[ Page 7003 ]

CONTENTS

Tabling Documents –– 7003

Committee of Supply: Office of the Ombudsman estimates. (Hon. Mr. Smith)

On vote 3: office of the ombudsman –– 7003

Mr. Howard

Mr. Williams

Mr. Reynolds

Hon. Mr. Nielsen

Hon. Mr. Gardom

Ms. Brown

Mrs. Dailly

Hon. Mr. Waterland

Ms. Sanford

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

On vote 47: minister's office –– 7017

Hon. Mr. Gardom

Mr. Howard

Committee of Supply: Legislation.

On vote 1: legislation –– 7019

Hon. Mr. Curtis

Mr. Howard

Tabling Documents –– 7020

Supply Act (No. 2), 1985 (Bill 53). Hon. Mr. Curtis

Introduction and first reading –– 7021

Second reading –– 7021

Mr. Stupich

Committee stage –– 7021

Third reading

Royal assent to bills –– 7022

FRIDAY, JUNE 28, 1985

The House met at 1:16 p.m.

Hon. Mr. McClelland tabled the annual report for the British Columbia Development Corporation and the consolidated financial statements as of March 31, 1985.

Hon. Mr. Smith tabled the annual report of the B.C. Racing Commission, 1983; annual report of the Legal Services Society, 1983-84; Ministry of Attorney-General annual report, 1983-84; corrections branch annual report, 1983-84.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

On vote 3: ombudsman's office, $2,031,156.

MR. HOWARD: Initially, I'd like to say in a broad, general way that in my view the person who currently holds the office of ombudsman has all of those qualities which an ombudsman should have. The primary one is that without fear or favour, or attempts to cow him on the part of the government, he has proceeded to protect the rights of the citizens in this province –– I think he has done an admirable job. He has an obligation, under law, to do that, and he proceeded to do it.

Thousands of people have been assisted in their relationship with government. They have had their cases satisfactorily dealt with when they had complaints against government activity, and they would not otherwise have been helped had it not been for the office of ombudsman.

I know in my own riding of a particular instance of a small logger who was refused timber sale — improperly refused — by the minister. He went to the ombudsman and had the matter satisfactorily resolved. That's just one of thousands.

Within a matter of a couple of days the office of the ombudsman will become vacant, and if this House is not meeting — and that looks to be what the case is going to be — then the government, I submit, has no other alternative but to appoint the current holder of that office in an acting capacity. If the government does something different than that, it will be signaling to the whole of the province that it does not want to have in place an effective ombudsman; that it wants to have a joe-boy in place as an ombudsman; that it wants to have somebody as an ombudsman that will not be fearless and push forward to rectify abuses by government against the citizens of this land. We fully expect that the government will follow that thought and will appoint the current holder of that office in an acting capacity.

I want also to deal with something which has just become public, and which is basically saying exactly the same thing that we have contended in the Committee of the Whole for the last couple of days with respect to the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), which is that he has not been following the letter of the law in administering the Forest Act or the Ministry of Forests Act. We have contended and argued steadily that his sole purpose in being in that office is to do what industry wants him to do.

We had occasion to have a complaint lodged with the ombudsman a while ago by the Nishga Tribal Council. That subject matter came to light first with the disclosure of what I thought would have been a confidential letter, but apparently the person who disclosed it had no respect for confidentiality. The subject matter first came to light by the revelation and the disclosure of a letter from Mr. Sandy, Fulton, president of Westar, to the ombudsman, in reply to a letter from the ombudsman making certain inquiries of Westar Timber about its activities. I don't want to go into the self-serving nature of that letter from Sandy Fulton, the president of Westar, but the contents of that letter were the revelation of a member of this House. Now either the president of Westar sent that letter directly to the member of this chamber who revealed its contents — and if he did, there's no indication that a copy of the letter went to the member in question — or else somebody in the Ministry of Forests presented that letter to the member of this chamber who revealed its contents, because a copy of the letter, which is in the report released today, went to the Deputy Minister of Forests, and somebody in the Ministry of Forests office thereby had access to that particular letter. It wouldn't surprise me if it was the minister; but that's for him to declare or not to declare, as he so desires.

What this report of the ombudsman shows, with respect to the Nishga Tribal Council and tree-farm licence 1, is that the declarations we have been making in this House — that the minister does whatever Westar wants him to do — are proving to be fairly accurate. In the minister's mind the purpose of administering public law is to administer it as if it were private law. It is to administer the statutes of this Legislature as if they were for the sole purpose of assisting a private corporation. We've been saying that for days.

Let me have a look at some of the internal documentation in the Ministry of Forests that refers to this particular matter. The director of timber management of the ministry wrote to the then assistant deputy minister on May 26, 1983. The director reviewed some recent purchases by Westar. In 1980 Westar had purchased two other companies in the area — I recall relating this to the House on an earlier occasion — the Skeena mill for $15.5 million and the Rim mill for $15.7 million. Subsequently, Westar sold the Skeena mill for about $2 million. They took a bath of $13.5 million by that capital acquisition and capital disposition. That was a loss to Westar. In the process, as I referred yesterday, when the minister was in Terrace at the announcement by B.C. Timber — as it was then — with respect to the sale of the Skeena mill to West Fraser Products, it was Chester Johnson of West Fraser who declared: "We are not in the business of closing down sawmills. We're in the business of keeping them operating."

The timber available to that Skeena mill was the same quality after the sale as it was before. The quality of timber came from different tree-farm licences, but it was the same; same valley, same type of timber. The ombudsman's report refers to that as well. What that shows is that B.C. Timber was totally incompetent in being able to manage its internal affairs. The minister went along with that. The director went on to say, and I quote: "It is bordering on the unbelievable that the company that has put such high value on the timber a mere two or three years ago now argues that it has negative values and that the harvesting of it should be subsidized by the taxpayer."

That was the proposal. They bought the mill, the commodity; they paid $15.5 million for it, and two years later said: "Gee, it's bad timber." Either they didn't know what

[ Page 7004 ]

they were talking about or they had mismanaged it. They took a bath of $13.5 million on the transaction, and wanted the taxpayer to pick up the difference and subsidize the harvesting of it. That's the approach. We're talking about the Ministry of Forests' mismanagement of the Forest Act and the Ministry of Forests Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I appreciate what the hon. member is probably going to reply, but we have discussed the estimates of the Ministry of Forests at some length, and the member has alluded to that. We are on a separate vote now, and we are discussing the actions in the administrative offices of the office of the ombudsman. I'm sure the member can continue with respect to the reports and the material available to him but relating it to the administrative offices of the office of the ombudsman.

MR. HOWARD: Part of the argument I'm making is that the ombudsman should be continued and should be reappointed in an acting capacity, and I'm using this latest report as the foundation to indicate that he acts without fear or favour and protects the citizens of this province, and that another ombudsman — another person — selected by order-in-council would not be able to do that, and that the government must appoint Dr. Friedmann, who currently holds the office, in an acting capacity until the committee can get around to doing whatever it wants to do. So I need to refer to these matters that I'm sure anybody else — I shouldn't put it that way — that somebody else in the office of the ombudsman might not have pursued so diligently when talking about the Crown.

It points out that the province has, for a hundred years, sold timber harvesting rights. "Let us not change from that very basic premise to subsidize timber harvest, for we would need a bottomless pit of money for such undertaking." That's what Westar wants.

I want to run quickly to the recommendations in that report, but before I do, there is a very intriguing letter from the Deputy Minister of Forests to the ombudsman dated June 20, 1985 — just a few days ago. It's in response to a letter from the ombudsman. After the preliminaries of references to letters, dates and the subject matter, he says: "Given the economic and social choices that were available to this ministry, we do not feel that it would have been reasonable, albeit it would have been more lawful...." Well, things are not more lawful or less lawful; things are lawful or they're not lawful; they are legal or they are illegal. The act is followed or it's not followed; it's adhered to or it's violated. And when the deputy minister writes and says, "It would have been more lawful," he's euphemistically saying that what they were doing was not lawful; it was illegal. That's what the deputy minister was saying. What a condemnation to make of his own minister!

