[ Page 1337 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Habitat Conservation Fund. Mrs. Wallace –– 1337

Cassiar Packing payments to fishermen. Mr. D'Arcy –– 1337

Federal grant to Solidarity. Mr. Reynolds –– 1337

Erosion of justice system. Ms. Brown –– 1338

Waste treatment system. Mrs, Wallace –– 1338

Federal grant to Solidarity. Mr. Michael –– 1338

E&N Railway passenger service. Ms. Sanford –– 1339

Hydro rate hearings. Mr. Skelly –– 1339

Lower mainland logging. Mrs. Wallace –– 1339

Tobacco Tax Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 13). Second reading.

On the amendment.

Division –– 1339

Division on second reading –– 1339

Regulations Act (Bill 31). Second reading.

Ms. Brown –– 1340

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 1344

Division –– 1345

Harbour Board Repeat Act (Bill 25). Second reading.

Mr. Skelly –– 1345

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 1346

Division –– 1346

Ocean Falls Corporation Repeal Act (Bill 30). Second reading.

Mr. Howard –– 1347

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 1347

Division –– 1348

Miscellaneous Statutes (Finance Measures) Amendment Act –– 1983 (Bill 17). Second reading.

Mr. Skelly –– 1348

Ms. Brown –– 1350

Mr. Hanson –– 1354

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 1357

Appendix –– 1358

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1983

The House met at 2:11 p.m.

MR. VEITCH: In the members' gallery this afternoon are two very important people: Mr. Harry Trueman, travel agent par excellence — he has left the kitchen — and Capt. Chris Justice. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Would the House please welcome Bill and Jean McMartin, the mother and father of the unsuccessful candidate for the Social Credit Party in Vancouver East the last provincial election, Will McMartin.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today we have three gorgeous ladies. Oh, there are more than three; in fact, there are probably 53. My apologies to all you other gorgeous ladies. There are three particular gorgeous ladies. All the way from Calgary we have Mrs. Alvina Heath, who is with Mrs. Helen Reynolds, the mother — she looks more like the daughter or the sister — of the member from West Vancouver–Howe Sound. There is also a gorgeous lady who has been following John around for the last couple of weeks, and that is Yvonne Johnson.

MR. REYNOLDS: I would like to introduce in the members' gallery a gentleman from Los Angeles, California: Mr. Randy Burley, who is studying music at the University of Victoria.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, also in the galleries today, from the city of Nelson, are Frances Horan of the Nelson School Board, Mr. Howard Dirks of the Notre Dame University board, Mr. Derry Burianyk of the David Thompson University Centre Support Society, Mr. Des Gibb, from the Nelson Chamber of Commerce, and Mr. Ross Lake, who I believe left earlier. I wish the House to bid them welcome.

HON. MR. GARDOM: From the great riding of Vancouver–Point Grey we have Miss Susan McNamee visiting us this afternoon, I would like to bid her a most cordial welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, may I call your attention to standing order 2.

Oral Questions

HABITAT CONSERVATION FUND

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Environment. Can the minister explain why he has fired 22 auxiliary employees of the habitat conservation fund without cause? These were auxiliary employees working under the funding of the habitat conservation fund.

[2:15]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: A number of auxiliary employees in the ministry have been laid off and will be laid off in the future in the reduction of our total staffing. I would have to take on notice the question that, as the member seems to indicate, all of them were involved in the habitat conservation program.

MRS. WALLACE: The habitat conservation fund, as the minister knows, is a trust fund containing the proceeds of a $3 surcharge on hunting, fishing and guiding licences. Has the minister decided that the habitat conservation fund will be dissolved or terminated, and that the proceeds of the surcharge will be diverted into general revenue?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, Mr. Speaker, I think it's quite clear that the habitat conservation fund, as promised and committed by this government, is for habitat enhancement and is not to be used in other ways.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm very pleased to have that assurance, Mr. Speaker, because it is my information that at least one proposal has been submitted to utilize this fund to rehire fired employees under contract, and that this proposal has had approval from some fairly high ranking officials in the ministry. Will the minister advise why there has been no official response from the Ministry of Environment allowing that work to continue, using the employees who are trained in the job?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Certainly as much of the work as possible will be continued, and I would like to suggest that perhaps, as in other cases, the member's information may well be wrong.

CASSIAR PACKING PAYMENTS TO FISHERMEN

MR. D'ARCY: Further to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing and acting Minister of Environment, on August 31 the Royal Bank placed Cassiar Packing Co. in receivership after the 1983 catch to that date was delivered but before the fishermen were paid, thereby maximizing the Royal Bank's cash position. As minister responsible for fisheries, has the member for North Peace River taken steps to ensure that fishermen who honoured their contracts with Cassiar Packing would be paid according to those contractual obligations?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, I am aware of the financial transactions between the bank and Cassiar Packing. I have been given to understand, in my checking, that steps have been taken to see that the fishermen are paid.

MR. D'ARCY: That statement was made on September 1 by the spokesman for the receiver. Does the minister have any further indications as to the time-frame within which the fishermen will be paid?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No. When I received the assurance that the fishermen were to be paid, I did not do any further checking; if the member likes, I will do that.

FEDERAL GRANT TO SOLIDARITY

MR. REYNOLDS: I have a question for the Attorney-General. In view of the fact that Senator Jack Austin and Mr. Art Kube have stated that the $600,000 for unemployment action centres will not be used for the Solidarity union and in view of the fact that we have had coverage in this province that shows it is being used to support Solidarity, has the Attorney-General heard from the government of Canada as to how they're going to monitor this $600,000 and stop its use by the Solidarity union?

HON. MR. SMITH: In answer to the member, no, I have not, but I do expect I'll be talking next week to Robert Kaplan

[ Page 1338 ]

about the security bill and other matters. I would be pleased to raise that question as well with him and with other federal ministers. I thank him for the question.

EROSION OF JUSTICE SYSTEM

MS. BROWN: A supplementary question. When the Attorney-General is meeting with Robert Kaplan, I wonder if he would also discuss with him the erosion of the justice system in British Columbia by that government over there.

HON. MR. SMITH: That is not a particularly clear or direct question to respond to, Mr. Speaker, but there is no erosion of the justice system in this province, as the member has pointed us to. Maybe she would like to follow up her particularization.

Interjections.

HON. MR. SMITH: I hear some members over there talking about legal services. Legal services in this province are continuing and will continue at a high level, but they will not all continue to be funded at the public purse. Some of them will not be funded at the public purse.

WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEM

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Minister of Environment. Yesterday that minister announced his approval of a proposal by the Genstar and IT corporations to develop and operate a special waste treatment system in B.C. What assurance can the minister give that the fees set by the private operators under the program will be low enough to encourage use of the facility and discourage illegal dumping?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, first of all, as that member knows, we now have no facilities to use and so we are trying to move in that direction, which I am sure the member supports. As far as what assurance we can give that the fees will be low enough, they do not have exclusive rights in this province for waste management treatment, so the marketplace will look after that. The companies will certainly be interested in trying to attract that business since they are in that business, and we do have supervisory functions from within the ministry.

MRS. WALLACE: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, the minister has indicated that there will be competition. Of course, the competition that we have had in the past has been from the United States where those rates by private companies have proven to be so high as to be discouraging.

The minister has indicated that the transportation of those hazardous wastes will be carried out by truck. Will the minister explain why this mode of transportation has been chosen, apparently through the Fraser Canyon, and what procedures are being developed to ensure transportation safety? We are talking in terms of many tonnes of waste matter.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The Ministry of Environment has been in the process of developing a very comprehensive manifest system so that everything that travels will be properly recorded. The arrangements are that experienced people who will be doing the transporting will be trained, and the transporting will not be done unless the conditions are safe and unless all provisions are taken to make sure that it is safely done.

MRS. WALLACE: I have a final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. On July 13 I asked the minister if he had decided to prevent the dumping of contaminated waste from the B.C. Place excavation in the proximity of the Fraser River. I've had no response on this, and I wonder if the minister has now decided, relative to that issue.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm not quite clear what the initial part of the question was. Have I decided what?

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, it was on July 13, some two months ago, that I asked the minister if he had decided to prevent the dumping of contaminated hazardous wastes, which we're now talking about, from B.C. Place in the vicinity of the Fraser River. I'm asking him now whether or not he has decided to prevent that dumping.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the member should recognize that several analyses have been made of that material: one is the soluble analysis, one is the total and one is the extractable. It's clear in several of these analyses that the extractable analysis is generally the one accepted by the environmental people as being the valid one. In that analysis it shows that even though there is some contaminant in there, a great deal of it has already been leached out. The extractable analysis shows that even in water, unless there are particular acid conditions, that does not leach out anymore. Technically you're not talking about a hazardous waste. According to the standards, it is waste that could be safely put in any dump.

FEDERAL GRANT TO SOLIDARITY

MR. MICHAEL: I have a supplementary to the question raised regarding Operation Solidarity and the funding from the federal government which was asked by the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds).

I would like to ask the Attorney-General if he is aware that the president of Operation Solidarity in my area is the same person who is working full-time for the Unemployment Action Centre. If he would like any further information or names, I would ask him to feel free to contact me personally. As a matter of passing interest, I should also point out that this member, the president and leader of Operation Solidarity, is also a member of a certain political party significantly to the left of those sitting in the opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: What's the question?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that that member did not have a question to pose, I wonder if you could extend question period today to accommodate that time.

MR. SPEAKER: No.

[ Page 1339 ]

E&N RAILWAY PASSENGER SERVICE

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Has the government decided to intervene before the Canadian Transport Commission hearings, which are going to be held here in Victoria in October, to oppose the application by the CPR to abandon passenger service on the E&N Railway on Vancouver Island?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, no decision has been made at this time.

MS. SANFORD: Has the government decided, then, to provide funding assistance for British Columbia groups who are going to appear at the hearings to oppose abandonment of the service? I might say that this was done the last time these hearings were held.

HON. A. FRASER: The answer is no.

HYDRO RATE HEARINGS

MR. SKELLY: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. Does the minister agree with the B.C. Utilities Commission report on the Hydro rate hearings that "public interest intervenors at commission hearings provide significant assistance in the hearings generally"?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No.

MR. SKELLY: No further questions.

LOWER MAINLAND LOGGING

MRS. WALLACE: I have another question for the Minister of Environment. In a letter to the municipality of North Vancouver, the government has said that it will not use the Environment and Land Use Act to prevent logging; nor will it contribute any funds to buy out logging rights for the area. Will the minister explain why the government has abandoned its responsibility to protect the watershed of North Vancouver and the tourist industry of the lower mainland?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, I believe I have explained that in the letter the member read. The Environment Management Act was never intended to be used other than in emergent situations. It was never intended to be used as a zoning tool. Secondly, one of the reasons that the government has decided not to buy out the people is because there are many similar situations throughout the province that could make the same claim, that to protect a hillside from being logged or something else from happening, the provincial government could simply put up the money to buy out those rights. Maybe that member is not aware, but I have some 20 to 30 such proposals on my desk asking us to buy out so that something that is legally permitted shouldn't happen anywhere. If we start that, there is no end to it.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker.

[2:30]

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 13, Mr. Speaker.

TOBACCO TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

(continued)

On the amendment.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS –– 22

NAYS — 29

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

On the motion.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

[ Page 1340 ]

NAYS — 22

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

Bill 13, Tobacco Tax Amendment Act, 1983, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 31.

REGULATIONS ACT

(continued)

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say a few words in response to the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith), who, when he introduced this piece of legislation, referred to it as being non-important. First of all, to disagree with him, because I think a couple of important changes are taking place in this legislation quite beyond those which he mentioned in his opening remarks. He told us, and I certainly agree with him, that this is a response to the report brought down by the Uniform Law Conference, which in 1980 established a committee to investigate and report back problems that have arisen from the administration of various Regulation Acts. I might add here that three people from British Columbia sat on that particular committee: Mr. Allan Roger, Mr. Herb Thornton and Mr. George Macauley. So we were very well represented.

