last December than they had been at any other period of the year that I could see. There was no justification whatsoever for that rent increase.

This government says they are fighting inflation. Well, they're fighting inflation as if they were shadow-boxing, because here was a totally unnecessary rise in the cost of living for the tenants of the province of B.C., and it flew right in the teeth of the facts that had been assembled by Jaffary and by the experts in the Department of Housing. I think that was a giveaway

So I would like to know if there was any justification for that. Was there a study or any facts of figures, or did somebody just say: "Oh, 10.6 — I read that in the paper somewhere and that must be it."? I think it was a giveaway and I think it was most unfortunate.

I am finishing on a critical note at the present time, but I am ready to resume. That will have to be later tonight. But in the meantime, I would be glad to have answers to things I have brought up.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The member, Mr. Chairman, raised some very, very interesting propositions and made some very, very good suggestions. I'll endeavour to deal with some of them, if not all of them. Vis-a-vis the collection of alimony orders and the processes of improving our attitudes in society against the drinking driver, I don't really think this is a situation of one department attempting to poach upon another; it's a situation of us trying to do a better job as government through a cooperative effort. I indeed would welcome not only the Department of Human Resources and the Department of Health, but I think this is also a matter for the Department of Education apropos of the remarks that you made concerning drinking and driving.

The social damage, we all know, is enormous. It's a topic that I have raised in this House ever since I've been elected and I felt that we have never ever properly addressed ourselves to the problem. The members who have been here for some time can, perhaps, recall that I did suggest that the fine was not a useful yardstick insofar as drinking- driving is concerned. It seems that those within the governmental process — the administrative side — feel that the best lever is the lifting of the licence and keeping people off the road. Well, that in itself is difficult to apply in an equitable situation constantly. Maybe we should take a form of social agency custody.

I thoroughly agree with the member insofar as advertising the results that can occasion from drinking-driving. Alberta has a pretty good programme going on at the present time — Checkstop — and we are taking a careful look at that. But I don't think it would be remiss to certainly see that at every liquor outlet — in fact at every gas pump in this province — we indicate to people what the levels of tolerance are and also indicate to them exactly what kind of penalties they will face in the event that they are on the road in an intoxicated state. It's just like going down the highway with a loaded gun. We all appreciate that fact.

I am happy to see that the federal government in the amendments to the code that are now before it has given consideration to additional measures. It's true that they haven't proclaimed the sections — the road-stop testing and so forth and so on — but they are working at it.

I would like to make one observation that there is far more public awareness and, indeed, far more political awareness of improvement in this particular area, I'd say, in the year 1975-76 than we ever found up until then. So I'd be optimistic. I think we're going to be moving in the right direction there.

The hon. member talked about legal aid and I think I'd only be reiterating the remarks that I made in the House before concerning the Government of British Columbia's attitude and the federal government's attitude. The federal government and this government are of the view that legal aid, under existing priorities and under existing dollars, cannot be open-ended, and a lot of people who are dispensing this service and who are involved in it are similarly minded. This is not a unique position. A lot of people feel that there should not be a continuous programme of legal aid for people who are repeaters. People also are feeling that there should not necessarily be legal aid in certain types of offences. Drinking-driving is one example. Other people have suggested the narcotics offences, and this is today being looked at by the federal government when it is considering the formalities and the finalizing of the legal aid agreements with the provinces.

Now I cannot give the House or the member any commitment as to whether it's going to take that route

[ Page 1239 ]

or not. But in B.C. I know it appears that we're not going to be able to have the necessary resources this year. With an upturn in the economy, let us hope that we can maybe have a different attitude in the future, but the necessary resources at this time to say: yes, we shall have total, open-ended criminal legal aid.

If I again in good spirit could perhaps criticize the former administration, I think there should have been greater emphasis placed upon civil legal aid than there was on the criminal. Criminal legal aid is receiving the bulk of the dollars at the present time, as we all know. The member made reference to the difficulty of court problems and preliminary inquiries. That's related also to legal aid and the cost of legal aid, and the position that he's raised is one that we're considering. I've discussed with him, I believe, in the past and with other people who were involved in this process that, indeed, the preliminary inquiry has perhaps become an anachronistic mechanism in this day and age.

England has gone the other way. My learned friend down there does not agree with me or with you, Mr. Member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), But perhaps it has become an anachronistic mechanism. England has taken a different route by way of discovery, and perhaps that might be a better approach rather than have one judge, particularly in these conspiracy cases, have his courtroom tied up for the better part of six months or 10 months with a host of lawyers in front of him doing that which could just as easily be occasioned along the route of pre-trial discovery. Now the whole pre-trail process is a matter that is under consideration and will be under consideration when the provincial Attorneys-General meet together with the Minister of Justice in British Columbia in June of this year. I can also inform the hon. member, if he's not aware of the fact, that this is a point that is being very carefully considered by the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Basford) in Ottawa.

The crime commission: it's a suggestion. It's one we'll look at indeed.

The RCMP contracts — I'd like to say that a concerted effort and stand is being made by all of the provinces in Canada who are party to that contract with the federal government. I appreciate the remarks of the hon. member and all of the items at the present time are under ongoing negotiation, and there are a multitude of items within that contract, as the member for Vancouver East is aware.

Now insofar as rent control is concerned, I would like to express that which has been the stated policy of this government, and that's this: the government per se does not favour the continuance of rent control. The government is, however, not prepared to abandon rent control until such time as there is a sufficiency of accommodation. Now we're most hopeful that effective means can be taken over the years. I can't say when this will happen. This depends on economic circumstance. It depends upon building starts. It depends upon the mobility of people and the lifestyles of people. But I'm hopeful that over the years, and certainly during the term of this administration, we will be able to phase out rent control, perhaps not totally eliminate it, I don't know, but hopefully phase it out. Because it has been proven, Mr. Member — and this is perhaps where we part company, but I don't know why if we do part company you'd not look at the evidence — it's been proven anywhere in the world that rent control has not done the job. It has compounded the problem, and it's a terribly difficult thing.