[1:30]

What are the conclusions? This is a summary of them, seven in number. One of them says that the Ministry of Forests acted improperly in doing a certain thing — I don't want to refer to what it was at the moment. The second one was that the Ministry of Forests acted contrary to law — broke the law. "The ministry has neither encouraged the maximum productivity of the forest resource nor managed or conserved the forest resources having regard to the immediate and long-term economic and social benefits which they may confer upon the province." That's directly from the Ministry of Forests Act, which places a legal obligation upon the minister to do those things. What this is saying is that the Minister of Forests acted contrary to law.

Then there are a couple of references to how the ministry will be acting contrary to law if it does certain things. Another one: "The Ministry of Forests acted contrary to the law in its approval of paragraph 4.05 of instrument 90.... Another one: "The Ministry of Forests acted contrary to law in fettering the chief forester's statutory authority to establish the annual allowable cut for a licence area." All in all, Mr. Chairman, it's a severe condemnation of the practices of the Ministry of Forests by the ombudsman, Dr. Friedmann. It relates to a particular area of the province, and to a particular tree-farm licence, and to the administration of activities under that tree-farm licence, and to a particular company. I submit to you that if this situation exists with one tree-farm licence, in how many other situations does it exist and has it existed? How many other times has the Minister of Forests broken the law? How many other times has the Minister of Forests acted contrary to the law? How many other times has the Minister of Forests violated the law, violated his oath of office? How many times?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The reference to another hon. member....

MR. HOWARD: Silent Tom won't answer that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The references to another hon. member's behaviour or honour are most unparliamentary. I'm sure the member can present opinion and argument without being unparliamentary to another hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: Indeed I can. What's asked for, with respect to TFL 1, and the activity of the ministry with respect to it, along with a number of questions that need to be asked that weren't asked.... We need probably to look at what was billed, and how section 88 operated up there. It poses a question about how much stumpage, after set-off for section 88 credits, Westar has actually paid to Crown for the timber harvested from TFL 1, since the management and working plan No. 6 came into effect in 1979. He lists years, here, about stumpage billed and money paid: stumpage billed, $4 million; money paid, $117,000; and accounts receivable, as of May 1985, $25,000. A whole range of activities of that nature.

The finale of the report — and I don't want to extend it unnecessarily — is that there are one or two recommendations. I think the second one is a very sensible and reasonable one. I think also, though, that there is another obligation devolving upon the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) and that is, with his responsibility as the chief law enforcement officer of the province, dealing with a fellow minister's administration of his ministry under statutes of this Legislature, that when accusations are made that the Ministry of Forests acted contrary to law in three separate instances, there is an obligation on the part of the Attorney-General, regardless of what else is going on, to investigate those from a law enforcement point of view. If there are found to be grounds to lay charges, then charges should be laid. If the Minister of Forests has in fact acted contrary to the law and it's found there's a case for that, then the Minister of Forests should be hauled up in court and so charged.

[ Page 7005 ]

Law in this land is not to be pushed to one side to suit the convenience of Westar or anybody else. The fundamental aspect of law is that it is universally applicable; it should be universally applied, and without fear or favour. The full force of it should come down upon those who violate the law. That's a determination for courts to make, and the initial determination is for the Attorney-General to inquire into that. If he finds, as a result of the inquiry, that there is no other way we can approach it, then lay the charges.

Apart from all that, there is the question of administration, and the possibilities that may arise out of the relationship between the Minister of Forests and Westar and treefarm licence No. 1, because it isn't completed. It isn't just the simple question of an accusation of breaking the law on three occasions or in three instances. There are potentials. If the Ministry of Forests proceeds to do a certain thing, he will be acting contrary to the law. There are two or three references to that — he will be acting contrary to the law if certain things are done.

The recommendation that I would urge the government to follow, because there are certain economic factors that we have to pay due respect to, is that the Ministry of Forests — and if the Ministry of Forests doesn't do it, I suggest the Attorney-General has an obligation to do this — seek approval from cabinet for the establishment of an independent body such as a royal commission of inquiry or a select committee of the Legislature. I want to digress at this moment and say that my preference is a royal commission of inquiry, not only because the inquiry will be dealing with administrative matters and the relationship of a company to the minister and the ministry, but also because there is a political content to it that I don't think a legislative committee should become involved in. If that's the route that the government wants to proceed with, that's fine with me. I'm just saying that my preference is a royal commission of inquiry to conduct a comprehensive review of the ministry's management of tree-farm licence No. 1 and of the proposed changes in management and working plan No. 7.

I think we should be thankful at this late hour, and at this last moment before, it appears, we adjourn in this chamber.... I think it's most appropriate we say a word of thanks to the author of this report for being forced into a position of having to reveal this side of the case as well. I am sure it would not have been necessary if the member of this chamber who revealed the first letter from Sandy Fulton to Dr. Friedmann had given a little bit more care and attention to his own responsibilities and not tried to carry out his own personal vendetta against the person who happens to be ombudsman. We would not have had a situation such as this arise. But there was an obligation to do that; and Dr. Friedmann, I think, carried that out correctly and properly in trying to put this other case to the public.

I submit there's an obligation on the part of the government to respond to it, first, by appointing a royal commission to inquire into this. I know from personal knowledge, having watched what has happened in the Terrace area over the last 25 or 30 years, since various successor companies to the original company that received that licence.... I know how they have operated, what they have done, how they have mismanaged things, how the economy in that area has suffered as a result of that, and what the condition of the forest land in TFL No. 1 now is. I've driven through it many times, walked on parts of it many times, and the case stated by the Nishga Tribal Council in its report that.... I believe Hammond was the name of the forester who did the work for them. From my personal knowledge of having been a number of times in the area that Mr. Hammond examined and looked at, it is accurate. There has been mismanagement of TFL 1. I'm sure the Minister of Forests knows that as well. The problem is that he has so far kept it under cover. The problem is that so far he has not responded to satisfy the public interest; he has only responded to satisfy Westar or B.C. Timber's interest.

Why would he want to do that? Two reasons. One is his own declaration that he thinks the purpose of the ministry would be to serve the private sector. In his statements to this House he says that his function and purpose is to develop policies and implement programs in concert with the private sector. Nothing about the public interest. The other reason is that Westar, formerly B.C. Timber, was a part of the assets that were given away by the Premier of this province to BCRIC, when he sought to and moved to have this Legislature establish a political corporation called BCRIC. For pieces of worthless paper, he gave away a net $151 million worth of assets to BCRIC, one of which was B.C. Timber. So there was a parental obligation on the part of the Premier and the Minister of Forests to look after that ill-begotten, bastard child that they created, in the hopes for political purposes that somehow or another, with the friendliness of the Minister of Forests towards B.C. Timber, it would dig itself out of the hole, show a profit and BCRIC would be able to be waved around as having been a roaring success. That's another reason why the Minister of Forests has been so cozy with B.C. Timber and Westar.

It may also be the main reason why the government won't move to establish a royal commission into the management of TFL 1 and the relationship of the Ministry of Forests to it. But I submit that decency, common sense, respect for what the public in this province are entitled to have, namely fair dealings, namely honest and open dealings with their resource, which is the timber and other things.... The demand for equity in relating to the general public — that requirement to be responsible, to be responsive, to be careful and considerate and to protect the public interest — demands that we have a royal commission into this whole thing. I don't think there is any other choice open to the government. I urge them to accept it.

HON. MR. SMITH: First of all, Mr. Chairman, the report that the member is referring to is not a report that has been laid before the body of the Legislature, to my knowledge, and not one that has been formally presented. I would simply ask the member where he got the report. It should be tabled. Apparently he and his colleague from Vancouver East have it, but the Legislature doesn't have it.

[1:45]

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

MR. HOWARD: I acquired it from the president of the press gallery just an hour ago. A number of honoured women and gentlemen of the gallery have it. I'd be very happy to table it when we are in the House; no question about that.

HON. MR. SMITH: I appreciate that.

MR. HOWARD: Where did you get your copy?

[ Page 7006 ]

HON. MR. SMITH: I don't have a copy of it, and I haven't seen it, so we won't be responding to it. But I know that we have a very even-handed process in government of dealing with ombudsman's reports. We receive a lot of them in draft form. We receive a number of queries, and they are answered and dealt with. The ministries try to deal with the problems in advance of the report. We've been getting a great fluffy of reports this past week. The ordinary process has been that issues that are dealt with in the ombudsman's reports are many of them dealt with by the time they get to the Legislature.