[2:45]

However, the bill does not carry out the recommendations which that committee brought down. It goes far beyond that and in some instances totally ignores recommendations made by that committee. The committee recommended that decisions on filing regulations should be decisions made by legislators, not by the registrar. That is one major area in which this piece of legislation goes counter to the recommendations of the Uniform Law Conference committee. It stated very clearly that the registrar should not be the person to make the decision, but that the decision should be made by an elected representative. Yet we find in Bill 31 that the registrar is the person to make the decisions. The registrar may be okay, but that was not the recommendation of the committee.

The other recommendation of the committee was that the decision about whether to file or not should not be based solely on whether the matter was of a legislative nature or not but should also take into account whether it was a matter of public policy. The bill actually goes beyond the recommendations in making a decision about whether a matter should be published in the Gazette or not.... It gives all kinds of sweeping powers to the registrar, which, as I said, was counter to the recommendations of the committee.

I just want to talk a little bit about this business of information in the Gazette, and the decision being made in this bill about what should and should not be included in the Gazette. The Gazette, as you know, Mr. Speaker, is one way of making more accessible to the community at large changes in regulations. For example, if we look at the health regulations, there is one section of the Health Act which covers the inspection and management of health units, the treatment of disease, the inspection of mining and lumber camps, and the prevention and suppression of epidemics. The Health Act calls for prompt publication of these regulations in the Gazette. Now this bill is introduced which says that the registrar can decide, based on the expense involved — if it's too expensive — not to publish regulations. The registrar can decide, if it's not something that's going to be used by the people who are specifically affected by it — like maps or larger pieces of literature — that it should not be included in the Gazette. That is putting too much power in the hands of the registrar. I think it should be mandatory that information dealing with inspection of mining and lumber camps be published in the Gazette, as should the business of inspection of health units, the treatment of disease and epidemics. It should be public knowledge. Anyone should have access to that kind of information. To give to the registrar arbitrary powers to decide that so much information would be too expensive, too long or unnecessary to be published in the Gazette is taking away from the community at large the access that it should have to that kind of information.

The Attorney-General has not indicated whether there are going to be any amendments to this piece of legislation or not. But I know that other of my colleagues, in speaking on this bill, have pointed out this specific section to him. Section 22, for example, gives to the registrar the power to decide whether stuff should be published in the Gazette or not. He's had, I would imagine, about two months to look at that particular section and to decide on the recommendations made by other of my colleagues, in terms of amending that section or generally withdrawing that particular section.

Section 6 says:

"The registrar may exempt a regulation from publication in the Gazette if he considers that it (a) is of a length to render publication...impractical or unduly expensive, and (b) is or will be available to persons who are likely to be affected by it. Where a regulation includes a map, illustration, plan, diagram, photograph, graph, table or any other similar record or thing, the registrar may exempt that part of the regulation from publication."

That whole section on exemption from publication is one which I had hoped the minister would have introduced an amendment to. It is fraught with all kinds of dangers. First of all, to give the registrar the power to make that kind of decision.... I think that if there are going to be any exemptions from publication at all, first of all the decision should be made by the Attorney-General himself — by an elected member, Mr. Speaker, not by the registrar. To say that this is carrying out a recommendation made by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada is not correct. The recommendation made by that body was very specific that that kind of decision should remain with the legislators and not with the registrar.

I pointed out one way in the Health Act in which it could prove to be an abuse. It could actually prove to be dangerous if the registrar, in his or her — and I gather the present

[ Page 1341 ]

registrar is a her — wisdom should decide that the Gazette does not need to carry information about the prevention and suppression of diseases, the treatment of diseases, the management of health units or the inspection of mining and lumber camps.

As far as the maps are concerned, that, I think, is really a very dangerous kind of precedent for the Attorney-General to introduce in this legislation. There are a number of environmental groups, for example, who, if they want to protest or prepare a brief in opposition to some legislation affecting an area in the province, have to rely on the maps for the details in preparing their briefs to the government, and in preparing their opposition. For the registrar to decide not to print that map in the Gazette means that particular group would have to approach the ministry involved and ask directly for copies of the map. This may not be as forthcoming as it should be, because the ministry would recognize that the particular environmental group would be preparing a brief in opposition to their decision. When the maps are published in the Gazette, the public has access to that map in any lawyer's office, the public libraries, the law library, or wherever. These groups or individuals can go in and get a copy of the Gazette, check the map out, have the information they need and prepare their brief or presentation. It's all part of the democratic process. It's all part of making information accessible to the community at large.

This section of the bill, Mr. Speaker, which gives the registrar the power not to publish these maps — to exempt the maps from publication — would be throwing up a roadblock. It would be making the task of public protest, which is a viable democratic tool supposedly available to all of us, more difficult. It would slow down the democratic process. This is why I would have hoped that the Attorney-General — because it was brought to his attention by two or three of my colleagues — would have introduced amendments to this section on the order paper. But I have checked, and I don't know if they are forthcoming, but they certainly haven't been printed on the order paper yet.

There are a number of other examples that could be used: for example, all sections in the Islands Trust legislation and other legislation about regulations, where it would be dangerous if the registrar made decisions not to publish by virtue of the fact that such publication of those regulations would be too expensive, would be impractical — I think "unduly expensive" is a term that he uses — or would be available to the persons who are likely to be affected by them. That's not a good enough guarantee in terms of the democratic process. So I would specifically — and I know we are not allowed, in speaking to the spirit of the bill, to deal with sections in great detail — hope that before we go into committee stage on this piece of legislation section 6 would be amended.

The other thing that the bill does.... I think the minister described it as removing one unnecessary step, and that is removing the necessity for proclamation. Now regulations would be handled only by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, which really is the cabinet. It is another instance where the government is centralizing control in the cabinet. It is all part of the overall package. If you look at all of the other pieces of legislation which were introduced along with the budget on July 7 and after that date, we see more and more that the government is taking control into the cabinet, removing it from the community at large. One of the things that the Lieutenant-Governor used to have, Mr. Speaker, through the proclamation process, was a final look at a bill before it actually became law.

Although the minister, in introducing it, said that wiping out proclamation would speed the process up, it actually does something more than that which I'm not quite sure enhances or enriches the quality of life in British Columbia, and that is that it wipes out a tradition that has been longstanding in the British Commonwealth, not just in British Columbia. It has been part of the British parliamentary process since the beginning of time. We become more of a republic, and we seem to be drifting more and more into republicanism, and I realize that this may not be a matter of great concern to the Attorney-General or to the government at large, but it really makes one sad to see tradition being eroded and being wiped out in the interest of so-called restraint. I think that is a mistake. Even though historically there have not been....

I think 1905 was the last time that a Lieutenant-Governor in British Columbia actually did not just rubber-stamp a bill that was passed through this House; still, it is a safeguard.

MR. COCKE: In 1907.

MS. BROWN: That's right. Still, it is a safeguard. It is something which acts to protect all British Columbians, whether we know it or not, against irresponsible legislation on the part of the government or even hasty legislation and hasty decisions on the part of the government. What could happen is that a bill would be passed by this House based on the fact that the government has more numbers than the opposition, so when it goes to the vote, the government is going to win — that is a given. But when a section of the bill comes into force on proclamation, an appeal could be made directly to the Lieutenant-Governor requesting that the signature not be placed on the proclamation and that proclamation not proceed — that this be set aside, to give the government an opportunity to rethink its position or at least to give the government an opportunity to recognize that there is sufficient opposition in the community at large to this particular piece of legislation or this section and maybe even to change its mind on what it is doing. Historically the Lieutenant-Governor would then appeal to the Governor-General in Ottawa for guidance and ask the Governor-General if he believed it was not in the best interests of the public to intervene.

[3:00]

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: The Attorney-General says that we're reverting to colonial status. The fact of the matter is that we need all the safeguards we can get, and the Lieutenant-Governor should be a safeguard. The Lieutenant-Governor should be the court of final appeal for the people of British Columbia.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: If the Lieutenant-Governor is prepared to act on his or her own behalf, that's fine with me. The traditional way was for the Lieutenant-Governor to appeal to the Governor-General for the Parliament of Canada to intervene, if in fact it was recognized that the legislation or a particular section of an act being introduced by the House was not in the best interests of the people of British Columbia. Now that is going to be taken away.

[ Page 1342 ]

Again, we are told by the Attorney-General that it's simply a matter of saving one step, making it a little easier, faster and presumably less expensive for legislation to go through. I find that really quite difficult to deal with. In going through a lot of the legislation that's on the books and the sections awaiting proclamation, some have been awaiting proclamation going back to, I think, 1874, and it hasn't happened. It's not as though the sections awaiting proclamation were slowed down because the Lieutenant-Governor was writing too slowly or his signature was illegible and therefore the proclamation couldn't go through, or he couldn't be found to sign these proclamations or whatever. He's been around; we've seen him. He's been in the precincts here on at least one occasion since the House has been in session.

I keep thinking of, for example, section 8 of the GAIN act, which indexes income assistance payments. It's been awaiting proclamation since 1976. If the Attorney-General is concerned about speeding up the process, he should start getting these sections of these acts proclaimed. Get the signature of the Lieutenant-Governor. It seems to me that we've had two Lieutenant-Governors since section 8 of the GAIN act, for example, has been awaiting proclamation. Heaven knows how many Lieutenant-Governors we've had since 1894 or whenever it was that the other bills have been sitting on the paper and waiting to be proclaimed. So the argument that it's speeding up the process just doesn't hold water at all.

One is forced to accept that it really is a step towards republicanism, towards concentrating more power and control in the hands of cabinet. I think that's sad. There are so many pieces of legislation that we have to deal with: Bill 3, for example; we have no idea how it's going to be implemented. We're told to wait until the regulations come down; it's all going to be done by regulation. No regulations have yet been tabled; they may not even be printed, for all we know. The one access that the community at large has to deal with these regulations before they're proclaimed would be to go directly to the Lieutenant-Governor and say: "These regulations are not in the best interests of women and children, or working people, or tenants, or minority groups." You know, the regulations wiping out the Human Rights Code and the human rights branch and that kind of thing. That's now going to disappear. That function of the Lieutenant-Governor is now going to disappear. This bill goes through all the legislation, takes all the proclamation sections and wipes them out, and says that from now on everything is going to be dealt with by the cabinet.

The people have been shown what happens when they go directly to the government. They've written letters, made phone calls, signed petitions, demonstrated, sent telegrams and done everything that is humanly possible through the democratic process, but there's been very little response on the part of the government and the cabinet. The only other recourse of the community at large is to go directly to the Lieutenant-Governor. As soon as Bill 31 is passed in this House, they lose that final court of appeal. Even though, as I said before, no Lieutenant-Governor has deigned to utilize those powers since 1907, those powers have been vested in and still rest with the Lieutenant-Governor. Who knows, maybe this Lieutenant-Governor would be willing to exercise those powers if in fact the community — the people affected by the legislation dealing with the wiping out of human rights: the minority groups, senior citizens, women and other disadvantaged groups — did go directly to him and say: "That piece of legislation should not be proclaimed, because it's not in the best interests of the people of British Columbia." The Lieutenant-Governor may exercise....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: The last time was 1907; I am saying that it is quite possible this may be the time again, because it is quite possible we've never had legislation quite like this since 1907.

What is going to happen once Bill 31 becomes law is that that avenue of appeal is going to disappear. I think that that's sad. I think that's a tragedy because what we have is that the same cabinet which is writing the legislation is the only place one can go to appeal it. There's nowhere else to go. The cabinet introduces the legislation and with the support of its back bench gets it passed on the floor of the House, and if you want to appeal against that legislation, you have to go to the same cabinet that wrote it. It seems to me there is something undemocratic and intrinsically unfair about that.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

There are all kinds of books written about Lieutenant-Governors. The fact that they have never interfered since 1907 was because, of course, there was such a kafuffle as a result of that interference. What we had was a Liberal Lieutenant-Governor who wanted his Liberal minority opposition to become the government and so overruled the decision of the government, which was Conservative, and then of course the people went to the polls and promptly voted Conservative again. So there was just absolute chaos as a result of that, and I think that has scared off all other Lieutenant-Governors. They have never forgotten that experience and so have decided they'd better not interfere. But that is their mandate; that's what they are supposed to be there doing.