I think if you really search your soul, it was an error on the part of the former administration to ever bring rent control into B.C. I think that British Columbia would have been able to provide the necessary accommodation and we would not necessarily have had the need for it, and perhaps in many cases the raises that eventually came into effect, would not have come into effect. But it has created an artificial market, an artificial standard and an artificial level, and it's a very difficult thing to bring to an end.

MR. MACDONALD: It means a lot of tenants were being exploited.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): I enter this debate with all the humility that is proper for a layman engaging in debate with the learned members who have just spoken so far...

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON:...and, Mr. Chairman, I will simply be asking layman's questions in the hope that the Attorney-General can shed some light on them.

I might start off with a point of order and ask the Attorney-General what this document is that's just been distributed to us. Is this a revision of the...?

Interjections.

HON. MR. GARDOM: These are amendments to the first printing of the estimates to correct printing errors. Sorry, they just arrived on my desk too.

MR. GIBSON: I'll start off by echoing the words of both the minister and the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) in congratulating and extending my regards to the deputy minister of this department who, I believe, has done a first-rate job in his term there. I hope he will be with us for a long time to come.

During question period the other day I asked the

[ Page 1240 ]

Attorney-General if he could investigate the ways and means by which — and the rentalsman is investigating this, which is why I bring it up under his estimates — the ways and means in which some developers are avoiding the requirement that any strata conversion of rental units should be approved by the municipality concerned. The way in which this is being done, Mr. Chairman, is that so-called cooperative style of ownership wherein would-be owners are asked to buy shares in a building corporation. As a result of the purchase of those shares, they obtain the right to live in one of the units. It is, in effect, the purchase of everything that you get with a strata title except that you don't have a certain equity in a particular room in the structure. Nevertheless, you have a right to live in a particular room and it's just a way of getting around that strata conversion permission.

As I say, I asked the Attorney-General the other day to investigate this. I'd be grateful if he could give us his conclusions because, in my opinion, this is a loophole which ought to be plugged. The apartment situation in British Columbia is where the real shortage lies, and those conversions should not be allowed under any guise or pretext without municipal approval, as is provided by the law.

Next I would ask the Attorney-General if he could give us some kind of an overview of the provincial prison system, and particularly the situation at Wilkinson Road jail. The Attorney-General will recall that on February 20, I think it was, he called publicly for such a review of the provincial prison situation after the hostage-taking incident at Wilkinson Road and some of the public descriptions at that time of the deplorable facilities there. The Attorney-General will recall as well that in August, 1974, the then Premier (Mr. Barrett) promised that that particular institution would be closed within a year. It's been going on and on and on. I would be grateful for a status report on that.

The first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) mentioned alimony enforcement provisions and mentioned in particular having regard to interdepartmental jurisdiction. I would like to bring them up in the sense of what is being done to put some teeth in these statutes to provide for interprovincial enforcement. I know that there has long been discussion between the various provinces and the federal government to end the deplorable situation where persons subject to maintenance judgments can, in effect, avoid those judgments with no trouble whatsoever simply by changing their province of residence. It's been a situation which has been very unfair to many families for many years, I wonder if the Attorney-General could tell us what developments he sees on that scene.

With respect to cost-sharing negotiations with the federal government concerning the services of the RCMP, I think I'm correct in saying that the percentage paid by the federal government was, until some years ago, 60 per cent. It was then reduced to 50 per cent, and I think that the federal government has come to the province and proposed something a good deal less than 50 per cent.

MR. MACDONALD: For the provincial force.

MR. GIBSON: For the provincial force, that's right — for the provincial force, not the municipal.

I would like to go on record as saying that I would support the government in taking the line which I assume they will, that there should be no reduction in that percentage of federal cost-sharing. Generally speaking, I'm against British Columbia being in cost-sharing programmes, because I think we would be better off to opt out of most of them, but this is a special case. This is one of those rare cases where British Columbia gets back somewhat of its due because we are the largest province participating in this programme — Ontario and Quebec do not participate. Therefore this is one of the ways of getting back some of that enormous volume of tax money that we send to Ottawa.

MR. MACDONALD: They make the law and the government has to enforce it.

MR. GIBSON: The first member for Vancouver East makes a very salient point, as he always does, that the government in Ottawa makes the law — in terms of the Criminal Code, that is — and then the provinces have to enforce it. It is only proper that the federal treasury should bear a goodly proportion of that cost, and I offer my support to the Attorney-General in that regard.

With respect to alcohol education, I would ask the Attorney — General if he has had the opportunity of acquiring a report recently released by the member of the Legislature in Ontario responsible for the government's youth secretariat. I'm not clear, Mr. Chairman, whether or not this gentleman is a member of the Ontario government, actually, but he has some official capacity and he has just brought into the Legislature recommendations concerning the drinking age for young people, concerning identification cards, concerning a percentage of advertising revenues being used to portray the harmful effects of alcoholic consumption and so on.

It is a carefully researched report, at least by the news accounts to date, and ideas which I think ought to be looked at in this province. I would ask the minister if he has seen a copy of that report, or, if he has not, whether he would take measures to obtain such and get that public dialogue going in British Columbia — perhaps, Mr. Chairman, through the use of a legislative committee, a legislative committee

[ Page 1241 ]

that I will suggest later on might be activated. The justice committee, naturally, might be activated in other useful regards as well.

These are questions which are of great concern to the ordinary person, and which I think the government might find would give them useful advice. Certainly alcohol in all of its manifestations is the most serious drug problem we have, and one for which many members of the community would, I believe, welcome the chance to give their views to some kind of parliamentary body.