A good example of that was the Willingdon matter. Most of the issues there were resolved by the time the matter reached the Legislature. There may be some matters that we don't agree with the ombudsman on, but we certainly try to resolve as many as we can. If there are recommendations in the report which involve breaches of the law, those are the opinion of the ombudsman; they are not pronouncements of the court of law. But we certainly look at them seriously and see what action should be taken.

MR. WILLIAMS: We live in a province that unfortunately doesn't have a freedom of information statute. I suspect that worse and more difficult than anywhere in this land is the problem of getting material that should certainly be the due of all elected members. Files and access are continually closed to us. It's only through the office of the ombudsman that that barrier is broken in terms of having access to what ministries are doing, in order to keep track of whether they indeed are being lawful and carrying out the mandates required by statute.

On this occasion the ombudsman has reported that indeed laws have been broken; indeed senior personnel have been pushed to make decisions that are improper in terms of carrying out their professional duties. It is no wonder that in this Ministry of Forests we have had two resignations by chief foresters in this past, year, both of them long-respected career civil servants who worked all of their professional lives in the Ministry of Forests. It's no wonder Bill Young left this ministry if he was being pushed to carry out the decisions, as indicated in the ombudsman's report. It is no wonder that Ralph Robbins, also a career professional forester, a civil servant, also left long before the normal ending of a career in the public service at age 65. They could tolerate the pressures on them no more. These serious career professional forester civil servants could not tolerate the pressures on them from the minister, or the way he conducts that ministry.

It is catalogued again in this report that this minister is willing to see the laws of British Columbia broken. This minister is willing to push the professionals to do what they know they should not do in terms of operating this ministry.

Yesterday we raised Mr. Hammond's report in the House, and we had assurances that all of it would be dealt with.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Back to vote 3.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's right. We're dealing with Westar and tree-farm licence No –– 1. Isn't it interesting that it's tree-farm licence No. 1 — the first allocated in British Columbia — that he's dealing with? We have another 50 on the drawing boards in the hands of this ministry –– 50 more licences of the same character, where the same kinds of things and problems can evolve; licences in perpetuity....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you're straying from the responsibilities of the ombudsman.

MR. WILLIAMS: We're dealing with the licences that the ombudsman is talking about.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Hon. member, we're dealing with the administrative responsibilities of the office of the ombudsman.

MR. WILLIAMS: Indeed we are. Indeed we are.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

Please proceed. Vote 3.

MR. WILLIAMS: The kind of unctuous stuff we get in this House from members on the other side — endless.

He starts in the report and says: "It appears to me the ministry is willing to allow poor forest management practices to continue" — so he does. "The ministry accepts false reports from Westar." Let's reflect on who Westar is. Westar is a creation of the Premier of British Columbia, of this government. B.C. Resources Investment Corp. is the irresponsible corporate body that has created the problems that the ombudsman is pointing to in this report. How many unctuous speeches do we get from Bruce Howe, the head of Westar, about competition and careful corporate concerns? Behind that smiling face of Mr. Howe lies this kind of material in terms of gross mismanagement of the public lands of British Columbia, gross mismanagement that hopefully doesn't occur on the other licences of British Columbia. But there they are; they're documented in this report. These people at the highest level of the corporate sector in this province wander around giving fine after-dinner speeches about competition and the like to their highly paid guests, when in fact this kind of monstrous abuse is going on under their tenure.

The ombudsman carries on: "In this case I have concluded that the Ministry of Forests has failed in its mandate to encourage the maximum productivity of the forest and range resources in the province, or to manage and protect those resources." They've gone through the files — files that are not available to the rest of us — that show the kind of pressures on these various civil servants. People like Mr. Bullen, who was one of the first to start the integrated forest management system involving fish and wildlife and forestry and has an outstanding career.... Mr. Bullen starts blowing the whistle in terms of what was going on in the Forests ministry; Mr. Juhasz starts blowing the whistle on what was going on in the Forests ministry; Mr. Reid starts blowing the whistle on what was going on in the forest industry. Mr. Reid, who must be close to 65 now, if I recall, and who understands the statutes of the province abundantly — his letters are on file in this document, indicating that the Forest Act of British Columbia will be broken, and is being broken — a man who has devoted about 35 or 40 years of a professional career in forestry in British Columbia, is telling the minister and his senior people that what you're doing and want to do is breaking the Forest Act and statutes and laws of British Columbia. That's the evidence that this ombudsman puts before us today. He says we have a ministry that is encouraging lawbreaking. That's what he's telling us in his report.

[ Page 7007 ]

He shows how in fact we're in this incredible situation where we get no revenues from the public forests, and explains to us how and why that happens. Sixty percent of the logged area, he says, has not been reforested, in terms of what he looks at –– 60 percent of abuse in terms of the public lands in the northwest region of British Columbia. He says: "Instrument 90, which effected the deletion of the northern portion of the TFL, did not contain any references to Westar's obligation to fulfil its reforestation responsibilities." Yesterday I raised the question about those obligations to the minister in this House. I talked about $67 million worth of obligations in terms of land rehabilitation and abuse. When, under the regular legal process, the minister should have been fulfilling his duties, he did not. He did not require that $60 million-plus obligation to be registered in any way in terms of the tenure that in fact was there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please, hon. member. The Chair is allowing a great deal of leeway in this particular situation, but we are not discussing the administrative responsibilities of the Minister of Forests. We are on vote 3, the ombudsman.

MR. WILLIAMS: And it's very clear that the man who hides in the corner simply has left the chamber, in terms of discussion of these reports. When this House isn't sitting, he's able to pass off his phony one-liners about all of these problems. We require an educated group to deal with many of these complex tenure questions and so on. At least the Legislature allows an opportunity for the discussion of these complexities, in order to unravel some of the nonsense that surrounds the minister's comments. The ombudsman is doing that in his report. But that too can be done in this House at least. As the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) says, the director of timber management blows the whistle on what was happening and says that it's absolute nonsense. "I am convinced that our province cannot afford to subsidize the forest industry. I am convinced that it is much easier not to start it than to limit it, for there are so-called negative-value stands in many parts of the province" — pretending that there are negative-value stands, the justification for export of forests, all part of this combined mess that we face. As the director of timber management says, the province has for 100 years sold timber-harvesting rights. Let us not change from that very basic premise to subsidized timber harvest, for we'd need a bottomless pit of money for such an undertaking. This year that bottomless pit extends to $100 million — $100 million that we contribute to the likes of Bruce Howe, in terms of mismanaging the public lands of British Columbia. That's the circumstance. He says the proposal that the company wants has conflicts with the Forest Act, and fetters the chief forester's determination in terms of carrying out his duties under statute, so that the chief forester, who has legislated duties under the statute, is hamstrung in terms of the operation of this minister.

[2:00]

He says further that on December 6, 1984, the tree-farm licence officer wrote to the director of the timber management branch to advise that the ministry's legal counsel had telephoned, and that he was principally concerned over the prospects of basing an annual rent solely on the sawlog cut in the area, and that section 90 of the statute requires that an annual rent be paid on the productive capacity of the land. Moving into place, then, was a system that would ignore all the pulpwood in the area and reduce the rental levels to the BCRIC company, contrary to law — the beginning of a setup in terms of ignoring the statute, and allowing only rental based on sawlogs, not on the productive capacity of the land. That's Mr. Howe, the man who wants to play the clean, competitive game, with Sandy Fulton at his hands in terms of the Westar Timber operations, pushing the administration and pushing the minister to break the law — that's what's been going on — and then having the utter gall, on the part of this corporate boss, to go to the press and complain about the ombudsman. The gall of it! Civil servants, professionals for 30 years in the ministry, are saying: "No, we can't do this; no, we shouldn't do it; no, this is breaking the law." And when the ombudsman finally finds out about it and starts unravelling it and gets access to those files of yours, he then begins to let us know the truth. Where are the complaints? The complaints are from the lawbreakers, from the corporate sector lawbreakers.

The ombudsman said: "I made the preliminary finding that if the ministry were to base Westar's 1985 annual rent on the sawlog component as required by Westar, such an agreement would be contrary to law." And he has legal counsel of his own. He isn't doing this out of the blue. He's doing so in consultation with legal experts, longtime public servants and lawyers in his office. He comes to the conclusions that he does because on countless occasions they were being pushed to break the law — in fact, were breaking the law — and the minister was not living up to his mandate to properly manage the forests of British Columbia both now and for the future.