They are there to see and to be the protectors, on behalf of the Queen of England, of the people of the province. That's their real function. There are all kinds of articles written by.... Saywell wrote a whole book. I don't want to take up the time of the House by reading it, but in describing the nature of the office of the Lieutenant-Governor, Saywell said: "As a chief executive officer in the province, the Lieutenant-Governor in his office, if not in his person, is a representative of the Crown, and by statute, custom and legal decisions exercises many of the monarchical powers essential to the practical and theoretical working of parliamentary government." That's what this bill is going to wipe out. In introducing the legislation, the Attorney-General says it is just a minor little piece of tradition that we're eliminating to kind of speed up the process. We're eliminating something that's been on our books since 1867. It's an office that was created by the British North America Act of 1867. That's what, 200 years? Nearly 300 years? I don't know; my arithmetic's not as great as it should be.

It just seems to me a real tragedy that two things are going to happen when this bill becomes law: we will have wiped out, as I said, a tradition which has been a part of our parliamentary system since 1867; and we will also have wiped out the final avenue of appeal of the common people. Now we are at the mercy of whatever cabinet happens to be the government of the day. That's not just sad; I think it's serious. I cannot understand why, in the interest of a so-called speeding up of the process and of saving time, the government would at this time decide to launch an offensive against

[ Page 1343 ]

a tradition and a safeguard which the people of British Columbia probably need more now than we have ever needed it before.

In checking this precedent, I spoke to some of the members in the minister's office as well as to the Clerks of the House and various people to find out what the point was of depriving us of the protection. What is the point of taking this final level of protection away from the people of British Columbia? In every instance I was told that it was just to speed up the process. It was considered by the government to be an extra, unnecessary step, and by simply wiping out this final step we would get regulations enacted much more quickly. But as I pointed out, that has not been the history. Sitting on our ledgers we have bills and sections of bills awaiting proclamation, going back to almost the very beginning of our parliamentary system. In some instances there have been controversial sections of bills and sections put in which the government of the day had never had any intention of implementing, such as the GAIN Act. It was put in as a political ploy to convince people that the government was really serious about its commitment to people in need in this province. It's all a red herring to say that the signature of the Lieutenant-Governor on a proclamation is what has been slowing down the process and making it impossible for those sections of bills or for those pieces of legislation to become law.

The Islands Trust Act has sections in it waiting to be proclaimed which would give it the power to purchase land on behalf of the people of British Columbia to do all kinds of things considered to be in the best interest of the community at large. Those sections have never been proclaimed, not because the Lieutenant-Governor couldn't be found to put his signature on them, or not even because the Lieutenant-Governor did not want them to be proclaimed and decided that they should be set aside so that the government could mull over them a bit longer. Those sections were never presented to the Lieutenant-Government for his signature. We found in the past that proclamation has been used as a ploy by the governments of the day, whichever government might happen to be in, not to deal with certain sections of bills which they were not really committed to and really had no intentions of implementing. Now we find, Mr. Speaker, that that is the excuse being used and the reason being given to wipe out a very important protective parliamentary step, which the people of British Columbia have enjoyed since 1867.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not convinced that the Attorney-General can do this. Some of the citations that I have been reading about the role and functions of the Lieutenant-Governor would seem to indicate that, to quote Sir John Thompson's statement, "it would be a matter of federal concern should the dignity of the office of the Lieutenant-Governor be impaired in any way." This is an impairment of the dignity of the office of the Lieutenant-Governor, and I'm not convinced that the provincial government can do that. If one can take the writings of Senator Eugene Forsey and the Lieutenant-Governor prior to this one — not Bell-Irving.... I'm sorry, his name has gone out of....

[3:15]

AN HON. MEMBER: Owen.

MS. BROWN: Yes, he is the one who used to write a lot about the roles and functions of Lieutenant-Governors. His writings would indicate that the provincial government cannot do anything that would impinge on or impair the role and function of the Lieutenant-Governor. Maybe this is something that you should take under review, Mr. Speaker. I would like to appeal to you to investigate whether the provincial government has the power to infringe on, impinge on or impair in any way the rights and functions of the Lieutenant-Governor. Certainly there's a body of knowledge which maintains that as he is the head of the provincial government and a representative of Dominion authority, the government cannot impair or impinge in any way on his role, on his functions and on the responsibilities which he has. It's quite simple for the government to introduce legislation that would say the Lieutenant-Governor can no longer do this or no longer do that. But is that legal? I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it isn’t; in fact, the government does not have the power. The government is taking unto itself powers which it does not have. The authorities do say that to change in any way the responsibilities of the Lieutenant-Governor is a decision that would have to be made at the federal level. Now it's quite possible that the Attorney-General has consulted with the Minister of Justice of Canada and has been given permission to do this, but if that's the case, then I think the House should have been told of this fact. At the time when the minister introduced this piece of legislation, he should have said: "In consultation with the Prime Minister of Canada and the Minister of Justice, the decision has been made to impair the functions of the Lieutenant-Governor in this way, and they have agreed to this."

I see that the Attorney-General is back. I'm sorry he wasn't here when I raised this issue earlier, because I just don't feel like going over the whole thing all over again.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Oh, everyone wants me to. Is that it?

I just want to say very briefly to the Attorney-General.... Your colleagues will fill you in, Mr. Attorney-General.

Mr. Speaker, if I can get the Attorney-General's attention, I just want to repeat that I raised the question as to whether the provincial government does, in fact, have the authority to impair the functions of the Lieutenant-Governor, because Saywell and a number of other authorities, which are sitting on my desk in my office — I'm sorry I didn't bring them in, but....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: The authorities are sitting on my desk. Is my green light on? That's too bad, because I wanted to....

AN HON. MEMBER: I hope Saywell isn't being installed as the chancellor of UBC.

MS. BROWN: Oh, really? Then he shouldn't be in my office sitting on my desk.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the green light doesn't apply to me. I'll just wind down very quickly, even though it doesn't, because I'm the designated speaker.

I'm just saying that they raise the issue, Mr. A-G, that to interfere in any way, or to change the role and function of the Lieutenant-Governor, has to be done at the federal level or certainly has to be done at least with federal consultation and federal acquiescence. I'm suggesting that if in fact this did happen — if the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice did

[ Page 1344 ]

in fact give permission for this power to be taken away from the Lieutanant-Governor — then I think that the Attorney-General, in his introductory remarks, should have indicated that this was the case. But if he is acting unilaterally, and if his government is acting unilaterally, then I think that they are going beyond their authority and that in fact they do not have the power to do this.

The opposition is going to oppose this legislation for the two reasons, among others, which I pointed out. The decision to vest in the registrar powers to decide what should be printed in the Gazette, and what should be exempted, is a dangerous precedent, and we cannot support that. It is not one of the recommendations of the Uniform Law Conference of Canada. It was not one of their recommendations; in this regard the Attorney-General went beyond the recommendation, which very clearly was that decisions should be made by legislators and not by the registrar. It is fraught with all kinds of pitfalls and is open to abuse, in terms of deciding what should....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I'm the designated speaker, but I'm finished anyway, so you can keep the red light on.

The second reason why we are not supporting this is because, as I've said before, the role of the Lieutenant-Governor, although he has not exercised his powers in that regard to date, still exists in terms of being the final line of defence in terms of the rights of the people of British Columbia. The cabinet is taking that away, and we cannot support that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing order 42, I advise the House that the hon. minister closes debate.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate the member for an absolutely brilliant but erroneous conception of the role of the Lieutenant-Governor. Injecting the Lieutenant-Governor into a procedural, housecleaning bill is an ingenious way to give the opposition some specious rationale for apparently opposing the bill.

I am sorry if they are concerned about the power of the registrar, first of all, because it seems unthinkable that in deciding whether or not a lengthy map or tables or plans or the Bronx telephone directory should be filed as an exhibit to something would be a matter than an elected official would want to have to decide every day. It should be decided by a person who is entrusted with the filing and keeping of regulations — someone who understands whether or not documents are necessary immediately as an enacting part of a regulation or whether they may, by incorporation, by way of reference or some other means, be kept in some other place where everyone could have access to them. It might just so happen that they were in everyone's home anyway. But to have that decision made by a minister is palpable nonsense, with due respect, Mr. Speaker. It is something that a person who is keeping the records should decide on the basis of what is fair and reasonable. It should not be done by a minister or an elected member.

The other point she makes which I find absolutely intriguing and ingenious is that by eliminating the wonderful, hoary, traditional procedural step of the proclamation....

Mr. Speaker, in my opening speech on second reading I lamented that the proclamation step was disappearing. I feel the same tugs at tradition in the British parliamentary system that that member feels. But for her to take that as a quantum leap toward the argument that we are somehow violating the constitution by eliminating or impinging upon the office of the Lieutenant-Governor I say is far more ingenious than real. I don't think Mr. Saywell in his book, or Prof. Cheffins, or anyone else who has written exclusively about the offices of the Crown, has ever in his wildest dreams of constitutional fantasy made the point that because His Honour is going to be deprived of putting his signature on one of those magnificent scrolls produced at about $25 or $50 of public expense every time a bill is brought into effect in stage form, we are somehow impinging upon his constitutional authority. I would think His Honour would be thoroughly delighted if he did not have to affix his signature and seal to those magnificent documents with such unseemly irregularity.

MS. BROWN: You don't understand. It's not just a matter of signing.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, I understand very well.

The member opposite has a notion that the Crown is some kind of appeal agency, not just from legislative decisions but from ministerial decisions, from administrative process and everything else, and that she can run, cap in hand, to the gates on Rockland Avenue and beseech the occupant of that place not to affix his seal to this purely administrative staging procedural document. I can imagine we will never be able to find future occupants for that mansion because they will not want to deal with the crowds of opposition members who are outside saying: "Please Your Honour, please don't bring this bill into effect on May 14 at two in the afternoon. Store it for another week or so." They think that the Lieutenant-Governor is to be lobbied on every tiny piece of minuscule administrative responsibility that is before him, and that is not the role of the Crown. The Crown's role is one of great dignity. The Crown's role is one of using a very, very limited but important residual discretion in the constitution, occasionally perhaps not taking the advice that is tendered or occasionally reflecting upon that advice, but not in overruling administrative and procedural decisions.

MR. HOWARD: What have you been smoking?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, no, no — not smoking anything at all. But Saywell, who is soon to don robes of different office and to assume the presidency of the University of British Columbia, would shudder and cringe if he heard the argument, which we have heard just now, that the role and office of the Lieutenant-Governor.... Mr. Speaker, you heard the proposition. They who now have wrapped themselves in the cloth of monarchists and defenders of tradition, they whose natural instincts are towards republicanism, egalitarianism and populism, are now saying that the elimination of a proclamation is infringing upon the office of the Lieutenant-Governor. It absolutely boggles the mind.

Interjections.

[3:30]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, order, please.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the bill carries out the Uniform Law Conference recommendations of having a simple test to decide what a regulation is and eliminates the

[ Page 1345 ]

necessity of the old legislative test, which was very confusing. It standardizes and streamlines the process and makes it much more efficacious.

I have great honour in moving second reading of this progressive bill.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

NAYS — 20

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

Bill 31, Regulations Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 25.

HARBOUR BOARD REPEAL ACT

(continued)

MR. SKELLY: As you've noted before from previous debate in this House, Mr. Speaker, the opposition party intends to vote against this bill. We cannot understand why the government would take a functioning corporation such as the B.C. Harbours Board — a corporation which isn't saddled with debt, as is the case with most of the other Crown corporations of the government since the Socreds' return to office — and turn it over to the B.C. Railway corporation, which is virtually bankrupt as a result of its operations under this government.