I support the statements that were made with regard to increased impaired-driver training. I support suggestions the government should spend a good deal of money in anti-drinking-and-driving advertisements on television and through such other media as they might be effective non-political ads, needless to say, Mr. Chairman but ads directed most seriously at making people realize the consequence of this kind of mixture.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: I appreciate that. Sometimes in the past, Mr. Attorney-General, through Mr. Chairman, you may recall that these ads have had the tiniest political tinge to them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Does the member have exhibits? (Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: I would suggest to him, finally, in this regard that one of the keys has to be enforcement. The penalties for drinking driving are quite vigorous right now, but the enforcement is not.

One of the interesting phenomena we see in the greater Vancouver area every Christmas is that when the roadside check stations are set up we see a decline in accidents related to alcohol. In other words, stiff enforcement works and is something that the Attorney-General should be looking at.

Moving on now to the question of legal aid cutbacks. I would be grateful, Mr. Chairman, if the Attorney-General could elaborate somewhat on the remarks he just made. He implied that there are certain categories of offence where legal aid might be cut back in a categorical way. I would ask the Attorney-General how you arrive at those categories, because it seems to me you are making a presumption there that people who are charged with those offences are more than likely to be guilty than people charged with other kinds of offences. If that's not the case, I don't see any basis for discrimination between one and another.

Presumably the right to defence, if it has to be conditioned in any way, if it has to be cut back in any way, should be conditioned on the basis of how serious the result might be to the person charged. If the danger of a severe sentence is considerable, that would seem to me the place to put legal aid resources, as opposed to those areas where there is a danger of a relatively minor sentence.

If the Attorney-General has some other principle of allocation, I would be interested to know what it would be; and if it is to be on a category of offence, I'd be interested to know how he justifies that.

I would ask next when the Attorney-General plans to move in some way on the question of matrimonial property...and studying the report which the royal commission on family and children's law brought down in that area.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Yes, I believe it was report No. 6. It was a report of enormous complexity which I think most authorities have agreed would be better handled by some public discussion of the fine print before any enactment into law is made. I think it's important that there be an early move on this, though.

I would suggest to the Attorney-General that he might proceed by bringing in a draft bill, a bill which he brings in for first reading in this House and announces at that time that there is no intention of proceeding at that particular session or, indeed, any session with that particular bill, but rather here is a discussion document for the community to look at and again, perhaps, to hold hearings on.

But it would be some way of putting the fine print before the British Columbia community so that each person can say: "This is how my particular circumstances would be affected." Because insofar as we are talking about matrimonial couples, we are talking about, I suppose, literally a million different private arrangements within the province of British Columbia, all of them different in some degree. All of them would be affected by a change in the law of that kind. If there has ever been an argument for bringing in a draft bill for people to study before it is enacted, I would suggest that this is the case. But it is important that some move be made in this field because it has been too long overdue.

I would next ask the Attorney-General, following on from that, a general question about the status of the various reports of the Royal Commission on Family and Children's Law. I think there were about 13 of them; I don't know if they've all been published yet even. But I as a layman have lost track of where they all stand and would be grateful for an account of that.

Next I would turn to the question of juveniles and their problems in our province. As we all know, it is a great concern to British Columbians, a much larger concern in some communities than in others, but in some area an overpowering concern to local residents.

[ Page 1242 ]

There has been a lot of discussion of these questions through the justice development council. There were starting to be discussions through the community resource boards, which were proving to be a useful institution for looking at these kinds of problems, one of the reasons why I personally am very sad that these boards have been brought to such an untimely end.

I would ask the Attorney-General first of all if he agrees that this is a substantial problem. I think he will say yes. I would then ask him if he would be prepared to refer this general subject matter to the legislative committee on justice to hold some hearings around this province on this topic to act, if you like, as a lightening rod or a collector of information for the government on one of the most vexatious problems we have. I would ask him as well if he could give us his views on the general theory of restitution as an appropriate part of the sentencing procedure. To me, it is a good thing, the idea of some kind of work restitution for the victim when it involves property damage, some kind of general community work when strict property damage can't be identified.

MR. MACDONALD: A community service order.

MR. GIBSON: A community service order. To me, this should be encouraged; the use of these kinds of community service orders should be encouraged. I think an endorsation by the Attorney-General would be helpful in that regard. I would ask him how he feels about a more definite fixing of parental responsibility for the damage caused by juveniles. I would ask him for his current plans on the building of community remand facilities. I believe we need one on the North Shore very strongly.

I'll just mention the B.C. Police Commission long enough to say congratulations to Mr. Hogarth and to his board. I think they are doing an excellent job.

I'll move on to the question of violence on television, which concerns me as it does many others. As you know, Mr. Chairman, the province of Ontario was a leader in exhibiting some concern in this area and, indeed, appointed a one-woman royal commission to look at it — the hon. Judy LaMarsh. Recently the government of Canada has shown concern in this regard, offering, in effect, financial incentives to networks or to cable systems if they are able to find ways of producing programmes which exhibit less violence.

I would urge him to add the official voice of British Columbia in terms of the government to a concern over the violence on our television screens which, if taken too literally, as television is inevitably taken literally by people who grow up with it, brings us to the opinion that we live in a violent society and therefore we have to live in violent ways ourselves. It leads to unfortunate results in my opinion. I think our government should add its voice to those who say: "Let's do something about this."

Another question, very much a layman's question but one that flows from the maxim that justice delayed is justice denied: I have heard from lawyers that it takes a very great time indeed to get ordinary matters to trial in our courts. I know that the previous government was working on this problem. I have no doubt that the present government is, in terms of more judges, more courtrooms and better court procedures. I would ask the Attorney-General if he could tell us something about how long the average civil case and the average criminal case is taking to come to trial now and what prospects he sees for the future in that regard.

Finally, I will say a word on rent control, Mr. Chairman, and then sit down.

I generally agree with the philosophy that the Attorney-General brought forward — namely that, in principle, rent control is not the answer and it should be phased out as quickly as possible. In practice it must be retained until there is a sufficiency of rental accommodation — certainly a vacancy rate well in excess of the under 1 per cent that we have now.