He concludes that the timber rights of Westar should be taken away. Anybody who has reviewed this material would concur. The ombudsman says there is a section under the Forest Act that gives you the opportunity to deal with these problems with this lawbreaking. He says the obvious way is to take away the tree-farm licence. That certainly makes sense. His fallback position is: if not that, then have a royal commission to unravel this mess further.

Those are reasonable proposals that the ombudsman has put forth in view of the evidence that he provides in his report. It is a chronicling of lawbreaking. It's a chronicling of abuse of the public lands. It's a chronicling of the pressures on professional public servants that should never have those pressures put on them. No wonder Bill Young resigned. No wonder Ralph Robbins resigned. No wonder there was trouble establishing a new chief forester in British Columbia to replace those who were under these pressures.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair recognizes the hon. member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound on vote 3. Before you begin, hon. member, vote 3 is the administrative responsibilities of the ombudsman: salaries and benefits, operating costs, asset acquisitions, and recoveries, if any.

MR. REYNOLDS: I rise to participate in these estimates. I hadn't originally planned to, but I was shocked to hear members of the opposition quoting from a report of the ombudsman's office that has not been made available to all members of this House. Unfortunately, because I don't have the report, I have a very hard time debating what is in that report.

I find it absolutely shocking, and probably a violation of the privileges of my office as a member of the Legislature, that I do not have a copy of a report that members of the NDP are quoting from. I would probably like some guidance later

[ Page 7008 ]

during this day from yourself or from the Speaker as to whether there is a question of privilege in this area. That the ombudsman can call a meeting and issue a report outside this Legislature, when his tradition has been that all his reports were tabled first to this Legislature and then released to members of the press, I find rather shocking. I find it rather shocking that members of the press can come running in here with copies of a report and interview members of the opposition to ask them questions about something that all members of this House haven't been informed about.

When it comes to the Westar situation — talking about the ombudsman — it's interesting that we can have the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) getting up and talking about the chronicling of lawbreaking in a report from the ombudsman when I have been in correspondence with the Westar people with regard to this report. I assume it's this report, because I use the word "Westar," and it's the only investigation I know that the ombudsman has going on with Westar.

I received, as you all know, some letters from Westar around April 3, 1985, from Mr. Fulton, president of Westar: a letter he had addressed to the ombudsman, and also a copy of a letter he had received from the ombudsman. In the ombudsman's letter, he says: "During January 1985, I received complaints from the Nakusp employment action committee" — which, as we all know, is basically Solidarity in disguise — "that indicated to the ombudsman that he had to do a full investigation of Westar." Well, he sent a letter to Mr. Fulton, as I mentioned, and I would like to read from Mr. Fulton's letter to the ombudsman, because I think it outlines some aspects of the ombudsman and how he deals with cases which are probably a good example of why I hope the committee of this House will not renew his contract when it's completed. This is a letter from Sandy Fulton, president of Westar:

"Dear Mr. Friedmann:

"I am in receipt of your letter of March 28, 1985, concerning tree-farm licence 23. Before addressing the issues raised in your letter, I feel it necessary to advise you that I am extremely disappointed by the manner in which you and your office have handled this matter. In particular I would like to make the following points.

"You indicate that your preliminary findings and recommendations are ready to be made and that you are now contacting Westar Timber because the Ombudsman Act requires you to do so in a case where a party may adversely be affected by your report. Does this mean that you would not have otherwise contacted us?

"Your letter details the various parties your investigator has met with. Do you not feel that it is more than passing strange that she failed to meet with a representative of Westar Timber in the course of her research on this matter? After all, Westar Timber is the holder of TFL 23. Who, in your opinion, would be in a better position to comment on the current management of the TFL: self-appointed interest groups or the company charged with managing the TFL?

"The issues involved with TFL 23 are rather complex and must be viewed in the context of the history of the West Kootenay region and the changing environment in the forest products industry of British Columbia. Your preliminary findings ignore these important factors. I cannot understand your willingness to advance the cause of certain complainants who clearly fit in the category of special-interest groups without also consulting other private interests obviously involved in this issue. In this case you were clearly used by these pressure groups and the local media. Coming at a time when we have entered into discussions with the Ministry of Forests to consider the management plan for TFL 23 for the next five-year period, your investigator's very public intrusion was not constructive.

"The persons in a position to make the greatest contribution to your preliminary findings are Westar Timber's local management in Castlegar. A single visit with them by your investigator would significantly alter your preliminary findings as outlined in your letter. As you can see, I take serious exception to the method by which you arrived at your preliminary findings. As for the substance of those findings, they reflect the matters of public debate and discussion which will no doubt be resolved when Westar Timber and the Forest Service come to terms on the next management plan for TFL 23.

"As you are probably aware, this document will be made available for public review and comments. Westar Timber management has been spending a considerable amount of time during the past several months explaining our position on TFL 23 and related issues. We have also been attempting to keep our employees informed of the real issues concerning the TFL. For your information, I am enclosing a copy of a background around TFL 23, which I sent to all Westar Timber employees earlier this year. I believe that this addresses the substance of the concerns which you raise in your letter.

"In closing, I would like to reiterate that I am disappointed and disturbed by the manner in which you have handled your investigation into this matter to date. If you would care to take another look at the issues related to the TFL 23, I would like to invite you to meet with my company's local management in Castlegar. However, I must say that in my view, many unresolved questions remain about your role. It was my understanding that the ombudsman was the citizens' defender against bureaucratic abuse. Who then will protect us from the ombudsman?

Yours sincerely,
S.M. Fulton"

Mr. Chairman, that letter certainly outlines, in a very instructive way, how a company can be attacked by an ombudsman without being allowed to offer its point of view. Today we've had an example of the ombudsman abusing his power, a power that fortunately he will shortly no longer have.

AN HON. MEMBER: Then you're disqualifying yourself from the committee. You know the rules.

MR. REYNOLDS: Certainly. I disqualified myself from the committee about a year ago, when I took the position that I did about the ombudsman so that I could speak out honestly from the other point of view and tell the people of this province that we had a man who was power-hungry, who was

[ Page 7009 ]

out to destroy business in this province, out to destroy people without allowing them to put their point of view forward.

MR. HOWARD: Don't talk about the Premier that way.

MR. REYNOLDS: The member from Thug down here, who seemed to get a copy of this report....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. REYNOLDS: I withdraw that, Mr. Chairman.

The member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) seemed to get a copy of the report before this member got one. I find at times — and I've mentioned this before — that there seem to be leaks from the ombudsman's office to the opposition. Here today, what better example could we have than his swan song? He meets with the press and passes them a report that hasn't been to this chamber yet. Yet it's sitting on the desks of members of the opposition. Was he concerned that this member might get a copy because I've been following this case? I see a company that's trying to do its job get a complaint from the front people for the Solidarity group in the province, and boy, did he jump to that. He had to jump quick, I guess I because when the NDP says "jump," he says: "How high?" He's displayed that today better than ever before.

His arrogance to this House is, I think, unacceptable, and although it's my feeling that he won't be around much longer, I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that you could ask the Speaker on my behalf if my privileges as a member of this House have been violated by that man because he did not want to give us a copy of a report that was certainly in the media before this House ever heard of it. In fact, I did go around for the last half hour to some of our people in the media saying: "Have you got a copy?" None of them did. I still haven't been able to obtain a copy to properly debate it during the ombudsman's estimates, and maybe that is what he wanted. He didn't want us to have a copy of it, because we might be prepared even better than we are by being able to present these letters today — even better prepared to properly answer those questions in this House.

It reminds me, Mr. Chairman, of last year when he was dealing with a case with the Workers' Compensation Board — a very similar situation, where he told the chairman of the Worker's Compensation Board: "If you settle this case my way, I'll make sure they drop their case in the Supreme Court of British Columbia." Here was a man who thought he was so important that he was more important than a supreme court judge in British Columbia. Do it my way, and I'll get that client to drop the case in the supreme court. The arrogance is unbelievable, but I think something had to be said here today. As I said, I hadn't planned to speak, because there really wasn't much sense in it. But when this issue came up, it meant that I had to get up and say a few words, because Westar, I think, has been abused by the office of the ombudsman today.