Furthermore, we are concerned about the fact that some of the operations of the B.C. Harbours Board will be turned over to the B.C. Development Corporation. The B.C. Development Corporation is one of the most successful corporations in the constellation of Crown corporations that have been set up by the government of British Columbia, and that's because it was established by the New Democratic Party over the opposition of Social Credit back in the 1970s. It is headed by a former Social Credit MLA. There've been jobs for the boys in this province ever since the Socreds took over in 1976. But this is a rather decent chap: Newell Morrison, who had the decency to quit Social Credit and who now heads the B.C. Development Corporation.

What we are especially concerned about in this bill is that it takes 3,900 acres of some of the highest-quality agricultural land in the province — and as the representative for Delta you'll know, Mr. Speaker, that in Delta we have some of the best agricultural land in the province of British Columbia, and not simply in the province of British Columbia but in Canada and, in fact, in the world.... It is some of the most valuable growing land anywhere in the world, and we're concerned, given the orientation of the B.C. Development Corporation, that some of this land will be taken out of agricultural production and used for industrial development or for other purposes that will, in the long run, be counterproductive and counter to the interests of the people of this province. That is one of our major concerns.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Tilbury Island.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, the minister constantly brings up Tilbury Island, and we suggest to the minister that he turn that back into agricultural land if he's so concerned about Tilbury Island, rather than taking this 3,900 acres.... Now he laughs when I suggest that he turn it back into agricultural land.

We cannot repeat the mistakes of the past with this 3,900 acres, and that is what we are concerned about. This land will be taken out of agricultural production and potential, turned into industrial land, and we will lose another 3,900 acres of the some of the best agricultural land in the world. That's why we are opposed to this piece of legislation. We are particularly opposed when we hear some of the thoughts that have been put forward by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) in terms of planning. What is going to happen to this agricultural land when all of the constraints have been removed?

In 1977 the Social Credit government created a political appeal system whereby, if you were rejected by the Land Commission, you could go behind the closed doors of the Environment and Land Use Committee. Using the political appeal system, you could take your land out of the agricultural land reserve simply by flashing your Social Credit Party card and having the right connections.

What we are saying, Mr. Speaker, is that we are very concerned, especially in view of the new Minister of Municipal Affairs' orientation towards planning. I would like to quote the minister from a news article in the Province on September 4: "Municipal Affairs minister Bill Ritchie wants to abolish planning departments in B.C.'s cities and towns. I fully believe once an official municipal plan is in place there is no further need for planning personnel. Official municipal plans should be reviewed once every ten years, and that job can be contracted out."

It is interesting to see the various comments from civic and municipal officials around the province. This is critical because of the attitude this government has toward agricultural land and planning, which relates directly to land use, and especially to the use of agricultural land in Delta. That's why we are concerned about this attitude on the part of the government, as evidenced by the comments of the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

[ Page 1346 ]

Alderman Marguerite Ford's response to Ritchie's schemes is: "It's outrageous! What do you say to someone who is that dumb? How do we plan something like B.C. Place? How do we deal with petitions from residents who don't like their neighbour's garage? Ritchie will turn Vancouver into another Detroit." We have some concerns about the attitude toward planning that the Socred government has. We have some concerns about the results that are going to take place when you turn agricultural land over to the B.C. Development Corporation, whose primary purpose is to develop that land for its industrial value and ignore its agricultural value. If preserved, that land would be available to us and our children and to future generations forever. We feel that the agricultural potential would be destroyed under the jurisdiction of the B.C. Development Corporation, and for that reason we oppose the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge the government to reconsider the bill before us now. Reconsider the idea that the land be turned over to the B.C. Development Corporation, and take into consideration that the land be turned over to the Agricultural Land Commission where at least there is a little more security that the land would be held for agricultural purposes, if that were the case.

For those reasons the NDP will be voting against this bill and hoping that the government will reconsider the position it has taken in this legislation.

[3:45]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In closing this debate there are a couple of items that have been brought to my attention by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, and I would like to take a couple of moments to address those matters. Firstly, one of the chief oppositions raised by the party opposite is that control of this land is going to be given to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. That argument really doesn't hold water, because I have been chairman of the British Columbia Harbours Board which has had the responsibility for this land for a number of years now.

There is one thing that I would like to say with regard to this particular piece of real estate. I would have to say, Mr. Speaker, that it is probably one of the most important pieces of real estate in British Columbia — probably in western Canada and probably in all Canada. This particular piece of real estate was envisioned by the Social Credit government of W.A.C. Bennett, who had the vision for Roberts Bank. It's probably one of the most important pieces of real estate in western Canada, and I would like to say that I don't think I will be making the decision of whether that land is ever taken out of agricultural production. I don't think this government will make that decision, and I don't think this Legislature will make that decision. I think that will be the decision of future generations.

I do find it a little ironic to listen to the pious remarks of the opposition, when they were going to plunk a stinking oil refinery right in the centre of Surrey. So I find their remarks somewhat.... They were also thinking of putting a steel mill right in the heart of the land under discussion. They were the ones who took Tilbury Island out of agricultural production — some of the best agricultural land in the lower mainland — and made it into an industrial park. They were the ones who took the Kaymor property. However, I'm not here to rub their noses in that at all, and be bitter or anything.

I do want to emphasize that it is not the intention of this government at this point in history to make any changes in the Delta farmland property. It will be administered by the British Columbia Development Corporation. The leases that the farmers have at the present time will remain intact. Certainly it's only common sense that the operation of that railway go to that great British Columbia Railway, because they have been running that operation anyway for the B.C. Harbours Board, which has really been a duplication of effort.

There are a number of things that I could say in closing this debate, but I don't want to be repetitious. I don't want to go over all the rhetoric that the Leader of the Opposition brought to the floor of this House when they were speaking just to try to hold up legislation. Once again I want to say for the record that I don't think it will be this government or this Legislature.... Maybe not even in this decade will the future use of that property be decided. But at some point a future generation will maybe have to make a decision as to whether the port at Roberts Bank should be enlarged or whether there should be backup industrial land to serve not only British Columbia but also the commerce of future generations. That decision, I feel, will be made by that future generation. I would like to think that sometime in the very near future Roberts Bank will become a very important port development, more so than it is. I would like to think that future generations will think about cleaning up a lot of the commerce in the downtown port of Vancouver, which could be used to better value than it is now. I would like to think that in the decades ahead the Roberts Bank area will become a major port, serving industry in and around the area. With that in mind, I move second reading of Bill 25.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

NAYS — 19

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

Bill 25, Harbour Board Repeal Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 30.

[ Page 1347 ]

OCEAN FALLS CORPORATION REPEAL ACT

(continued)

[4:00]

MR. HOWARD: I have just a few comments about this particular bill, which repeals the Ocean Falls Corporation Act. I not only listened to the opening remarks of the minister, I went back and read them afterwards, which indicates that I am subject to a little bit of self-imposed punishment from time to time. I read them mostly because there were some statistics and figures in there that I wanted to make sure were available and that I understood. In reading the minister's remarks, I would normally be tempted to applaud the activities of the former Minister of Education and Minister of Forests, Ray Williston. What the minister said here would tempt one in that direction, because Mr. Williston had been, so the minister tells us, given the job of privatizing the acquisition of B.C. Cellulose Company. The result thereof was BCRIC. That's the first time that I have heard an absolute denial that the Premier had anything to do with the origin of BCRIC. I see now that it's all Ray Williston's fault that BCRIC — that millstone — came into existence.

The other thing I want to mention with respect to Mr. Williston and the government — a government that applauds itself on its managerial capacity, a government that says how beautifully it can run things, a government that claims that it and its chosen few who run things for them are the only ones who can do a good job of anything that's handed over to them....

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

These great supporters of the capitalist system who can turn a profit out of anything seem to have failed miserably with Ocean Falls. Now that was either done deliberately and consciously because the government had no interest in the people who lived in Ocean Falls, and wanted, because of some philosophic content of their imagination about the way things run, to sacrifice the interests of the people who lived in that beautiful community by mismanaging the Ocean Falls Corporation.... I don't mention Ray Williston in any unkind sense. I only mention him because he is the person whom the minister said is chairman of both corporations, namely the Ocean Falls Corporation and B.C. Cellulose.

When we see the dismal record of this group of first-class corporate managers, it makes one wonder whether or not the people of the province really deserve this type of management, or mismanagement, and this sacrifice of the interests of the people in that community. The public accounts of 1979-80 show that the Ocean Falls Corporation incurred a loss of over $26 million for the year ended December 31, 1979. That was when it was under the chairmanship of the former Minister of Education and former Minister of Forests of this province, Mr. Williston.

In 1981, the following year, the province forgave certain of the debt of the Ocean Falls Corporation. Even after doing that, even after the corporation had been so mismanaged that the debt that had been incurred had to be written off by the province, the corporation still had outstanding obligations of approximately $36 million. Then in the following year — the year ending March 31, 1982 — the outstanding obligations were approximately $38 million. It's no wonder that the government is intent on getting rid of a corporation that it has so mismanaged. The regretful part is that in the process the people who had lived in Ocean Falls — people who had an adoration of that community, many of whom raised their children there, saw them go to school there, saw developed some of the finest swimmers in the province of British Columbia at that time as a result of the fine athletic program geared to swimming and aquatic sports that took place in that community.... It's regretful that those are the ones who have been sacrificed and put to one side and whose interests have been completely disregarded by a government that could do nothing else but drive that corporation further and further into debt every year. Under the chairmanship of Mr. Ray Williston, it managed the affairs of that company. Well, if that's any example of competency on the part of the people whom this government says are able to do things, then we are in for a sad way. Is it any wonder, with that type of record, that BCRIC is in such a terrible mess too?

The same thing happened with BCRIC, a politically created corporation. The government patted itself all over the back in 1979 when BCRIC was established. There's been nothing but misery because right from the outset the Premier insisted upon having a political finger in what was happening with respect to BCRIC. It will be a long time before the current board of directors and officers of BCRIC will be able to resurrect that company and bring it out of the mess that the Socreds got it into in those first few years. I regret very much that the government saw fit to do what it did.

Through looking at the records and its declarations about Ocean Falls, one can only conclude that it was consciously and deliberately done by a government that had no interest whatever in the well-being of human beings in that community.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing order 42, the House is advised that the minister closes debate.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief in my closing remarks. I don't think I've ever listened to such hogwash from the opposition in all my years in the Legislature as was uttered from the lips of the previous speaker.

You know, because we were a compassionate government we have tried for six or seven years to keep Ocean Falls alive. We have poured money into the Ocean Falls Corporation to keep it alive, against the advice of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), but because we are a compassionate government we did indeed try. The truth of the matter is that the socialist government of the day never should have used the taxpayers' money to go in there and buy something that couldn't be run. When we became saddled with this millstone around our neck, we tried desperately to keep it alive. The member full well knows we have tried to keep it alive — and there may still be a chance; we're still working on it. Mr. Speaker, I want you to know that we have been compassionate; we have had a heart. We have tried to rescue this failing corporation, to put it on a footing that could make it at least pay its way. Unfortunately, with the best brains available, we have been unable to do that.

I move second reading.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved on the following division:

[ Page 1348 ]

YEAS — 30

NAYS — 20

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

Bill 30, Ocean Falls Corporation Repeal Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 17.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES (FINANCE
MEASURES)
AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

(continued)

[4:15]

MR. SKELLY: There are a number of sections in this act, being a miscellaneous finance statutes act, but there are certain principles that we in the opposition are concerned about. In examining budgetary and taxation measures, one of the principles we're always concerned about is the regressiveness of certain aspects of taxation. When the government.... Can you hear me, Mr. Speaker? Or is the Premier, who has made one speech in the House and talks from his office to his pet goat...?

We are concerned about the regressive nature of taxation and financial legislation. In one particular in this bill — which, I suppose, exemplifies the government's policy on taxation, there is a measure which strikes much harder on the poor and those with less wealth than on those who have more wealth. That is the regressive provisions of the Home Owner Grant Act amendment.