I have a suggestion to the Attorney-General: he might start out by removing the five-year exemption for new, buildings. In other, words, say, that new buildings are exempt from rent control, period.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: In other words, if you're an investor, you can build an apartment building and plan to amortize it over a much longer period than five years rather than trying to high-grade the market right away and say: "I have to get all of my money out of that quickly." I think that this could lead to lower rents, I think it could also lead to a greater construction of apartment buildings.

Mr. Chairman, with those few questions asked in a constructive and cooperative spirit, and much appreciating the cooperative spirit the Attorney-General showed in his opening remarks, I will sit down.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I would like to shortly respond to the hon. member, and also thank him for his very helpful suggestions.

Unfortunately, your answer to your question to the strata title has arrived at my desk and I'd like to consider it. I'll give you that a little later.

You've talked about the jails and the fact that I requested, shortly after I came to office, an overview. I'm pleased to inform you, Mr. Member, that I have now received it. I believe it came in yesterday, or the day before, and I've got about three and a half feet of documents there, so it's going to take me a little while to get into that.

[ Page 1243 ]

But I think I can certainly say this: the problem with our jails in this province is one of capital dollars. It also, it seems to me, was not a matter that either the former administration — or the former former administration, for that matter — ever seriously addressed themselves to. Perhaps that's too strong a statement when I say they didn't seriously address themselves to the fact, but we don't really see the results of too much, save and except the general inclination to do whatever we can to have substitutive forms of penalty.

I don't subscribe to the fact that the best solution for society is to incarcerate people and throw away the key. I'm not advocating that we've got to have a monstrous jail system, and that if we come to a full stop that either's going to be the answer, because it's got to be a combined effort; it's got to be something that will balance the one unto the other. The jails, I think, in the province, certainly some specific ones, are seriously in the need of capital dollars, and I do hope that we're going to be able to find some of that money.

You talked about the reciprocal enforcement of alimony. I understand, Mr. Member, that we do have a statute covering that. It used to be the Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Act, and that was repealed and it went into the Family Relations Act. That mechanism is available at the present time.

Interjection.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, the problem is, once again, trying to get blood out of a stone, unfortunately.

Interjections.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, I gather it works well, save and except the difficulty of trying to collect some dollars from an individual who is not in a position to pay any.

Now you also raised some questions about the RCMP and, of course, there is more to consider — dealing with the RCMP contracts — than just the formula between Ottawa's percentage division of this responsibility and British Columbia's responsibility. We also have to consider very carefully what kind of cost factors go into that formula, and this is a part of the major debate at the present time that is being carried on by all of the provinces, save and except Ontario and Quebec, with the federal government.

I have received a figure here that it would amount to about a 28 per cent overall increase if the provinces accepted the RCMP contracts, as first proposed by Ottawa, and a 30 per cent overall increase if the municipalities accepted that. Well, it has not been accepted, and I'm saying that Ottawa is negotiating, and negotiating in good faith. I'm indeed hopeful that we can come up with something that's a far better deal in favour of the provinces, which I very much feel they're entitled to.

I'm not aware of the Ontario report which you mention to me, but if you would give me some particulars I will certainly see that that is obtained by officials of the department, and consideration is given to it.

You've again made reference to legal aid, and the point that perhaps I didn't articulate too very clearly when I stood up a few moments ago was, again that this is a problem for negotiation with the federal government as to the consistence of the contract.

Under the contract with the federal government, they were providing 50 cents per capita, and they upped that to 75 cents per capita. It was incumbent upon the province, upon receiving those moneys, and under the contract, to provide legal aid in the cases enumerated in that document, which included matters which we hope now perhaps will not be there — for example, the summary conviction offences, where the penalties are lesser. The indictable offences, I gather, will still remain with a caveat, which I mentioned in my remarks to the member for Vancouver East. Is it in the proper interest of society to spend its dollars on repeaters? Is it in the interest of society to spend dollars for legal aid in cases of drinking driving? I mean, it's a moral issue, and I think it's one that we will have to make a decision on. I'm hopeful myself that we're going to be able to be more selective. Now some people may not agree with that approach, but that's the approach that I think is the best one to take.

Interjection.

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, no, it's not a question of a presumption of guilt. It's a question as to whether all offences are going to be.... You know, usually, for example, if a fellow is on a drinking-driving offence, in most cases he does have a vehicle, may well have a job. I don't know. I can't tell you Mr. Member, whether or not we are tightly enough applying the requirements for legal aid, because it is legal aid in the event of need.

Now in the first four months that we have been in office, I have not been able to sift through that process yet to my total satisfaction. I'm saying let's take a look at it, and let's try to seek improvement. That's what you are after and that's what I'm after, and let's hope we'll be able to come up with something mutually satisfactory.

You made a suggestion about the Berger report on — what was it? — married women's property rights. Your suggestion was that perhaps it would be a good thing to introduce a bill, and that could become a discussion document. Now this is a procedure that has been adopted by former administrations, and I

[ Page 1244 ]

think it's a good one. At the present time it's still under consideration. Whether or not we take that route, Mr. Member, today I cannot give you a commitment, but it's a valuable suggestion.

The juvenile situation and penalties for juveniles who are in conflict with the law — there are, of course, community work service orders, the community remand provisions which are in effect in this province, which were new concepts and ones that are being looked at very carefully by the federal government as well. I think British Columbia, to a great extent, has been a leader in this field, and I would indeed like to congratulate all those responsible for being prepared to innovate. When you're prepared to innovate it doesn't necessarily mean those things which you innovate are going to be totally accepted, or continue. We've got to have a little bit of trial. We've got to expect some errors and we've got to see what can come from it.