But more importantly, the members of this Legislature have been abused by the ombudsman today with this contemptuous act of appearing at a press conference with the media and issuing a report....

AN HON. MEMBER: With the shareholders.

MR. REYNOLDS: The member says the shareholders. I have no objection to any reports the ombudsman wants to make to the public of British Columbia. I have great objections when he does not want to go through the body that he is by law supposed to report to.

[2:15]

No one person, as that member knows, is above the law. Yet today we've seen a shining example of a man who I think has had that attitude for the past number of years, an obvious example of where he has abused members of this House and abused the privileges of his office. Mr. Chairman, I hope you will discuss this with the Speaker of the Legislature, because I think it should be brought to his attention that there is at least one member here who feels that his privileges have been abused by the ombudsman today.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Skeena.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you might consider that the member for Skeena has had 30 minutes of debate on this vote already, and perhaps a few intervening speakers might be considered by the Chair before he once again goes on for another 15 minutes, if that is his intent.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If that is the wish of the member for Skeena.... The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Skeena, followed by the hon. Minister of Health.

MR. HOWARD: I mean, if you really need to speak, Jim, I'll gladly waive the floor to you.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the office of the ombudsman and the person who has that position now, since that has been the matter for discussion since this vote has been before the House, I am quite distressed to hear from members that a report apparently has been issued by the ombudsman's office dealing with a public matter, and that copies are not readily available.

I appreciate the wording of the legislation with respect to the ombudsman, which says that he shall file an annual report and that he may file special reports to the Legislative Assembly or release them publicly in the public interest. Mr. Chairman, I know that when the legislation was originally drafted those words were provided so the ombudsman would not be prevented from releasing a report if the House were not sitting. That's why it was written, so that he also had the opportunity of releasing a report when the House was not sitting. That's very reasonable. But I am rather shocked to hear that.... I hope this report they have been referring to is not a report to the Legislative Assembly. I hope it is under the other category. Perhaps the ombudsman's office is unaware that the assembly is sitting, although there has been a rash of reports over the past week or ten days. So I presume that they were aware that the House was sitting, at least until yesterday.

But it is distressing to have a report apparently issued without referring it to the Legislative Assembly. Mr. Chairman, I hope you take seriously the question by the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds) as to whether his privilege has been violated by the action of the ombudsman's office.

Mr. Chairman, a few other comments, if I may. The member for Skeena was imploring the executive council to

[ Page 7010 ]

give every consideration to the reappointment of Dr. Friedmann as ombudsman, as is permitted under the Ombudsman Act if so recommended by the committee of the House. The member for Skeena was recommending that the executive council consider Dr. Friedmann as the interim ombudsman until such time as the committee makes a recommendation for a permanent ombudsman. The member for Skeena asked that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council continue Dr. Friedmann in office as the interim ombudsman until such time as the committee reports to the House on a replacement, or on the reappointment of the incumbent. Such is the authority of the executive council.

The member for Skeena was, I believe, suggesting that no other person in British Columbia or Canada may have the capacity to be fearless in the role of ombudsman. Apparently, in the member for Skeena's mind only Dr. Karl Friedmann has that capacity. That's an opinion, which is fine, but I would suggest that there probably is a number of people who have the capacity, the intelligence, the background, the training and the understanding of our system to perform most admirably as ombudsman in British Columbia, one of whom could be Dr. Friedmann. But I would suggest that Dr. Friedmann is not unique to the point that only he has the qualifications necessary to perform in that office. That decision, of course, will be made at some time by a committee of this Legislative Assembly, with its recommendation to the House on the appointment of an ombudsman.

Speaking of such personalities, I was angered earlier today by remarks by a member of this House, who was referring to the former Deputy Minister of Health as a hit man. He was referred to by name: Peter Bazowski. The member referred to Mr. Bazowski as a hit man. The member suggested that newspaper reports had suggested that Mr. Bazowski perhaps may be considered for the position of interim ombudsman. Such has been the speculation in the press for the past while. The member referred to Mr. Bazowski as a hit man. We are aware, Mr. Chairman, of what the expression "hit man" means, but for the member for Skeena and other members of this assembly, in their wisdom and consideration and comments with respect to an ombudsman, and for the reference of the member who offended Mr. Bazowski and his reputation earlier today, could we, in considering the personality of the person who holds such an important office as ombudsman, consider for just a moment the qualifications of some outstanding Canadians who one day could be asked to perform such a role as ombudsman?

I think we're generally aware of the background of Dr. Karl Friedmann. Certainly the committee that recommended him as ombudsman was well aware. But if I may, since we're speaking of personalities and the role of the ombudsman and the type of person who may qualify, let me respond to the earlier comment by a member about Mr. Bazowski in his role as hit man. He was offended by the possibility that Mr. Bazowski could possibly be considered as an acting ombudsman.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, as members know, Peter Bazowski recently retired as my Deputy Minister of Health. Mr. Bazowski has served his country for many years. Upon completion of his education he joined the RCAF in 1942, and was a wireless air gunner until 1946, serving in Europe, Ceylon and India. He was released from the RCAF with the rank of flying officer in 1946. He then joined the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, with his basic training in Regina; then he was in the security service in Ottawa and Victoria until 1950. In 1950 he returned to university to obtain his bachelor of commerce degree. While attending university, he was seconded to the income tax department. In 1954 he was transferred to Ottawa to work in the estimates and financial branch of the RCMP. He worked on various administrative procedures and was assigned the responsibility of reviewing the force's financial management systems, to make recommendations. He made the recommendations to the commissioner, and they were accepted.

In 1955 Mr. Bazowski was commissioned to the rank of sub-inspector and posted to our province to implement a new financial system on a pilot-project basis. After two years the system was extended to all provinces and has remained in place to this day. In 1963 Mr. Bazowski was appointed liaison officer in Washington, D.C., dealing with senior officials of the U.S. federal law enforcement agencies. In 1967 he was promoted to the rank of superintendent and appointed officer commanding, Vancouver subdivision. In 1968 he attended the National Defence College in Kingston for one year, involving training in governments of numerous countries. In '69 he was promoted to chief superintendent and appointed officer in charge, planning branch, Ottawa. In 1970 he was promoted to assistant commissioner and appointed director of service in supply, headquarters, Ottawa.

In '72 he was promoted to deputy commissioner in charge of administration, headquarters, Ottawa. In 1976 he was appointed commanding officer for the province of British Columbia and was given specific responsibility for major reorganization of the division, which was completed. He retired as deputy commissioner in 1978. He was then appointed by the then Minister of Health as public administrator of the Vancouver General Hospital. In January 1979 he was appointed Deputy Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and in February 1981 was appointed Deputy Minister of Health in the government of British Columbia, until he retired most recently.

Here's further information with respect to who the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) refers to as a hit man. During his service, Mr. Bazowski was the recipient of: the 1939-45 Star; the Burma Star; the Canadian Volunteer Service Medal; the War Medal for 1939-45; the Coronation Medal; the Centennial Medal; RCMP Long Service Medal, Silver Clasp and Star; Officer Brother, Order of St. John, Priory of Canada; Queen's Jubilee Medal. I think, Mr. Chairman, when we consider possible candidates for ombudsman at some point in time, perhaps such a resume should take the place of a cheap shot of hit man.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to deal with something that the Minister of Health dealt with. I guess I do so in his absence.

First, I'm glad that he finally got it correct that I at no time advocated that Dr. Friedmann be an interim ombudsman, because I pay attention to what the law says, and the law says "acting ombudsman." I just wanted to correct him on that. He's so meticulous about such matters that he should know that.

Secondly, this House appointed a committee, properly done and properly authorized to examine the question of ombudsman and who should fill that post in the coming years. I think it would be unwise for the government to

[ Page 7011 ]

give.... This is why I advocated that it appoint, as it has the authority to do once this House is gone and the office becomes vacant, as it will on July 1.... The government has no other choice, I'd submit, than to appoint Dr. Friedmann in an acting capacity, because to do otherwise would be giving a signal to the committee, which is charged with the responsibility by this House of coming up with a unanimous decision, that the government wanted a certain person.