What this bill does is increase the minimum tax payable from $125, which is in itself regressive, to $150, which is that much more regressive. The one thing we don't want to do, Mr. Speaker, during times of economic recession, during times when people have very little in the way of disposable income and during times when people find it very difficult to make mortgage payments, to keep food on the table, to keep kids going to school and to maintain the day-to-day operations that families must maintain in order to keep going.... Then the government turns around and increases the minimum tax payable under this Home Owner Grant Act so that it strikes much more unfairly against the poor and the less wealthy than it does against the rest of us who can afford to pay. What this does, essentially, Mr. Speaker, is increase the tax payable on houses of lower value while exempting houses of higher value through the mechanism of the homeowner grant. Anything that strikes more strongly against the poor we would have to reject.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Now when the Premier's father brought in the homeowner grant legislation a long time ago in this House, he brought it in as an exemption for a tax on wealth so that initially I think the homeowner grant exemption was something like $35. It wasn't very much in figures that we are concerned about today, but $35 meant a lot 20 years ago.

HON. A. FRASER: Twenty-eight dollars.

MR. SKELLY: Okay, I stand corrected by the Minister of Transportation and Highways; the initial homeowner grant was $28. But taxes were lower at that time too. Property values were lower at that time as well, and the minimum tax payable when Premier W.A.C. Bennett brought in this legislation was $1. As taxes increased, as property values increased, as homeowner grants increased, that minimum value remained $1. As a result the tax was not regressive at all, and the exemption worked to the benefit of the poor and to the benefit of those who had houses of lower value. As a result it was a fairly progressive measure which relieved the burden of a completely regressive form of taxation.

It was a good thing when it was brought in by the former Premier, W.A.C. Bennett, and carried on in the same way through the New Democratic Party administration right up until 1976, when this regressive government came to office and changed the principle of taxation by prescribing a minimum tax of $100. This meant that those people who had houses of a very low assessed value had to pay the minimum tax of $100. In fact, in some cases that minimum tax was an unfair burden on the poor, because you could have a case where a person owned a house with a taxable assessed value of $20,000 and a person who owned a house with a taxable assessed value of $60,000, and the person with the house of higher value was paying less tax than the person with the house of lower value, because the minimum tax had to be paid. This is why we are concerned about this particular section of the act. It is completely regressive; it is totally unfair.

If we are imposing an exemption against property taxes the exemptions should start from zero and go to whatever it is — $530 — rather than having the minimum tax payable of $100 or $150 or $125, as is spelled out in this legislation. So it turns a good thing that was brought in by W.A.C. Bennett into a very regressive form of taxation. It is one of those things that we would hope the government would reconsider, because it strikes harder on the poor, harder on the less wealthy and harder on low-income people than it does against the rich or people who own properties of a higher value. We would hope that the government, during the time between consideration of this bill in second reading and consideration of the bill in committee, would look at this and perhaps change their minds.

[ Page 1349 ]

As has been mentioned before, when the Minister of Finance tables the annual reports in the House, he has a section in his ministry which examines legislation both for its financial implications on the government and for its general financial implications on the people of the province. I would like to see, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Finance and that section in his ministry have in fact done a study of this basic tax payable and how it does affect certain classes of income earners or certain classes of property owners. Surely if a study had been done by the minister, he would immediately be aware that this strikes harder on those who can afford it least. I can't say this is not the type of government that would allow that thing to go through, because piece after piece of legislation has indicated that this government is taking a bigger bite out of those who can afford it less, and allowing those who can afford it more to go scott-free. I'm not sure that the government would change its mind, but surely between consideration of second reading and committee stage the government should take a look at section 12 of this omnibus bill and reconsider at least increasing the minimum tax payable that would offset the homeowner grant.

During the last federal budget a number of financial and business periodicals — one of them was Maclean's magazine — have pointed out that the trend in taxation measures over the last few years has been to reduce the level of taxation against the rich, those who earn their income through investments, and to increase the burden of taxation against those who are poor or who earn their income through salaries and hourly paid work. As a result of this our whole system of taxation is now becoming skewed in favour of one class of earner, the wealthy, and very much a burden against the poor and those who earn their income through salaries and wages. This piece of legislation is part and parcel of that trend.

If we are to bring this province out of a recession and if we are to contribute in a positive way to economic recovery through the fiscal measures that we bring into this Legislature, what we should be doing in a time of economic recession is increasing the disposable income of those people who spend most of their income and who circulate their money directly into the local economy of the community where they live. We know for certain, because those studies have been done, that money that is earned by lower- and middle-income people is generally spent in their local communities, in retail businesses and services and in the economy of the local area. This increases employment and contributes to economic recovery in those areas.

What we should be doing through every fiscal measure that we bring into this Legislature is increasing the disposable incomes of those citizens who are more likely to spend that income in the local community purchasing goods and services. Because every one of those purchases and every one of those monetary transactions contributes to employment in those communities and brings them back to the economic strength and vitality that they enjoyed prior to 1981 when we were hit by this world-wide economic recession, which has been complicated and made worse by the economic measures brought in by the Social Credit government. This is one of those types of measures and is one that we should be avoiding if we are to strengthen the economic vitality of the province and encourage economic recovery.

We have found out in the last little while that it's not going to be a producer-led recovery. The return to profitability of those large resource corporations in the forest, mining and energy sectors is really not going to bring economic recovery to each and every one of our citizens, because we know that even though profitability has been restored to a number of those large corporations or sectors, the corporate recovery has not carried on through the economy to those who have been deprived of work as a result of the recession. Significant changes have taken place in the economy and a large number of people have been placed out of work and have been told that they're going to be out of work permanently.

What we need are measures that are going to assist that sector of our economy that is capable, over the very short term, of employing the most people, and is capable of employing people through a minimum investment of capital. That sector of the economy is the small business sector and the retail and service sector. The way we can encourage the development in that sector is by placing money in the hands of our citizens by reducing the taxation upon those low- and middle-income citizens who are going to be hit hardest by this act, and in particular by this section of the act.

What I'm asking, Mr. Speaker, is that if this government is seriously interested in economic recovery, if this government really has their finger on the pulse of the economy and are really interested or know what's happening in terms of the economy and the possibilities of economic recovery, then they should withdraw at least section 12 of this bill and the provision that changes the minimum tax payable on property and eliminates all of the value that W.A.C. Bennett created when he created the homeowner grant. So I would hope that between the discussion of this bill in principle and the discussion of this bill in section-by-section stage, the government will take a look at that aspect of the bill and reduce the minimum tax payable. It's important that the government do that.

[4:30]

One of the problems we've seen over the last little while is that savings have increased during the recession. People have lacked confidence in the economy to this extent, and lacked confidence that their jobs will be carried on, and so people have saved a great deal of money during the economic recession. It's been noted in many financial journals that the savings rate has increased. In fact, during a good part of the recession it was higher than it had ever been in recent history.

Recently, on the anticipation of economic recovery, and also on the anticipation of things like income tax returns, etc., people have been draining their savings and buying consumer goods that in the past they hadn't bought before because of the tremendous uncertainty over whether they would be employed in the future, or whether the economy would carry on and recover, as many people expected it would. Now that those savings have been drained down, economists feel that our society is now in even more danger than it was in the past, because many people are still losing their jobs. The economy hasn't recovered to the extent that even in the budget speech it was predicted that it would recover. So those savings have now been lost to those people, and since more people are out of work there's no way of topping them up again. In fact, we're in a worse position now in terms of economic recovery than we were in the past. The government must understand this, and must take fiscal measures to make sure that the disposable income of people is not reduced even further. In fact, the government should be taking measures to increase the disposable income. The way not to do it is precisely what the government is doing here by increasing the basic taxation payable on property tax. It simply doesn't make sense. It takes money away from local

[ Page 1350 ]

communities, and it doesn't serve our purpose of encouraging economic recovery.

A number of studies have been done on how income is spent, and how income is spent by different classes of persons earning different classes of income. You often hear the other side in this Legislature saying that wages are the real problem and a continuing increase in wages is the problem in our economy. When inflation was the concern it was causing inflation. Now that restraint is the concern, wages are those things that prevent an effective restraint program. The government itself admits, in its reports, that only 12.7 percent of all the money it pays out is attributable to wages. So a very small percentage of the money that this government handles is paid to employees in the form of wages — only 12.7 percent.

But we all know as well, through various studies, that wages are not the most rapidly increasing form of income. Studies as far back as the 1970s have shown that the most rapidly increasing class of income in Canada is investment income: income from bonds, capital gains, dividends and capital gains on shares. Those types of income require very little labour. They produce very little, in terms of the economy.

In fact, studies have also shown that that type of income, rather than being invested in the community where it's earned, is very mobile. It can travel across international or provincial boundaries. That type of income may or may not be spent in the local community, and may not contribute to the economic recovery of this province. It may be invested in property in the United States sunbelt, or overseas or in currencies in other parts of the world, because very mobile capital is used to earn investment income. There is no guarantee that that income would be invested in British Columbia, in the local economy, and would improve the employment and well-being of our citizens.

Here the government is not attempting to tax that investment income. In fact, they are reducing the restraints on investment income, increasing the growth of investment income, and attacking that class of people whose major source of income is wages, salaries and government transfer payments. They are hitting them hardest in the area of property taxation.

What I am saying is that the government should reconsider their fiscal measures. In particular, they should reconsider the measure that is being extended under section 12 of Bill 17, by increasing the minimum tax payable under the Home Owner Grant Act. They should make sure that there is a significant exemption available to people, and that that exemption — whether it is called the homeowner grant or the property tax exemption or whatever the government chooses to call it — exempts a certain part of the assessed value of property. There should be no minimum tax payable other than the nominal $1 tax which was traditionally paid both under the W.A.C. Bennett government and the NDP government, making that a true property tax exemption.

Let me use the Income Tax Act as a comparison. Would the income tax be considered fair if people were entitled to a personal exemption of $2,000, and that exemption resulted in their being liable to no taxation at all, but then the government came back and imposed a $150 minimum tax? That is precisely what we are doing with the homeowner grant. We are taking people with the lowest quality or lowest value of housing, giving them an exemption under the homeowner grant, and then telling them they have to pay $150 anyway. It just turns that property tax exemption into a cruel hoax. The government should reconsider this particular section of this legislation, reduce the minimum tax payable under the Home Owner Grant Act to $1, and that would protect people with the lowest quality and lowest value of housing and make the whole system of property tax more fair and equitable and less of a burden on the poor.

Another thing the government should consider is the provision of an exemption on business tax. The government has done that in the exemption it has proposed on machinery, but a number of other provinces have property improvement grants where they exempt not only homeowners but also business people, in Saskatchewan under the Property Improvement Grant Act. There are exemptions on property right across the board, not simply on residential property. The government should also consider that.

As I have stated before in this Legislature, the most regressive taxation in this or in any province is taxation on small business, because that taxation is immediately passed through to customers in the market area of that small business, which is generally in the region where that small business operates. If we are concerned about economic recovery, we should be exempting small businesses from as many of those taxes that are a burden on small business as we can identify, so that we can reduce the price of food and of services delivered through small businesses by reducing tax on them. That would encourage business and cause it to expand; it would cause money to exchange in the community, and a growth in employment and business; and it would be an instrument for economic recovery in the province.

The government should consider removing as much as possible in the way of taxation against small business so that they can encourage that form of local economic recovery, which in communities such as the one I represent, Port Alberni, has been extremely hard hit by the decline in the forest industry and decline in our markets overseas. That type of fiscal measure would be a boon to a community such as Port Alberni, which has been hard hit by the recession and particularly the recession in the forest industry.

There are a number of fiscal measures that the government should consider and I hope will consider prior to bringing this bill back to the House for committee stage. Possibly I will propose a few amendments to the bill myself so that we can give it full debate when it comes to the House during committee stage. I do hope the minister has taken some of these positive suggestions into consideration, and I look forward to some changes in the bill when it comes back to the House at that time.