I do feel that we have been remiss in this province in not being able to have some type of a facility for hard-core juveniles. Now I don't quite yet have the verbiage, or the professionalese, that is attached to this, to properly identify it. If I used the word containment I suppose somebody will say: "My God, this man wishes to go ahead and build a mausoleum where we're going to house kids." That's not my intention whatsoever. But I do feel that we do have.... In the interests of protection of the general public, for a certain very small segment of hard-core trouble-makers, dangerous in many cases, we have got to be assured in this society that they can be adequately and properly segregated, with hope of certainly doing whatever we can to see that we can provide them with the necessary assistance which they need to become lawful and law-abiding and productive citizens.

Now whether that would take the form of an institution, or whether that would take the form of an open facility along the lines of Secret Harbour at Anacortes, I don't know. But that is one item that is being looked into very carefully by members of my department. It is also being considered by members of the departments of my colleagues, and I'd like to say that we intend to do something about it. Because there's nowhere today that's adequate. All of us have received complaints from constituents, complaints from the professionals, and I think the balance of opinion is that there has to be some kind of method of adequately segregating those people. Now in numbers, I can't tell you the numbers. It may be up to 150, no more than that. Not too many, and I think we've got to do it.

Your remarks concerning violence on television and the screen — we abhor violence. Everyone in this House does. I'm looking with the greatest of interest to the findings of Miss Judy La Marsh, when her commission has been able to reach its determination.

Now you asked me something about the number of criminal cases that are proceeding to trial — civil cases — and you wish some statistics. This is very difficult for me to give you during the estimates, but if you'd like maybe to put a question on the order paper and wait a little bit longer, I'll endeavour to get some response to you from the department. I don't have those things at my fingertips, as you know.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! All speeches must be made in a standing position; otherwise Hansard has difficulty in recording the question, and hence the answer means nothing. The hon. Attorney-General has the floor.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, I'm informed it's about eight to nine months in civil cases in Vancouver, but that, I think, refers, with respect to my deputy, to the supreme court, because I gather the county court is processing them very quickly. I had a discussion with a senior judge of the county court — I hope that's not going to get me in trouble (Laughter) — about the time it was taking to get cases before the court.

MR. WALLACE: You were only trying to help.

HON. MR. GARDOM: That's right. This was early on in January. Unfortunately, I can't recall the exact amount of time that he said, but it was something like a month or six weeks — something like that. The county court was really well up to date. The supreme court delays have been cut, and we are still having some difficulty at 222 Main Street in the criminal area, but those have been drastically cut. I can recall a figure of 5,200 or so, and it is now down to about 3,800 to 3,900 cases.

Interjection.

HON. MR. GARDOM: A 3,800 to 3,900 backlog, yes. But there are new systems down there, and let's hope they work. If they are not going to work, we are going to change them.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Chairman, I would ask leave of the committee to make a statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: As the committee knows, the committee has no authority to suspend the rules of the House, but I am sure the committee would like to hear the statement. I am sure leave will be granted.

Leave granted.

[ Page 1245 ]

MINISTER'S STATEMENT ON
HOSPITAL WORKERS DISPUTE

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, an industrial inquiry commission report into a dispute between the hospital employees' union and the Health Labour Relations Association has been rejected by the employer association and by the employees at Vancouver General Hospital. I am informed that Vancouver General Hospital members of the hospital employees' union are meeting today to take a strike vote. Mr. Ed Sims, who is the mediation officer appointed in the dispute, has been requested by the union to report out. He will do so tomorrow morning.

It appears, therefore, that a strike against the Vancouver General Hospital is imminent. Those taking part in this strike would be workers in hospital support services such as cleaners, orderlies, janitors and helpers. It does not involve nurses, interns and other medical personnel. If such a strike takes place and the hospital is picketed, the possibility exists that workers who are members of unions who are not parties to the dispute will be prevented from attending to their duties. Similarly, picket lines may prevent needed supplies from entering the hospital.

In anticipation of this eventuality, yesterday I requested officials of my department to investigate and advise me as to the potential danger to life, health or safety in respect to the patients at Vancouver General Hospital or those who may require services at that institution. I have today received a report from Mr. Colin Kay, senior industrial relations officer of the Department of Labour. Based on the information which I have accumulated, I have this afternoon directed the Labour Relations Board of British Columbia to designate those facilities and services which must be continued, notwithstanding any strike by the hospital employees' union, to prevent any danger to life, health or safety.

The authority of the minister and of the board in this respect is contained in section 73 of the Labour Code of British Columbia. An order by the Labour Relations Board making such a designation will oblige the hospital and all of its employees to supply those essential services.

MR. WALLACE: On a point of order, could we just have some clarification about procedure? I don't wish to be fussy, but I feel that the three party leaders would want to respond to the minister's statement and it doesn't seem appropriate still to be in committee. If that is considered appropriate, could we have some guidelines as to how we respond to the ministerial statement?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that perhaps the response by each of the party leaders might be in order, but only by leave. We are in committee and we cannot suspend the proceedings except by leave.

Leave granted.

MR. KING: I'd like to make a brief response to the Minister of Labour's statement. I want to say that I think the minister's initiative in this regard is a sound one. The intent of section 73 of the Labour Code was precisely to ensure that in the case of labour disputes in the hospital industry, or any other industry where the life and limb and the safety and health of the public may be in jeopardy, that the Labour Relations Board, at the minister's request, could determine precisely what services are life supportive and must be retained. The philosophy is, I think, that the board will consult with both parties so that there might be some consensus in determining that those basic services are maintained. I congratulate the Minister of Labour on using the Labour Code in that way.

MR. GIBSON: I would add my view that the minister has made a wise move in this circumstance. I would ask him if he could, at the earliest possible opportunity, advise the House as to what is to be done in the longer term. My understanding of section 73(7) is that this is a 21-day designation.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It's the second part of that.

MR. GIBSON: It's the second part of that. So this is a continuing.... In any event, somehow a resolution must be reached of the wage dispute, and perhaps in due course the minister can let the House know how that's progressing. I think it's wise what he's done to date.