If they appoint Dr. Friedmann in a continuing capacity as an acting ombudsman, it would just be saying: "We will carry on with the same person, and leave the committee unfettered to be able to make the choice on the basis of its analysis of various people that it interviews." That was the reason — not that it's advocating a holding of brief for Dr. Friedmann in that office or against anybody else in that office, but I think it would be highly improper for the government to give that kind of signal to a committee which is set up by this Legislature to permit that committee freely and openly to come to a conclusion on the basis of what it feels, without public messages by government being given to it. I did not want the government to be in a position, even casually, of usurping the authority of that committee.

[2:30]

Thirdly, I'm sorry the hit-and-run member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound didn't stay in the House long enough to listen to this, but I cannot be responsible for his laziness. I can't be responsible for his irresponsibility in not seeking to find information. Nobody in this chamber can be responsible for the fact that he is not doing his job as an MLA, as others have done. He claimed, Mr. Chairman, that....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. We're on vote 3, and personal references to another member are not permitted.

MR. HOWARD: The member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound claimed that a certain decision violated his privileges. I am trying to point out to you that it is....

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are not debating a question of privilege at this point, hon. member. We are on vote 3, the administrative functions of the office of the ombudsman.

MR. HOWARD: The member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound was able to get away with it. I'm just pointing out that he is a lazy member, because if he had done what the rest of us did, if he had done what I did, he would have had a copy of this report in his hands.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Personal references like that are not admissible and are out of order.

MR. HOWARD: When the House adjourned shortly after 1 o'clock, to reconvene in ten minutes' time, I, along with other members, left the chamber for that ten-minute period and walked out the back revolving door here. Members of the press gallery had copies of this report in their hands, and were looking at it and saying to me: "What do you think about this?" I said: "About what?" They showed me this. I identified it, I skimmed through it, and said: "Can I get a copy of it?"

MR. REID: You'd only seen it once before, earlier in the morning.

MR. HOWARD: That's a falsehood. That's an absolute falsehood what that member said. At no time was I privileged to receive this document before I got it from the president of the press gallery. The member for Surrey....

MR. REID: I don't believe you.

MR. HOWARD: I don't give a damn if you believe me or not!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The comment of the member for Surrey is not in order, and I would ask the member for Surrey to withdraw that comment.

MR. REID: What comment?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Of disbelief of the other member.

MR. REID: I withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: References like that to other hon. members of this House....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would like you to bring that member for Surrey to order. He continues to make innuendoes and statements towards the member who is speaking from our side.

MR. HOWARD: I just want to say to you, Mr. Chairman, that you operated upon your own initiative in dealing with that matter. I wouldn't myself have bothered to get down in the same gutter with the member for Surrey to talk that way. He can believe me or disbelieve me as he sees fit. I know what happened. I know that what I'm saying is true, and it can be verified if people will just bother to take the trouble to talk to the people I referred to.

In any event, I did go outside, members of the press gallery had it in their possession, and after they showed it to me and asked me about it, I asked them if I could have a copy. One of the gentlemen said: "Yes, here, have my copy. I'll lend it to you." That's how I got it. I asked for it. I asked to obtain it, and that's how I got it. I also took the trouble to try to read it in the short period of time between then and now.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, hon. member, that I must interrupt you, but the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) should stay in order. She has an opportunity to participate in debate. If she wishes to make some comments, she can stand in debate and make those comments. In the meantime, would the member for Skeena continue.

MR. HOWARD: Anyway, I just wanted to put that on the record and to say to the absent member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound that if he considers his privileges as a member to have been violated, then he knows the course of action to follow, and it isn't to stand up in this House and whimper

[ Page 7012 ]

about it. It's to do something concrete and constructive about it, which may be beyond his capacity.

The Ombudsman Act, as the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) pointed out, gives the ombudsman the opportunity to comment.... Let me read it. When I heard about this, I looked it up to see just how this thing was being dealt with or what was happening. Under section 30(2), the ombudsman, "where he considers it to be in the public interest or in the interest of a person or authority, may make a special report to the Legislative Assembly" — which he has done from time to time — "or comment publicly respecting a matter relating generally to the exercise of his duties under this Act or to a particular case investigated by him." And that's what he did. I don't see how, by any stretch of the imagination, the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound — who obviously has some personal grudge against the guy who holds the office of ombudsman — can come in here and whimper like a little baby about his privileges being violated, when it was his own laziness that got him into this position in the first place.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to make one general observation here. When I was listening to some of the remarks from the hon. second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams), he kept referring to the word "unctuous." Unless I'm incorrect on this — and if I'm incorrect, I'm sure I'll be alerted to that effect by the honourable opposition, and if not by the opposition, then by our own side — I seem to recall that it was this administration that created the offices of both auditor-general and ombudsman. And I also seem to recall — regretfully — that it was stonewalled and blocked by the former administration. So when the hon. member for Vancouver East indicates that we're unctuous insofar as accountability is concerned, I think the mantle really fits better on his head than over here.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, it's because we recognize and remember that the hon. minister who just took his seat is indeed the mother of the ombudsman, and is now about to eat his young.

AN HON. MEMBER: The session's into its dog days now.

MS. BROWN: We're fighting desperately to protect this minister against himself, Mr. Chairman. That's what we are really trying to do. There isn't any question that we have an ombudsman in this province today because of the efforts, the determination and the commitment of the present Minister of Intergovernmental Relations. He certainly did an excellent job when he forced the then Social Credit government — reluctantly or whatever — to accept and to introduce legislation to put this office into place. The office has lived and risen beyond our wildest dreams. It has done an excellent job. The present ombudsman has done an excellent job, certainly in terms of the definition that we understand the word "ombudsman" to mean. We are indeed baffled at the attempt by the colleague of the present Minister of Intergovernmental Relations to destroy this office and to fire the ombudsman, who has been doing such an excellent job.

In discussing vote 3, the ombudsman's vote, and in view of the fact that the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds) has just indicated to the House that the present ombudsman is going to be fired, that his term is not going to be renewed and that in fact he's not going to be asked to remain as acting ombudsman until a new ombudsman is in place, are we going to be permitted to reminisce a little bit about the six years that we've had this present ombudsman, Dr. Karl Friedmann, in place? I'm sure you're not going to rule us out of order if, in reminiscing about Dr. Karl Friedmann, we stray back to 1984, or maybe even 1983 or earlier, because we are in fact saying goodbye to Dr. Friedmann, now that the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound has indicated that a decision has been made not to renew Dr. Friedmann's contract, not even to ask him to remain as acting ombudsman until the committee finds a new person to fill the very large shoes which he will be leaving after today. I gather that his contract ends at midnight tonight, or something like this.

As the opposition person who is the spokesperson on human services, on the Ministry of Human Resources and on women's issues, I have a lot to be grateful to Dr. Friedmann for and a lot to thank him for during the six years that he has served as the first ombudsman for this province. A number of decisions brought down by Dr. Friedmann in his reports have worked to the benefit of the very same people in this province whom I represent. You may recall that he did a detailed and careful analysis of the Ministry of Human Resources when that ministry attempted to get information on five citizens of this province who were in receipt of income assistance and whose only crime was that they showed up at a demonstration against the restraint program introduced by the government, as it would impact on the Ministry of Human Resources. Dr. Friedmann went to bat for those people. He did an in-depth review of the behaviour of the ministry in investigating those people and concluded that the information search which the ministry had embarked on was unwarranted, reprehensible and improper. Those were his exact words. He went on to say that that information search should cease, because the ministry was acting in an oppressive manner; that it had used arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable procedures against these five people.

This is a report which I realize was not tabled in the House this year — it was introduced in 1982 — so I'm not going to belabour it. I just touch on it very gently as I make my remarks on the coming to an end of the very excellent term of office and service we have received from Dr. Friedmann.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

That was not the only time that Dr. Friedmann spoke out on behalf of people in this province who were forced to survive on income assistance. A report tabled in the House earlier this year — and this is in order now — dealt with the Workers' Compensation Board and some of the really incredible decisions made by them in disallowing benefits to people who were injured on the job. One of the things that Dr. Friedmann pointed out in a number of his reports, and certainly in Special Report No. 12, was that as a direct result of the Workers' Compensation Board making these arbitrary and unjust decisions to disallow compensation for these people, many of them ended up on the welfare rolls. They then became the responsibility of the Ministry of Human Resources and helped to swell the number of people in receipt of income assistance.