MS. BROWN: I would like to respond to a couple of the issues raised by the Minister of Finance when he introduced this particular piece of legislation. As you know, it's the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, so it runs all over the ballpark. We have to deal with sections; we have no choice. However, in introducing it the Minister of Finance said: "The first and most important aspect is that the bill provides for the necessary amendments to implement improvements in the control and measurement of staff in the government." Then he goes on to give a long explanation about full-time equivalents versus actual people. When the government talks about cutting back the number of people in the public sector, they're really not talking about people; they're talking about full-time equivalents. The minister said that one full-time equivalent equals two halves and so forth.

[ Page 1351 ]

In fact, when you look at the estimates of any given ministry, you find that this amendment, this change, makes it possible for the government to completely hide the true picture of the number of people employed by the government, the number of people working in any ministry, program or whatever.

I want to speak specifically about the Attorney-General's ministry, because that's the one for which I am responsible for monitoring. One of the main things that the Attorney-General has been doing since the beginning of this legislative session is contracting out a lot of the work that used to be done by public sector workers. Mr. Speaker, what we're told in this section of Bill 17, the one dealing with the.... Section 18, is it? I just want to give you the correct section, because I notice you're beginning to look puzzled. Section 26, Mr. Speaker; you're beginning to wonder whether or not I'm in order, so I just want to protect myself here and give you the exact section. The minister says that the way in which estimates used to report really didn't take into account auxiliary or part-time workers and those kinds of things, so it didn't give an accurate picture. I'm suggesting that this amendment that's included in this bill gives an even less accurate picture. The Attorney-General is contracting out, and the legislation does not cover contracting-out services.

Let us look for an example at the court services. In the estimates for 1982-83, we were told that that section of the Attorney-General's ministry had 1,507 employees.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, at this point you have made the Chair aware of the specificity of this type of bill with many sections. However, I will remind the member that these can be quite adequately dealt with in committee. I sense that the debate that we're now embarking upon would be more properly dealt with during the estimates of the Attorney-General, not during the Finance Minister's act. Perhaps if the member has general statements relevant to the whole act, the member may continue, but clearly what we're hearing now is debate that I think anticipates other debates.

[4:45]

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I can draw your attention to the Hansard of August 25, 1983, page 1061, where the Minister of Finance introduced this particular bill. I can read it into the record for you, if you wish. It is very specific on this particular section. He even mentions the number of the section and goes into great detail about that particular section and the amendment which is implementing full-time equivalents instead of individuals. He goes into a great deal of detail and specificity as to why he is doing this. He talks about the number of auxiliary staff not being provided, for example, and it being difficult actually to have a true picture about the workforce in each ministry. Really, a lot of what I am doing is echoing precisely what the Minister of Finance said when introducing this piece of legislation. I'm saying to him that the amendment makes it worse, not better.

It doesn't make sense for me to stand on the floor of the House and make a blanket statement such as, "That amendment makes it worse, not better," without giving some examples. I have to substantiate my case. It would be totally irresponsible of me to accuse the minister of introducing an amendment which does something worse than before, and just let it hang in the air, like that. I think the Speaker would agree with me that I may be many things, but I'm not irresponsible. It is simply in trying to uphold my reputation for responsibility that I'm using one ministry as an example. I could use them all; I'm just more familiar with the Attorney-General's ministry. That's the reason I'm using that to substantiate my criticism of the minister's statement about this amendment.

The Attorney-General has been contracting out a lot of jobs that used to be done by the ministry staff in terms of court services. This amendment does not cover contract workers. When the minister — not just in his opening remarks, but.... If we read ourselves the estimates and notes where it explains the different way in which estimates are being done this year than they were previously, it says: "Using the full-time equivalent instead of staff, what we're doing is including auxiliary, permanent, temporary and seasonal employees...." There's no mention whatsoever of contract workers. A lot of the work being done in the Attorney-General's ministry at this time is being contracted out. We know, for example, that the minister has decided not to use the court reporters hired by the ministry anymore, but to contract out that area of employment. So what I'm saying to you is that whereas under previous estimates we knew, for example, that in 1982-83 there were 1,507 people working in court services, spending something over $41 million in that particular section of the ministry, this year, with this new amendment for full-time equivalents, which does not cover contracting out, we have no idea how many people actually will be working in court services.

Maybe the reason why the government is doing that is that it's less expensive. There's a great deal of money to be saved that way. If that is the case, how do you explain the fact that the estimate shows an increase of nearly $2 million? But it is not possible under the amendment which I'm dealing with in this particular bill to tell whether that increase is actually going to increase full-time equivalents — because there's nothing under staffing; the new estimate book under staffing gives you a total for the whole ministry but it doesn't give you any details in terms of the various sections.

The other thing the minister said was that two half-time equivalents equal one full-time equivalent. That's not true at all. In fact there are all different ways, we've found, of reporting on full-time equivalents and half-time equivalents. We had, for example — and again I go back to the ministry of the Attorney-General.... We find that, whereas last year there were 5,537 people employed in that ministry, this year there are going to be 4,983 full-time equivalents. Despite that, the budget for salary, as shown in the supplement to the estimate, Mr. Speaker, is increased. So it is not, clearly, a financial saving device on the part of the government.

For the Minister of Finance to say that in cutting down the public sector we're not really firing people — we're just juggling around full-time equivalent jobs in terms of some of them being part-time equivalents or half-time equivalents or third-time equivalents — is not quite accurate. What is happening is that full-time equivalents aren't losing their jobs; it is workers who are losing their jobs. There are real people out there who are losing their jobs as a result of this government's decision. Referring to firing a person as "releasing a full-time equivalent" — or a part-time equivalent or a half-time equivalent — doesn't soften the blow one little bit on the person who has lost their job. If a court reporter who is no longer employed by the government in that position is told, "It's not really you that's fired; it's your job which was a full-time equivalent job which is no longer needed," that doesn't put food on the table of that court reporter, help her to pay her rent or meet her other responsibilities in terms of her debts.

[ Page 1352 ]

We have moved into a world of euphemisms. Nobody gets fired anymore in this government. They are redeployed right out of their jobs. That's what happens to them.

MR. HOWARD: Unless their name is Matkin.

MS. BROWN: Right. Nobody is fired by this government anymore; full-time equivalents just disappear. I think that one of the things we have to bring to the attention of the members of the government, as well as the community at large, is that full-time equivalents are not some ethereal creation. It is not a puff of smoke, a machine or a technological device. We are talking about people. Changing their names or calling them something else doesn't change the fact. A poet once said a rose by any other name is just as sweet. If you are fired under another name, you are still fired. Whether you are redeployed or you are turned into a full-time equivalent who disappears from the face of the earth doesn't alter the fact, Mr. Speaker, that someone is being fired. This amendment makes it possible for the government to fire people without it actually being shown in the estimates exactly how many people are fired.

Let me give you another example, Mr. Speaker. The Ministry of Human Resources, as you know, on a fateful day in August released somewhere in the neighbourhood of 599 of their staff. They were given pink slips saying that their services were no longer needed.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Blue slips — whatever. When you look at the estimates you will find that between the number of people who were employed by the Ministry of Human Resources in 1982-83 and the number of full-time equivalent staff they expect to use in the 1983-84 year, there is only a difference of 500 people. Yet we know for a fact that they have already fired close to 600 of their workers, and they have been told that that is only the beginning.

Mr. Speaker, that's what this amendment does. Where 600 people were fired, it could be reported as 300 full-time equivalents or 400 full-time equivalents or maybe even 150 full-time equivalents. Once this amendment goes through, there isn't any way for anyone to accurately assess who in the government will be losing their jobs, how many people in the government will be losing their jobs and precisely what services will disappear as a result of the decision to terminate so-called full-time equivalents.

In the past the estimates used to give us in every section.... We knew that the minister's office in the Attorney-General ministry, for example, had five staff; and the provincial judiciary had 138; the court services had 1,507; and corrections had 2,103. When you look at your estimate books now there is absolutely nothing under staffing. We have no way of knowing how many either human beings or full-time equivalents work in the minister's office. There is no way of telling how many full-time equivalents are in the court services. Nothing. The only thing we have, at the end, Mr. Speaker, is a total of the full-time equivalents. Then in small letters there is an explanation that this doesn't really mean people; this just means jobs, and a full-time equivalent job can be done by one person or it can be done by a number of people. So the government is playing games. It is doing an absolutely super job of keeping information and the facts away from the public at large and from the opposition.

I want to criticize the full-time equivalent concept on two grounds. First of all it does not give the members of the opposition or the community at large an adequate picture of the staffing in the public service. In many programs and services that exist today the reality of the situation is that two half-time workers do not make one full-time equivalent. What we are doing is dealing with apples and oranges. You cannot look at the full-time equivalents listed in the estimates book and get an adequate picture of the staffing in the public sector. It doesn't work that way.

The other reason why I'm opposed to it is that it really disguises what the government is doing. So the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) can say, "Well, I've only reduced my staff by 554 people," but that's not true. What the Attorney-General has done is eliminate jobs which were done by in-house staff and contract them out to the community at large — to lawyers, psychologists or psychiatrists in the community, as the case may be — and there is no accounting in the estimates as to the number of jobs involved in any contract. We have absolutely no way of knowing how many jobs are contracted out, the number of people actually working for the government or the number of people actually on the public payroll under the amendment which was introduced by the minister. I agree with the minister when he says that this is perhaps the most important section in this bill, because it is a smokescreen which we will never be able to see through. We will never know what any ministry is doing in terms of its hiring budget.

For those two reasons I am hoping that the Minister of Finance, when we actually get into committee stage, will have some amendments to introduce on section 26 of this bill. I said there were two reasons. There are really three: the inadequate staffing picture, the lack of information on the contracting out and the disguising of what is being done.

I want to repeat that people are the ones who are being fired, not full-time equivalents. Using euphemisms is almost dishonest. I don't want to accuse the government of being dishonest or that minister of being dishonest. But to go around saying "We're really not firing people; we're just cutting down on the number of full-time equivalents in the government," is really not giving an accurate picture of what's going on out there. People are being fired and services are being eliminated.

[5:00]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

My colleague for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), who spoke just before me, I think, gave an excellent case as to why section 12 — I think it is — dealing with the homeowner grant should also be amended when we go into committee stage. When you take the $25 increase and place it in the same package with all the other increases which this government is inflicting on the people in our community who can least afford any kind of increases at all, you recognize once again that what the government is doing is hitting the most defenceless. They are hitting the people least able to pay, the ones with the smallest incomes, with the least amount of flexible income in terms of moving money from one area to another. These are not the people getting the tax loopholes, who can write off their cigars and their alcohol, their travel, and all of these other kinds of things. The people who are covered by this amendment are the ones for whom a $25 increase is a lot of money. It really is a significant amount of money. The recommendation made by my colleague from Alberni is one that I

[ Page 1353 ]

want to associate myself with. And that is that rather than increasing the amount of tax payable by $25, the government should be embarking on a program of phasing the amount of tax paid by this particular group down to $1 over a period of years. No one expects that it can be done immediately. But the ultimate goal should certainly be that that be phased down to $1. These are the same people who use the bus passes, and those have been increased. These are the same people who use Pharmacare, and the deductible on that has been increased. These are the same people who may be losing their CIP benefits. These are the same people who will be hurt most by the increase in the sales tax. These are the same people who may be losing their CIP benefits. They will be hurt most by the increase in the sales tax and by a number of other hidden taxes which affect all people. They are not based on the ability to pay or on one's income. These are the people who are affected by this increase.