MR. WALLACE: I feel that at least the minister has taken initiatives prior to a critical situation being reached. So often we really seem to feel as government or legislators that we have to wait until the situation is really critical. In this regard, I think the minister's taken an initiative which we should all appreciate. I'm like the former speaker for the Liberal Party. I do wonder, however, if in the course of the next day or two, perhaps, the minister could tell us from the report just how far apart the parties appear to be in relation to the tone of the mediator's report. I also would just like clarification of the fact that "designation" simply means, I presume, that once a strike is called — and I believe there has to be 72-hours strike notice — under the designation clause there would then proceed from that date of the strike being initiated a 21-day cooling-off period.

[ Page 1246 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to take the time of the committee to get into a lengthy discussion. Just let me say that the order by the Labour Relations Board is not only effective for 21 days. If they designate certain services which are essential to health, life and safety, then those services must be provided without interference.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT
OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

On vote 10: minister's office, $88,952 — continued.

MR. WALLACE: One has to be very quick on one's feet these days, Mr. Chairman, when we find that we're using the rules with more flexibility, and to everyone's benefit, I think, but nevertheless a vote can perhaps slip through during the flexibility arrangements.

I have numerous topics to cover in this very large and important area of the Department of the Attorney-General, but I just want to make one or two brief comments at this time. I say this objectively, although I feel I have no alternative but to be extremely critical despite all the blandishments and all the explanations and all the shortages of dollars that we've heard about, but the situation in Wilkinson Road jail is nothing less than an absolute scandal — an absolute scandal! It is primitive. Not anybody in this chamber sitting here tonight could probably be anything but nauseated to spend even one hour in that institution, and I went through it just a week or two ago. We've had explanations about the shortage of dollars from this minister, which I accept, or at least a decision about the priority on the spending of dollars.

We had a commitment from the former government that it would be phased out, and they started to phase it out, but the next thing I discover is that they've opened up one of the old wings again.

Now, Mr. Chairman, it's all very well to talk about priorities and dollars and balancing the budget and black ink, and I realize the top priority this government has given to health, but these are human beings who are in Wilkinson Road jail. Under these circumstances they won't remain human beings for very long because, in many respects, they're treated like nothing less than animals. I'm not exaggerating. You can smell the consequences of the inadequate plumbing. The individual in a cell can take me and show me where the drainage of the excreta is inadequate, and the person is living in a cell 10 feet by 5 feet, or whatever, with a constant aroma. There's overcrowding. There's an average of 50 people in there on remand. They haven't even been charged. They have been charged but haven't even come to trial. Somebody was in there nearly two years before they came to trial.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I realize that money doesn't grow on trees, and I know that a government has a responsibility to set priorities, but please let's just realize how incredibly primitive and inadequate this facility is. I really think it should be incumbent on every one of the 55 legislators in this assembly to take a trip and examine, as I do, on about a once-a-year basis, the situation in Wilkinson Road jail. How the staff cope with the situation I just don't know. I really don't. Then I read the newspaper and people get very upset, and quite justifiably, because there's a hostage-taking incident in Wilkinson Road jail, or because there's an escape attempt. If any one of the 55 of us were in there for very long, if there weren't some kind of response of that nature I'd be very surprised.

So let's not nibble away at the consequences. It's like a physician treating the symptoms when he's not doing anything at all to cure the disease. These individuals in that kind of restricted facility...again I wish everyone here could see it.

I'd just like the people in this room to go and look at the kitchens, for example. I bet you there's not a licensed private-enterprise restaurant in the whole of British Columbia that is allowed to function and feed the public with the standards in their kitchen that we have in the kitchen in Wilkinson Road jail. Broken tiles on the floor, little pools of water, inadequate plumbing, the ceiling cracking, the paint coming off the walls.

Mr. Chairman, it is unbelievable that in a province with a $3.6 billion budget, I've stood here, along with other members of the opposition in previous Houses, and for three or four or five years we're always being told that Wilkinson Road jail is being phased out.

I don't think we have to look any further, Mr. Chairman, than page 11 of the report of the Attorney-General's department which, I might say in passing, is an excellent successor to the first report that we got last year. Page 11 just spells it as it is, and I'm quoting:

"Inability to replace personnel and restrictions placed on developing programmes placed a heavy strain on employees. Control initiated by an insensitive bureaucracy and administered without any appreciation for the nature of programmes and government priorities can only have a disastrous effect. That was the case during the past year, and all component parts of the Attorney-General's department suffered alike."

Now, Mr. Chairman, the community in British Columbia, and across Canada, are always talking about law and order — and I've no wish to get into a long debate on that per se — but I do think that the public of this province, and the people of Canada, can't have it both ways. It is no answer just simply, as

[ Page 1247 ]

this report mentions later on, to become harsh and punitive and talk about hanging people and 25-year sentences; and just because you tuck the offenders away out of sight of the public...the "out of sight, out of mind" attitude solves nothing.

All that can lead to, in my view — and the persistence of incredibly uncivilized places such as Wilkinson Road jail is bound to — it is absolutely predictable that it will lead to more violence in the jails, hostage-taking, difficulty in obtaining personnel, rotation of personnel. The chief officer at Wilkinson Road jail quoted a figure to me — I forget the number — of people on staff who have been there less than a year, so that any level of real experience is represented by a small percentage of the total staff.

This whole thing is absolutely cumulative, and it is no answer simply for the public to demand harsher penalties and tougher sentences, and to bring amendments to the legislation to make even the legislation tougher if, when you convict that offender, you put him in a place like Wilkinson Road. It just makes no sense at all, because anybody with any residual human instincts at all cannot but come out of Wilkinson Road in much worse physical and mental shape than he went in.

Now I'm not seeking for one moment to minimize the problem. I realize that many of the problems and the offences are drug-related, many of them are young people, many of them are repeaters. But the fact is, Mr. Chairman, that even first offenders awaiting trial are cooped up in that particular institution.

I've had the invitation previously, but I haven't had the opportunity to visit Oakalla, which I'm told in many respects exhibits the same primitive, broken-down, inadequate, over-crowded picture.