Not everyone who is in receipt of income assistance is there simply because they can't find a job. Some of those people are there because even if there were work, they

[ Page 7013 ]

wouldn't be able to work. It turns out that a number of those people are there as a direct result of the Workers' Compensation Board refusing to honour their disability and to pay them the pension which is rightfully theirs. Dr. Friedmann managed to have at least one of those decisions reversed. For that, I think, we have to be grateful, and we have to thank him for his work in that effort. But there were a number of other instances where he did not succeed, and where the Workers' Compensation Board insisted on its decision not to pay benefits where benefits should be paid.

[2:45]

There is also a classic case of the Workers' Compensation Board paying inadequate benefit to a young woman with two children whose estranged husband was killed on the job. I think that that case is worthy of our attention, because what the Workers' Compensation Board said to that young mother and her two children was that they were not entitled to the full benefits that would accrue to a widow and children, because at the time when the worker was killed they were not living together; there was a separation. Even though there was talk of reconciliation and the man himself had taken out an insurance policy — a very small policy — and named his ex-wife and the children as the beneficiaries, the Workers' Compensation Board decided that they were not entitled to full benefits because they were not living together at the time the death occurred.

Mr. Chairman, the report goes on to show some of the contradictions inherent in this decision. The ombudsman, Dr. Friedmann, discovered that if that worker had been injured rather than killed, the family — that is, the young woman and the two children — would have received full benefits that would have accrued to them as the dependents of an injured worker. It says here this is not the real name, because he used a pseudonym that if Mr. Mr. Worth had been disabled instead of killed, the legislation under which the board operates would have interceded on behalf of the wife and children and they would have received full compensation in accordance with the terms of the maintenance order being enforced, which would have been their right. It also points out that if he had been killed in a car accident, the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia would have considered them fully eligible for death benefits. However, the board's policy is inconsistent, not just with itself but with other policies such as ICBC. The chairperson of the Workers' Compensation Board said that legislative changes would be necessary, rather than the board changing its decision, in order for that woman and her two small children to get the full benefits. I just want to point out, Mr. Chairman, that we're speaking about very small children.

In fact it took nine years. For nine years this widow, who was working part-time in a logging camp and being subsidized, I would imagine, through Human Resources, fought for full compensation from the Workers' Compensation Board, and was unable to get that. This is one of the things that Dr. Friedmann perceived to be an injustice, as well as a contradiction, on the part of the board, and intervened on their behalf.

I'm really sorry to find out that I only have two minutes left. There are a number of other areas in which Dr. Friedmann, during his six years in office, intervened on behalf of income assistance recipients, intervened on behalf of the disabled and handicapped people in this province, and certainly intervened on behalf of single parents in the province and their children. He recognized that when justice wasn't done, in most instances the people who suffered the most were the children, because they had no one to speak for them and to fight for them.

I've been very saddened to hear the member for Howe Sound stand on the floor of this House and tell us that the government has decided not to renew Dr. Friedmann's contract. It shows that being good, being excellent, being competent, being the best that you can be at the job that you do is not good enough for this government, that this government does not recognize or reward competence. It does not recognize or appreciate ability, skill, commitment and dedication; that in fact it did not really want in the job of ombudsman someone who really would go to war for the little people of this province be prepared to take on the bureaucracy on their behalf.

I know that this is a sad day for the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), almost as sad a day as it is for me. What he is seeing is a travesty of a policy which he fought for. He's seeing a department and a program which he negotiated to put into place being undermined and being destroyed as a direct result of the fact that this ombudsman, Dr. Karl Friedmann, did his job too well. That's why he's being punished; he did his job too well.

The real sufferers are going to be the little people, the small people of this province he fought so hard to represent. He's going to be replaced by someone who will not speak up for them, who will not be committed to them and who will not be prepared to take on government bureaucracy and the government on their behalf, because the government has made it absolutely clear that they do not want in this job of ombudsman someone who is going to take the job seriously and really do an excellent, a credible and a good job for the little people of this province. It's a very sad day for the little people of this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair recognizes the member for Burnaby North, but I'll also advise the committee that there is a select standing committee to appoint the ombudsman, and discussions about appointments, prospective appointments or applicants would be out of order during this debate.

MRS. DAILLY: I was hoping the Attorney-General could stay about two minutes more, because my comments deal with one of the reports of the ombudsman. I will be rather quick, as you probably have somewhere to go. I first of all want to just say, instead of going into a lot of detail again about the ombudsman, that I endorse all the statements made so eloquently by my colleague for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown). I find it a sad day too that I am standing here as a member of the ombudsman's committee and I find out from one of the bank-benchers in the House that he's not been reappointed. I'll come back to that briefly.

As the Attorney-General has been kind enough to stay for a moment, I just want to point out to him that I think one of the finest reports done by the ombudsman is the one done on Willingdon. I simply want to say to the Attorney-General that I hope he and his staff will take time, as you obviously did before, to listen to some of the comments the ombudsman has made about the Willingdon school for boys. I understand that you are to be paid considerable credit for making some major changes at that school which the ombudsman had pointed out. However, I want to say to you that there is still much to be

[ Page 7014 ]

done there, and I particularly would ask the Attorney-General to give attention to the ombudsman's report on Willingdon where he particularly asks for ongoing external evaluation. There has been a suggestion by the commissioner that it may not be needed anymore, and I certainly hope the Attorney-General would not accede to that. I hope that he will ensure that ongoing external evaluation takes place.

As one reads that report, one cannot help but feel pretty upset about the state of affairs — I can't put the blame on the government for this — where young people end up in an institution and have to be treated in a manner that I don't think is ever going to do too much in the area of creating citizens who will gain something from their internment. I wish that we could eliminate that institution, as the New Democratic Party did when they were in government.

I simply want to say to the minister: please read the report with care, and I do hope particularly you will keep up external examinations. That is the main point I wanted to make.

HON. MR. SMITH: I appreciate the member's comments on that report, Mr. Chairman. We tried to address a number of the problems at Willingdon even before we had preliminary reports from the ombudsman. One of the changes made in advance of that was to bring in full education programs for Willingdon, something that had been lacking hitherto. I think quite an effort was made by the staff in Willingdon, and that is conceded in the ombudsman's report. But all the recommendations there are ones that I personally reviewed, just as I personally reviewed what was going on there before the ombudsman came in, and reviewed his preliminary reports.

MRS. DAILLY: We're very concerned that there is slippage occurring at Willingdon, and that's why keeping up the external examination and evaluation is tremendously important. I am hoping that in our next session, when we deal with the Attorney-General's estimates, we can have a much more detailed discussion on the whole area of Willingdon, because I certainly intend to make some visits to it again. I hope we can deal with it positively for the benefit of those young people, many of whom are leading tragic lives.

A brief comment on the ombudsman. I realize the Chairman says that we're not to get into the area of the jurisdiction of the committee. I simply want to say, however, that the ombudsman was severely criticized here for not showing respect for due process in the issuing of his report today. I must say, although it may not excuse a person for not paying attention to due process, the ombudsman must indeed be frustrated when he had to take this step. When it comes to due process, that the whole matter of the handling of the committee to select the ombudsman — I'm not getting into what it's doing — has been a bit of a mockery when we, as members of this committee, sit here today and find out from someone who does not even sit on the committee that the ombudsman is not being reappointed.

I regret that, because I think it is an important committee. I am a member of it. I want to play a positive role on it. But I don't want to feel that my role on that committee is meaningless. I would certainly hope that the government would ensure this kind of thing doesn't happen again. I feel it has been very discourteous to the ombudsman to have treated him in this cavalier manner. I feel, Mr. Chairman, that the kind of debate we are having here today about the ombudsman should have taken place a number of times through a special committee set up by the Legislature so that the ombudsman could have had an opportunity to meet directly with the MLAs on both sides of the House to really explain why he is doing what he is doing and explain his process and the reasons for it.

[3:00]

But he was never given his day in court. The ombudsman asked for it repeatedly. I regret that the House Leader, who I know had a very special interest in this, was not able to influence the government to carry through and have those regular meetings of a committee with the ombudsman. If those had taken place, I really think we would have not have reached this situation today where one of the finest ombudsmen in Canada is now going to find that he is not going to be reappointed. I think much could have been done there.