I can never understand, no matter how much I try, a government that, when it wants to raise money, decides to tax the poorest people first. When it wants to save money it decides to cut services from the most needy first. I don't understand that kind of thinking. It's totally alien to everything that we've been taught about compassion and caring for each other. In terms of saving money, the first services that are cut.... You don't cut the money for painting bus stops or repainting buses that don't need painting anymore. The money isn't cut to pay for polls to find out what the government can say to women so that they will vote for them. That's not where the cuts come. No, the first cut that comes is the $50 a month that's given to the people who need it the most. When the cuts come, Mr. Speaker, the first thing that's wiped out is services to children who have been raped or are the victims of incest. The cuts come to the disabled, to senior citizens, to children, to families in crisis. Now we find that the people who have the least amount of money in terms of their taxes, and need the benefits of the homeowner grant more than anyone else, are the first ones to have an increase inflicted upon them. It really makes you wonder about the kind of conscience that a government would have to bring down a package like this government brought down on July 7, with its budget and attendant legislation. In every single instance, under the guise of saving money or raising money to pay off a massive deficit, it's the people who are least able to pay who are hit first. In every single instance the people who needed the services most lost it first.

We find it again in section 12 of this legislation, the homeowner grant. I hope that the Minister of Finance was listening to my colleague the member for Alberni. If he didn't hear everything that he said, I hope that he will read in the Blues, or in Hansard when it's printed, the kinds of statements that he had to say as well as his recommendation about phasing the tax down to a dollar. Certainly I hope that when the time comes for us to deal with this section by section, there will be amendments on the order paper so that section 12 will be deleted. That's the best amendment that we could possibly hope to see.

The companion thing which goes along with the homeowner grant is the phasing of school tax off the family home. That's not happening. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, as we are increasing the burden of school tax on the homeowner, we are raising the level of taxes that the very poorest homeowners have to pay.

MR. REID: Give him the same pay as a schoolteacher.

MS. BROWN: Give whom the same pay?

MR. REID: The Speaker. Give him the same pay as the schoolteachers are getting. He'd be quite happy.

MS. BROWN: Well, I'd be happy to do that, except that I'd be out of order if I suggested that, because that's not covered in this bill in any section, is it? See? The little backbencher is trying to lead me astray.

Mr. Speaker, there was a third thing that the minister talked about in this legislation that I found absolutely horrendous, and that was to empower the Treasury Board to authorize the payment of fees and commissions to persons employed in collecting, managing or accounting for public money either before or after deposit of public money to the consolidated revenue fund. He said that this would provide flexibility and would reduce the paper burden for all concerned. I don't understand the kinds of things that this government talks about doing in the name of reducing paperwork and paper burden. I don't want to reflect on a vote that's passed, but just to remind you that that was the same excuse given for wiping out the proclamation role of the Lieutenant-Governor under Bill 31. That's just said in passing, Mr. Speaker. It is destroying a tradition which has been part of our system since 1867.

Now we find that these powers are being given to Treasury Board. I want to quote here from a comment made by my colleague the finance critic, the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), in response to this, or rather to ask his question again, because he says that in giving Treasury Board the right to set these fees, we are once again saying that the actual business of the House will not be conducted in the Legislature, will not be conducted in the public forum that we have here today, but that more and more the raising and spending of money is going to be decided behind closed doors by cabinet — and cabinet, as you know, Mr. Speaker, does not meet in public — or by Treasury Board, and Treasury Board does not meet in public either. More and more we find the concentration and control of power, centralization in the cabinet, where it is protected from public scrutiny. It is making a mockery of the legislative process and the Legislature.

Cabinet can be doing anything. It doesn't have to give us a reason or an explanation. It doesn't have to bring it to the floor of this House so that Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, on behalf of the 45 percent — or whatever number of people — who voted for the opposition, can have some ability to monitor the decision that's being made and have some input into that decision. This House is a safeguard. Bringing things before the Legislature is making it possible for the public to know what's going on. It's open. It gives everyone a chance to have some input. Your constituents, Mr. Speaker, my constituents and other members' constituents can read it in Hansard, can sit in the gallery, can listen to the debate, can contact their elected members and say: "On our behalf, this is an issue we would like you to raise with the government. We want to protest the government spending money this way. We would like to protest the government's priorities. We do not believe that it's more important that the government spend money repainting buses that are already painted than that the government see to it that the disabled people have the $50 a month they need in order that they can live not as far below the poverty line as they would be living without that $50 a month."

[ Page 1354 ]

Now we're finding in this piece of legislation that the government is taking unto itself the power to make all kinds of decisions — to set fees, user fees, whatever it is — in cabinet. Treasury Board, again, is outside of the public purview. Do you know what goes on at Treasury Board? You don't know. As a Speaker, of course, you're not supposed to know anything really, and you probably don't, but....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: No, the Speaker is not supposed to know anything, because the Speaker is impartial; and I know that you are, Mr. Speaker.

But the opposition members have no idea what goes on in Treasury Board. Neither do the back-benchers of the government.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: No, you don't know what goes on in Treasury Board. You're not supposed to. That's strictly private and confidential. The public has no access to the information, decisions, debate and discussions that go on at the Treasury Board level. There are some cabinet ministers who do not have access to those discussions or to the information, debate and decisions that go on in Treasury Board. Why, then, are we giving Treasury Board additional powers?

It seems to me that when the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) rises to close this debate, he's going to have to give a better explanation to us than the one he gave in introducing this piece of legislation, because in his introduction he said that Treasury Board was going to be given these additional powers and authority to reduce the paper burden. What on earth is a paper burden, anyway?

[5:15]

MR. DAVIS: Socialists wouldn't know what a paper burden is.

MS. BROWN: "Socialists wouldn't know what a paper burden is." Is that what the member for North Vancouver–Seymour said?

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: It's his sense of humour. I see.

So, Mr. Speaker, the public is deprived of sensitive and essential information so that somebody — we don't know who — can be relieved of the paper burden. Is that a fair exchange? Are we prepared to sacrifice the public's right to know in order to relieve the Minister of Finance, and whoever else may be involved, of the paper burden? I think that's a very dangerous precedent. I think that if the paper burden is too much for the Minister of Finance to deal with, he should resign. Let someone else who can handle the paper burden take the job on — maybe the little member from Surrey, the little back-bencher here.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Well, he's complaining. In his introduction he said that Treasury Board is to be empowered with this additional authority — without bringing it before the Legislature, without having any discussion in public — in order to reduce the paper burden for all concerned. He said that this would also reduce associated costs to government.

We keep hearing about all these reduced costs to government, but we have before us a budget which is higher by 12 percent than it was a year ago. I don't understand how they're so busy reducing and at the same time everything is increasing. It reminds me of the diets I go on: I am always reducing but my weight always goes up. This has got to be the way in which this government's dealing with restraint. It is the only understanding I have of it, that they must be using the same methods I use.

I think that is a dangerous precedent, and I want to echo the words of my colleague the member for Nanaimo. The question he posed, which I repeat, is: how much authority the Legislature has given to cabinet for increasing revenues without coming to the House to discuss it and to talk about changes in tax legislation. The minister hasn't answered that question yet, so maybe he could make a note of it again. Also, how much money is now actually being collected and how much authority is being given to Treasury Board to set fees? What kinds of fees are they going to set and when are we going to be notified? Is there any time at which, other than the people involved, the victims of these fees are going to be notified? Are we going to get orders-in-council or are they going to be motions by cabinet signed by the Lieutenant-Governor, or is this something else that the Lieutenant-Governor is going to be deprived of doing? At what point does the public become aware of these fees — after it's a fait accompli, Mr. Speaker?

I want to use the two minutes I have left to very quickly review the three points which I raised under this bill. One has to do with the full-time equivalent as a smoke-screen, which I cannot support, and which I am urging the Minister of Finance to amend by simply reverting to the system which existed before and amending it to include additional people not presently covered, such as the auxiliary, temporary, seasonal employees and the people employed through contracting out. In other words, be more open about the number of people employed by the government rather than less so. Delete section 12, which increases the tax paid under the homeowner grant by $25 on those people least able to pay, and also delete the section giving powers to Treasury Board to set fees. Those should be brought to the floor of the Legislature. There should be public debate. We have the right to know.

MR. HANSON: I think that it is very important for all members of the House and for the public to understand that this bill, particularly the sections that involve the changes to the Public Service Act, really want to take British Columbia back to the bad old days. The bad old days are those days prior to the election of the New Democratic Party government in 1972. To clarify that, Mr. Speaker, I want to explain to you how government employees existed with that particular government prior to 1972.

As you may be aware, the employees of the government subsidized the public services to the people of the province. That was the approach of the government — to keep the wages low and the conditions poor, and also to have a large number of classifications of those people receiving a paycheque from the provincial government. In fact, there were many people who worked 10 or 15 years and fell into categories called temporary continuous employment, as and when, on call, and so on. These were people who worked in hospitals,

[ Page 1355 ]

in jails, in mental health institutions, in the Ministry of Finance, and so on. They had that classification and status, and the government always liked to keep them in a subordinate, second-class position, ensuring that they did not qualify for regular health benefits or any other kinds of benefits, and that their jobs were always tenuous, at the call of their employer to be terminated at any instance. I think when you look at the package of legislation, and particularly clauses 26 to 29 in the bill, you will see that this piece of legislation, Bill 17, wants to hark back to that particular time in history.

There are a number of interesting and important things that we must be aware of. At the change of government in 1972, an assessment was made of the public service. It was clear that when someone was working, for example, as a psychiatric nurse in one of the mental institutions — Riverview on the mainland in New Westminster.... It was determined by that new government that what was required was a rational and responsible approach to the delivery of services; therefore there really should be two kinds of employees, not 25 different classifications. One classification would be for regular employees; in other words, those performing a definite function of importance to the government. It was determined that a certain complement would be required in terms of nursing staff on the ward of that hospital to deliver service, and a certain number to cover sickness and holidays, seasonal fluctuations and so on, who would be called auxiliary employees. In other words, there would be two classes: regular and auxiliary.

When the estimates were delivered in the House, it was felt that the public deserved to know exactly the government complement: how many people were employed in the capacity of psychiatric nurse; how many technicians were in the Ministry of Environment; how many people were working as agriculturalists; how many people were working as probation officers, and so on. If you look at the estimate books of the day, you will see that the estimates presented in this House, by ministry, indicated very clearly how many positions were to be paid for by tax revenue and what those classifications were; and this House in its wisdom was to determine whether or not that allocation was appropriate. That sounds entirely reasonable.

Over the last few years less and less information has been provided to the Legislature in the estimate books so that the debate on specific appropriations, by particular ministerial department and by program, could not take place in this House. As the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) so eloquently pointed out, this House can be likened to the valve on the top of a pressure cooker in our society. When I first entered this House, that was pointed out to me by a learned constitutional Clerk, who indicated very clearly that this Legislature in the capital city is the valve on the top of a pressure cooker. If this function is thwarted, the pressure builds up in our society. The pressure builds up in a very negative and dangerous way if there is not openness in government and open access to information, which is the lawful entitlement of all citizens, through us as the elected representatives. In other words, that's like turning the top on the valve of the pressure cooker. You know what happens when you turn that down: the pressure builds up. Sometimes it becomes very dangerous. What we see happening in this legislative program, and included in this act, is that there are twists going on on the top of that valve, and the information that should be available to us all as elected representatives is being cut off.

Let me give you a couple of examples from the estimate books back in 1973 and 1974. Let's just take a very neutral, non-partisan, apolitical ministry, such as the Ministry of Agriculture. If you were to look at the department estimates, you would see that it indicated how many agriculturalists, how many engineers, how many lab scientists, how many home economists, how many clerks, how many stockmen, how many draughtsmen, and so on, were required to carry out the functions. The programs and the expenses are outlined. It was even divided by salaries, which indicated how many employees at what level. It then went on to indicate how much for expenses: the office expenses, the travel expenses, furniture, advertising, printing, grants and subsidies, motor vehicles, incidentals, rebates, farm labour services, and so on.

It was extremely detailed to facilitate a good rational debate in this House. It went on to production services and listed in great detail how much money for each of these items: special services, Farmers' Institute, Milk Board, farms, crop insurance. It listed how many people were employed there and how much money was required for each program, and so on. Do you see what I'm driving at, Mr. Speaker? There was an abundance of detail to facilitate good and open debate. If you check these estimate books over the last ten years, you will find that information being contracted, collapsed, restricted, and getting smaller and smaller. Ultimately even the people employed by the government are no longer called employees; they are called FTEs — full-time equivalents. A full-time equivalent, Mr. Speaker, is that dehumanized doublespeak that the federal Liberals have been using for so long when they talk about man-years and person-years — not people, not employees.