I would like, for example, in trying to be fair in this criticism, to know — and maybe this is an answer I can't get this moment, but I'm sure the minister will be able to find it — if he could tell me how much money is being spent on even trying to hold the place in the shape it's in today. Because, as I say, if you look at the kitchen, it's just the most broken-down, dishevelled place, with ancient, antiquated equipment, and paint peeling off the walls, and broken, cracked tiling on the floors. It's just a whole image of the kind of place that I don't think any of us would be very happy eating food that had to be prepared under these circumstances.

So how much has even been spent? Even a coat of paint on the walls would help. I'm sure if even the prisoners were given the paint they'd probably be happy to do it themselves — if we have to get to the most ridiculous penny-pinching approach to the problem.

Now I realize that the minister did ask for a review, and I've discussed this with the minister recently. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I delayed asking questions in the question period because I was aware that he was asking for a review. But we've had all kinds of reviews all the years I've been in the House, and the minister's been in the House longer than I have. It wouldn't surprise me to know that before I got here he was asking questions about Wilkinson Road jail, because it's been on the floor of this House the five or six years I've been here each time we debate the Attorney-General's salary.

It's becoming a little tiresome to have a lot of verbal commitment to improving facilities and changing the system and yet year after year you go into that place to have a look at it and it hasn't changed a bit.

As I say, a year ago one of the wings was closed down in the first phase of trying to close the place down completely, and I understand that just a few months ago that old wing had to be reopened, As I say, there's just some deplorably inadequate facilities for the very basic human needs. I wonder then if we could get some kind of more specific answer first of all as to what is even being spent on upkeep.

I would like to know, and maybe I'm getting outside the vote here, as to the Minister of Health's department. Does the health inspector check the kitchen at Wilkinson Road jail as frequently as it would check my kitchen if I were selling hamburgers on the causeway outside the parliament buildings?

These are the thoughts, Mr. Chairman, that go through your mind when you take a look at the inside of one of these institutions. Again, I'm not suggesting whether we should renew the old institution or build a new one, or where the new one should be. All these are technical decisions down the road. I want a decision that something will be done in the immediate future, if only to provide the barest minimum reasonable standard of living for the inmates, unless of course there are enough people in this province who do believe in the very punitive approach to the offender.

I hear some very disturbing right-wing voices being sounded across this country that we've gone soft on the criminal. There may be examples where that criticism is justified but, Mr. Chairman, if we have any concept of humanity — never mind justice, humanity — it is just dead wrong that anybody, no matter what offence they've committed against society, should get cooped up in a dump like Wilkinson Road jail.

Mr. Chairman, I think I've made enough comments to say that I feel that in the drive to set priorities this government has done remarkably well, and I repeat and acknowledge that they've made a real attempt to divert the dollars, the increased dollars that they feel they can spend, to health and education.

But here is an area that not only myself by any means, but many members on the opposition side of the House have pleaded for for several years. I'm

[ Page 1248 ]

pleading with the Attorney-General now. It isn't only to get the offender some basic minimum standards of decency when he's in there, but I would assume that there's some hope that first offenders in particular or people waiting trial will not come out so embittered that they get on the dope scene or they just continue on the dope scene, or they come out with a grudge against society which I must assume is very likely if any one of us were to undergo that experience.

I hope society isn't thinking that because the offender is only getting what he deserves that what we need is a more miserable and harsher and more punitive kind of way to deal with the offender. It is, in my view, Mr. Chairman, not likely to be an enormously expensive project to provide either some upgrading in Wilkinson Road or another type of facility, and that would, of course, really be my last comment at this time. Have there been estimates brought to the minister as to what the alternative new facility would cost so that again at least the opposition and the public should have some opportunity...if the bill's $1 million or $2 million or $3 million, or whatever?

I think that just always to give the opposition the answer "well, we know things are not right and must be changed" but not to give us price tabs to provide the required change...I don't think it's really fair to the opposition.

If I could just quickly recap: what has been spent in the last 12 months to provide even minimum upkeep?What is envisaged as the type of facility which one day will replace Wilkinson Road, and in today's dollars what is the estimated cost of such a facility?

HON. MR. GARDOM: In responding to the remarks of the hon. member for Oak Bay, which I wish to thank him for very much, I want to say that I'm not going to defend the conditions of Wilkinson Road. We have inherited it — not necessarily this government; society has inherited it. You made the very strong point that society has not apparently seen fit — under the last administration, for that matter — to go ahead and have this put ahead as a higher priority.

The hon. member also recognizes — and I hate to have to repeat this — the question of dollars which we're facing. Wilkinson Road — these are kitchen and food services — the problem that you have mentioned to me is to the attention of my department. I'm informed that there was a complete health inspection of the kitchen and food services unit within the past couple of weeks and steps have been undertaken to improve it. I cannot give you specifics because I don't have them at my fingertips.

I also don't have a my fingertips the money spent over the last 12 months for maintenance, but I will obtain it. If I can't have it during my estimates, Mr. Member, I shall give it to you later on.

MR. LAUK: There's lots of time.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Also, dealing with what would be the correct thing to do — well, once again, the best thing to do, I suppose, would be to raze it to the ground and start in from new.

Now the hon. member's talking about the five-year plan. I have been given these figures, and this is the result of this overview that I've requested; this is not a new study. I want to emphasize that; I didn't wish a new study. We know that studies have been going on and on and on, and I just didn't wish to have another study to back up two or three or four earlier ones. I wished the department to consider the studies that have taken place, to inform me of the progress that they have been able to make to this juncture on the five-year plan, and also to give me a current assessment of their attitudes, which are not constant — they are changing as times change. As I say, I've not yet had an opportunity to fully consider that. But the dollars, I'm told, that would be involved in constructing a new facility — and the most needful type of facility is one that would be a remand assessment and classification facility — would be around $5.5 million. I assume that's excluding land costs.