[5:30]

Let me just refer to a specific clause of this act under debate, where it states in section 27: "Section 22 is amended by striking out 'in the establishment." I'm "in the establishment." For those not familiar with language of government, "establishment" means the service of the government, of which the government, by the way, is in total control. Nothing about the establishment is negotiable, as you are probably aware. Government can determine establishment. That means the size — the number of people employed by government — is not negotiable. The programs in place in government are establishment, and that is not negotiable. No union has any say in that matter, as you are probably aware. Therefore the collective agreements that are in place between the government and the unions just indicate the process by which people are laid off.

That's why Bill 3 is totally irrelevant. All of the procedures and provisions to reduce or expand government are already there, in place. What the government doesn't want to address is that they don't want the due process of the provisions that are there. They want to cherry-pick, throughout government, people they don't care for, people they don't like, troublemakers, people that they may class as deadwood. "Deadwood" just means people whose politics you may not like. Maybe they are too critical of the way things are working in the department; they create problems for a supervisor because they point out inefficiencies, inadequacies in the procedures and so on. I hope I am making the point that when you....

Let me just read you what it says in section 22 of the existing act, "Eligibility Lists": "The commission" —

[ Page 1356 ]

which means the Public Service Commission — "may establish lists of persons eligible for appointment to positions in the establishment" — which just means within government; but listen to this, Mr. Speaker — "and shall, as far as it is practicable, appoint the person whose name stands highest in order of merit...." It's the notion that promotions in the public service should be based on merit — in other words, objective criteria such as good working relationships, experience, training, education and all of the other aspects of good employment. These are the things that should facilitate a person's promotion, not his partisan politics and so on. And that's the way we're going.

One of the things that we see happening in this bill is that we no longer will see in the estimates book how many regular positions will be established by ministry. We will see one global figure of person-years, man years, full-time equivalents. We won't know, for example, if the pollution control branch is being stripped of its ability to do its job in protecting the life-sustaining resources of the province. We won't know whether it has the capacity to do its job, whether there will be anyone there answering the phone, or whether they'll all be laid off and moved over into the advertising area making glossy brochures for the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development, making blowup pictures of the minister standing beside large trucks trying to make a connection that some kind of activity is taking place, that there's some kind of momentum — which, of course, there won't be, and there never has been.

I'm looking at the 1982-83 estimates book. The information was becoming extremely sparse at that point. For example, we don't know how many people were employed in the crop insurance stabilization program or in the farm products industry improvement program. All we saw was a global figure, and then we would check it with the annual report and try to make a comparison. What we're going to get from now on in, after this passes, is one global figure and that is going to be it. We're not going to know whether the programs are adequately staffed. We're not going to have debate in this House on the priorities of the desirability of allocating funds into one area or another, because we're not going to know where the money is going. The public has the right to know, and if the members of the Legislature are not provided with that information, who is going to know? How are we going to tell our constituents how much money allocated to the Attorney-General ministry is going to be funded for legal services to be provided in areas where they are desperately needed? We're not going to know.

We're not going to know, Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, the pollution control branch....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Things were going so well up to a point.

MR. HANSON: You see, we on this side of the House resent very deeply dragging this province back ten or twelve years in its approach to handling the affairs of this province. When other jurisdictions are looking at freedom of information and opening government up — letting the sun shine in, so to speak — this government is closing the doors, moving down into the root cellar and closing the door behind them. All they want is the general revenue fund in a big sack down in the root cellar with the cabinet, with telephone lines so they can phone their friends and tell them what positions in government they're going to be occupying, and who's going to get grants, and so on. That is the analogy, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, on a point of order.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that the member for Victoria is up talking through his hat. It has absolutely nothing to do with the bill before the House. It really is a bill that normally and historically has been debated section by section in committee in this House. There is no theory to the bill. So this gentleman is again just wasting the taxpayers' money, standing up here with his yack-yack and saying nothing but filibustering and holding up the business of this great province.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Would the member for Victoria please continue?

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, there appears to be a split in the cabinet. We had the Minister of Finance, who introduced debate on this bill, standing up and telling us at great length that it was extremely important that this bill be passed, and then we have his seatmate over there, the minister of standing beside large trucks, telling us that there is nothing in this bill. Who is wasting the time of this House?

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: No, he stands besides large tires and so on — earth-moving equipment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, can we get on with Bill 17, please.

MR. HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Perhaps I could refresh the minister's memory. The Minister of Finance said perhaps the first and most important aspect is that the bill "provides for the necessary amendments to implement improvements in the control and measurement of staffing in the government." This is what he is telling this House. Also he goes on to say: "The government has changed the way in which staffing numbers are presented in the estimates book. Prior to this year only the number of authorized full-time continuous positions were given for each program of activity in government" — and so on. We are saying that we want it back the old way. The old way was to tell the taxpayer how the money was going to be spent on individual programs in government and what the staffing levels of those programs were. Clearly the public has the right to know. To strip that away is to deny the public the right to that information. They don't believe in freedom of information, and that's why we are going to be opposing this bill.

I'd like to remind both of those ministers over there that during the 1972-75 period the greatest access to information ever in the history of this province was given to the public of British Columbia. The tax dollars were clearly laid out by program, by ministry and by department, and recognition was given that this House was the place that that information and those priorities were to be debated.

Since that point, Mr. Speaker, we have seen a denial, a closing off, and "we know best," sitting in the dark in the root-cellar with the treasury of this province, chopping it up

[ Page 1357 ]

the way they feel they'd like to chop it up, without any feeling or notion that the public has any right to know. That is the reason we are going to be opposing this bill, Mr. Speaker, and I'm going to be continuing my opposition during committee stage. I would like to suggest to the minister that he withdraw that amendment and revert to the "sun shine in" period, 1972 to 1975, when the government believed in the responsibility of this Legislature to provide full details and an accounting of where the tax dollars were being spent to all taxpayers.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind hon. members that under standing order 42 the minister will close the debate.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, one of the members opposite has suggested that perhaps I shouldn't respond to any of the comments which were made, if I understood him correctly.

Essentially this is an omnibus bill. It is correct that I made a few remarks — not for hours, as one member interjected — in second reading. I would like to try to cover some of the points which have been made in the course of the debate, recognizing that there will be an opportunity section by section for a more detailed response when the bill reaches committee stage and is called by the Chairman. I believe the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) spoke first, followed by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke). There was reference to the homeowner grant section of the bill and, also, the fees section with respect to Treasury Board. I've listened carefully to the debate which has taken place in the interval with the members for Nanaimo, New Westminster, Alberni (Mr. Skelly), Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) and the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson).

[5:45]

There are a couple of things I would like to clarify. First of all, clearly some members opposite — not all, but some — were mistaken with respect to the section which will permit the Treasury Board to have something to do with fees. Even this afternoon there was reference to fees being charged without reference to the Legislature or to the public. I think that the member has departed. Nonetheless, this section, as can be explained in more detail later, empowers Treasury Board to authorize the payment of a fee or commission — not the collection of fees, as has been the case for a good many years in the province; this really ratifies a long-standing practice — to any person or corporation or agency engaged in the collecting, managing or accounting for public funds which are held in trust or collected in trust. Therefore let no one leave the chamber, Mr. Speaker, with the view that this is bypassing this Legislature in terms of the imposition of fees; that is not what the section speaks to at all.

Regarding the change in the estimates format....

With respect, I think that perhaps the Chair may have inadvertently permitted the debate to stray beyond that which is covered in Bill 17. This deals with the listing in the estimates book of full-time equivalents: men and women in the public service and how many will be allowed under various expenditures and various ministries and agencies of government on a fiscal year basis. I indicated at the outset that this has been taken as an effort to provide more, not less, information to the Legislature in years to come. Frankly, if over two or three or four years it is found that this kind of information is not entirely satisfactory to the majority in the Legislature, then I’m sure consideration could be given to altering the system once again. But the only — and I underline that — reason for changing to full-time equivalent numbers in the estimates book was to give members of this House in years to come more information rather than less.

We had a problem because previously only the number of authorized full-time, continuous positions were provided for each program, for each activity of government. Mr. Speaker, I think members on both sides will know that numbers for auxiliary personnel weren't provided. We were silent in our estimates book on the numbers of auxiliaries in various ministries, and that in my view was not providing this House with all information. I therefore have to reject some of the theses developed on the opposite side with respect to the change in the estimates description of the numbers of people or positions employed in ministries and agencies of government. I may be proven wrong, but I believe that in time it is going to provide more information and be a more useful tool to the elected representatives in this chamber. Some ministries have seasonal increases by the very nature of their activity. As an example, the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing are going to have more people in roughly the period of May to September than they do other times of the year. This places a discipline on the ministry, the managers in government, with respect to how many full-time equivalents they must have at the end of the fiscal year. They have a target to attain and we are going to insist that they attain it, but they also have the flexibility to alter and to employ numbers of individuals, making up at the end of the fiscal year one full-time equivalent per position. I state again that I am really satisfied, and only time will tell if I am correct, that this will assist members in assessing the FTEs and the strength of government, and the cost of the strength of government — the establishment of government, as one indicated.

I know of no reason at all why individual ministers under this new system will not be able, during the debate on their estimates, to quite clearly identify the numbers of persons they have in their ministry at a particular time, whether it is the end of June, September, December or whatever it may be. I am quite satisfied that kind of inquiry can continue to take place, quite apart from the restatement of the FTEs in the estimates book.

I have made a number of notes. I will review various comments that have been made, and I will happily deal with the individual aspects as we go through committee stage.

One other point is with respect to the homeowner grant. The increase in the minimum homeowner grant payable is from $125 to $150. Let me state again, as I did at the opening of second reading debate: this does not affect in any way those who are 65 or older, or those who are, to use the term which appears in the legislation, handicapped. Those who are disabled remain at the $1 minimum property tax; there is no change.

The other aspect, and the reason for the increase, is a personally held view — and it was one of the few revenue measures taken this year — that in a particular municipality or unorganized community there is still the need for an equitable and fair sharing of the property tax burden between all who benefit from the services which are provided, whether it be in New Westminster or in a very remote part of British Columbia. I think this is probably the third change that I have brought with respect to the minimum property tax payable, and insofar as I am able, in a year or two to come, I give notice that we may undertake another minor increase in that particular figure. The increase is now from $125 to $150,

[ Page 1358 ]

and I think those increases should occur on a relatively regular basis, but they should be nominal on each occasion. Now, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 17.

Motion approved.

Bill 17, Miscellaneous Statutes (Finance Measures) Amendment Act, 1983, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:53 p.m.

Appendix

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

28 Mr. Barnes asked the Hon. the Minister of Human Resources the following questions:

With reference to social assistance fraud —

1. Were any persons formally charged with defrauding the Government of social assistance payments in any of the fiscal years 1976/77, 1977/78, 1978/79, 1979/80, 1980/81, 1981/82, 1982/83?

2. If the answer to No. 1 is yes, in the case of each year (a) how many persons were charged; (b) how many, if any, were convicted; and (c) what was the total amount involved in cases where conviction was obtained?

3. How much of the money involved in No. 2 (c) was recovered by the Government?

4. With reference to "fraud investigators" in the Ministry, what are the names, salaries, previous occupations, locations and length of service with the Ministry for each of the investigators?

5. What is the total number of administrative staff, excluding the investigators?

6. What is the total cost and number of months, covered for the investigators and administration in 1976/77, 1977/78, 1978/79, 1979/180, 1980/81, 1981/82 and 1982/83.

The Hon. G. M. McCarthy stated that, in her opinion, the reply should be in the form of a Return and that she had no objection to laying such Return upon the table of the House, and thereupon presented such Return.