Secondly, in order to renovate the existing structure, which maybe would involve a great deal of tearing down as well, it would be about $4.5 million for remand and classification. If we were able to go the whole route, or if it was advisable to go the whole route at Wilkinson to make it into a custodial as well as remand assessment and classification, which would have a total population of about 120 beds, it would be close to $10 million — round figure estimates in each case. So, Mr. Member, I dislike very much to have to stand here and tell you that we're looking at it, but that's all I can tell you today.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, just a word on the same subject and before the subject changes. The linch-pin, I guess, is still the remand facilities. If you could solve that, both on the lower mainland and on Vancouver Island, and that requires the expenditure of money, then the long-term custody would not be the problem that it is by any means. That must be half your problem or perhaps two-thirds, with what's remaining at Wilkinson Road. I would suggest that you should go to the Minister of Finance — he was here earlier this afternoon; you might be able to catch him still — and tell him that these long-term projects, which are so vitally necessary, if only to make the five-year plan work, should be financed and amortized over a period of years.

AN HON. MEMBER: I thought you started that.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, yes, but we didn't get

[ Page 1249 ]

the bill through. Then you came into government and announced in the budget speech that that would be running the province into debt. Well, that's a lot of nonsense. You should do these things through a Public Works corporation — the same as MacMillan Bloedel does, or the CPR through Marathon Realty — finance them and then you pay rent on the facilities, and amortize it over 10 or 12 years. Why don't you ask me to come to one of your cabinet meetings and I'll try to explain...?

HON. MR. GARDOM: If you'd have gone to your own cabinet meetings you could have done it.

MR. MACDONALD: You're always crying wolf about the finances of the province.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: The member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) is quite right; the facilities are lousy. We got it down to about 17 remand people at one time, but there are tremendous pressures in their drug pickups and so forth, and I can see that it's probably gone up, and that's most unfortunate.

But you've got to find that remand location. You'll have tremendous community resistance wherever you go, so you've got to bite the bullet sometime. You know, any kind of a facility today...and I deplore that, because whether it's mentally disturbed children or whatever it is, you run into that thing.

In the case of some of the juveniles, I think they should be out at UBC — some of them are disturbed — in the health science centre, those who require custody and treatment. The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) might fight you on that, but he shouldn't. They should be integrated; those disturbed kids should be into that kind of elite facility. Do you know that? I hope you would not combat that idea.

Young people who are in trouble with the law, who are disturbed, and who are waiting trial and assessment and treatment should be in some kind of an institution that's close to the rest of the community, with doctors and nurses and other facilities, and preferably classrooms, educational centres, a swimming pool and the kind of thing that other people have that are not in conflict with the law. Why not? Don't isolate them.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Like the ones you built.

MR. MACDONALD: Like the ones we built. I'm not, today, arguing the past, but we did so much in terms of community correctional centres throughout the whole thing. We did an awful lot, more than had ever been done, in three years. If you want to go and argue that with me, I will, but I'm not doing the past. I'm saying that the bone that you've got to somehow get attended to is these remand centres; that's got to be done quickly and you could amortize the cost. If you do that, the five-year plan to phase out Oakalla — which is far worse, Mr. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), especially in terms of overcrowding, than Wilkinson Road — you can do that in accordance with that five-year plan.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I am concerned. This is one of the institutions that I don't happen to have in Nelson-Creston — a penal institution. I would certainly be interested to take up the suggestion of the member for Oak Bay. I think it helps to bring things a little bit closer to home when we do visit these places — places which we might not like to see.

It will take longer than the time we have, but I would like to talk about people who are not maybe considered as lawbreakers. When I was in cabinet there was a brief presented last October 10 from the Take-the-Car-out-of-Carnage Committee of Prince George. I was very impressed with the work they have done up there.

In my riding our justice council decided in looking at the various problems that violent crime is not a problem in Nelson-Creston of the proportions that it is in other areas. On a per capita basis violent crime is relatively low. We have a stable community; it is called a depressed community economically. Population growth has not been too great but we do have certain problems which arise because of, perhaps, the static nature of the Kootenays in general and of the study area. Our justice, council came to the conclusion that the most worthwhile thing that they could do was address themselves to impaired driving. A report was prepared for discussion of the justice council by Conrad and Bonnie Evans. They came up with recommendations. I think that it is very surprising to see what has come up and what might be appropriate for a particular community. Problems are not the same in all areas.

If we look at who drinks and drives in Canada, Canada ranks 16th in the world in terms of overall alcohol consumption. So we rank ahead of Britain, Germany, the United States and the USSR, much as we have heard about some of their vodka-smashing sessions that go on and so on. So Canada ranks pretty high in terms of world alcohol consumption on a per capita basis.

In terms of alcoholism our standing is even higher — fifth in the world, with an incidence of 2,200 acute alcoholics per 100,000 people. While maybe our statistics-taking is more efficient than it might be in other areas, I think that it still should be taken pretty much at face value. Then if we localize to British Columbia figures instead of national figures, B.C. ranks first among all the provinces in a country which

[ Page 1250 ]

is fifth in the world in terms of alcoholism. So we rank first in the fifth-worst country.

Then we look even closer to home in terms of the Kootenays. We find certain patterns. The pattern which they find is that you don't have the daily drinking habits — the martinis before supper. The urban lifestyle of San Francisco and New York is not what you find, but you do find very heavy weekend drinking. It is more likely that the typical consumer of alcohol in Nelson-Creston will sit down and consume prodigious amounts of beer. We have seven beer parlours and a Canadian Legion right in Nelson alone. We also have, of course, licensed restaurants and little things that almost anticipated the neighbourhood pubs in various areas.

We find in the Nelson survey that higher-income groups had more heavy drinkers than lower-income groups. When one looks at an Alberta study and a national study, all studies agree that driving and drinking was prevalent among males, among the middle-aged and among separated and divorced drivers.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.