All right, Mr. Chairman, I'll leave that. I simply want to sit down on this vote by saying along with my colleague the member for Burnaby-Edmonds that we in the opposition indeed find it a sad day when a man who did so much for so many people in British Columbia in his role as ombudsman has been found by this government to be too good to stay on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Once again I will advise the committee that any discussion with respect to appointment of any person to the office of the ombudsman is clearly out of order, since there is a select standing committee appointed to discuss that. If it was stated previously, those previous statements would also have been out of order.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, I just rise to correct a statement made by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, who said to this House that I had informed the House that the ombudsman wouldn't be reappointed. That is not what I said in this House, Mr. Chairman. I said that I would wish that the ombudsman would not be reappointed, but as the member knows, the chairman, who is the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks), is calling meetings. It's being represented by all members of this House, and the ombudsman will be chosen by that method. I said that I would hope that he would not be reappointed, not that the government.... I don't make that decision; the committee does. I wanted to correct that on the record so that they couldn't misuse the statements outside this House that were made by those members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Again, that comment is not within the confines of the debate before us. There is a select standing committee to discuss the appointment.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, the record will show when the Blues are out that that member did say that the ombudsman's contract was not going to be renewed, and when it was pointed out to him that he was making the announcement that the ombudsman was fired, then he changed and said that that was his hope. But unless the Blues are tampered with — and I know they never are — the Blues will show that he did in fact announce to the House that the ombudsman's contract was not going to be renewed. So the question I'm putting to the House Leader, or whichever minister is responsible for this vote, is: "When was the ombudsman informed that his contract was not going to be renewed?"

[ Page 7015 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: To respond to the question....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has problems with this if we are discussing any appointment to that office. That is to be discussed by another committee.

MS. BROWN: No, I'm not discussing an appointment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate that. The minister may wish to answer.

HON. MR. GARDOM: In answer to the hon. member, he's not under contract; he's under statutory appointment. If you read the statute you'll see the terms of his appointment and the tenure of his time in office.

MS. BROWN: Has any contact been made with the ombudsman to inform him that he is not going to be reappointed for another six years?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Not that I'm personally aware of.

MS. BROWN: Has any contact, Mr. Chairman, been made to the ombudsman at all by either that minister or any other member of the government prior to today when his contract runs out, to....

MR. PARKS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I have a great deal of difficulty, as the chairman of a special committee that has been struck by this Legislature, to deal with the issue of appointing an ombudsman.... It seems to me that once the committee reports to the House, any question this member might have would be in order.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) and the Minister of International Trade and Investment (Hon. Mr. Phillips) will come to order.

Your point of order, please.

MR. PARKS: I don't believe that that issue should be brought back to the House other than through the special committee struck by this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That was pointed out to the committee, but it appeared that we were talking about the incumbent and the statute dealing with the office of the ombudsman, which would be in order.

But again I'll caution the committee that any discussion of the appointment of any applicant or proposed applicant would be out of order. That is the business of another committee.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, through you to the member who is so concerned about the committee which he is chairing, we are discussing vote 3. Vote 3 is the present ombudsman, whose term of office runs out today, June 28. All I'm trying to find out from the government is whether anyone over there — either the chairperson of the committee, the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, or anyone else — has had the courtesy to contact the incumbent ombudsman, the one whose vote we are discussing at this time, to say: "Thank you, but your services will not be needed after midnight on June 28." That's all I'm trying to find out. Has there been basic common courtesy?

Here's a man who has worked for the government for six years, and this is the very last day that he's on the job, and I'm just wondering. This has nothing to do with parliamentary procedure or anything, just basic old-fashioned courtesy. I'm wondering whether anyone has taken the time to pick up the phone or to write a letter, now that the six years are up, and say: "Thanks and goodbye," or "No thanks and goodbye," or whatever. Or is it that the six years are over, midnight will come and go and that will be the end of it? No contact whatsoever either from the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, the chairperson of the committee, the Premier of the province or anyone else over there. Has there been any kind of contact with him? That's all I'm trying to find out from the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, and maybe he'll go back to his seat and respond to my question.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I informed the hon. member that no one has communicated with the ombudsman, as far as I know.

MS. BROWN: I just want to say that that is absolutely unacceptable behaviour on the part of.... You don't treat a dog that way. I don't care whether you're satisfied about how somebody works for you or how somebody doesn't work for you, the quality of work you do; at the end of the time, you at least say goodbye. Here we have someone who has worked for this province for six years, and the government has not even picked up the phone to say "So long, Karl."

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We didn't hire him; the Legislature hired him. Can't you get that through your thick skull?

MS. BROWN: Why don't you get it through your thick skull that you are ill-mannered?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MS. BROWN: Basic courtesy, that's all it calls for. Here we have....

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Take your seat, please.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: First of all, I'm going to ask the Minister of International Trade and Investment to withdraw that most unparliamentary remark made to another hon. member. Will the minister so withdraw.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm not aware of what I said. If I in any way offended the House or the member I would certainly be most gracious in my withdrawal, because I want to assure you that there was never, ever any intention on my part, by any stretch of the imagination, to offend the House or the member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Now I'll ask the member for Burnaby-Edmonds to offer the same courtesy to the

[ Page 7016 ]

House, because there appeared to be a reciprocal response to the minister. Please apologize.

MS. BROWN: Yes, sure. I would like to apologize to the House for anything that I might have said which offended them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.

MS. BROWN: I think, Mr. Chairman, that after the ombudsman's serving the province for six years, the very least that could have been done would have been a phone call saying: "Your six years are up. So long." Don't even say thanks or no thanks; just say so long. Here we have someone who has worked for the province for six years and until midnight tonight will not know whether his contract is going to be renewed or not because no member, the minister responsible for him, no other member of the government....

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: Make a motion that the Speaker send him our regards.

MS. BROWN: If I move a motion, are you willing to accept it?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Sure.

MS. BROWN: Okay, I want to move a motion. Can I move a motion?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It depends on what the motion is.

MS. BROWN: I can't move a motion. See, there you are, Mr. Chairman: the member for Surrey is always giving bad advice. I can't move a motion.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Which member?

MS. BROWN: The male member. The male member for Surrey, Mr. Chairman, is advising that I can move a motion that this House thank the ombudsman for his six years of service and say so long. But then I'm told by the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) that I can't move a motion. So I don't know who to believe.

I just want to say that I find it absolutely incomprehensible that after six years of service to this province the government has not had the common courtesy to at least pick up the telephone and notify Dr. Karl Friedmann that as of midnight tonight his services will no longer be needed. That's all that I want to say.

AN HON. MEMBER: You can do it.

MS. BROWN: I can't do that. I'm not the government.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I take it that the Minister of Forests has made no comment whatsoever in this chamber regarding this report under this debate.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I just advise the chamber that at exactly 14:56, which is about 16 minutes ago, I received the report. I really haven't had a chance to study it.

MR. WILLIAMS: The report was available. The initial material from the ombudsman in terms of his conclusion was available. His deputy had the material. The evidence was in. The evidence that the ombudsman brought forth was there, that there has been law-breaking in this ministry, law-breaking under that minister and impossible pressures put under professional staff in terms of that ministry. He says today that he still hasn't read the report. He doesn't have a comment.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you read it?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, I have.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the ombudsman has made a number of allegations in a number of reports. Statements and allegations by the ombudsman do not necessarily mean that they are correct statements.

MR. WILLIAMS: No explanations from this ministry. We have not had the kind of volatile material regarding the Ministry of Forests since the days of Gordon Gibson Sr. We have not had this kind of evidence since the days of Gordon Gibson Sr. when he spoke in this House. That's the reality. That's what the ombudsman has said to us today. It's what he has said to us before. This minister has no comment. The material is there. Chief foresters have left. The best of the profession have left because of the pressures under this ministry in terms of doing the opposite of what the Forest Act requires them to do.

Still this little man has no comments.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: The silence speaks for itself.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The member will take his place.

(Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will now ask the second member for Vancouver East to withdraw the personal reference made to the Minister of Forests. Will the member so withdraw and continue with vote 3.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. WILLIAMS: What personal reference?

MR. CHAIRMAN: There was a personal reference that offended the Chair.

MR. WILLIAMS: I am not aware of any.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, will you please withdraw? The Chair was offended by a personal reference.

[ Page 7017 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: You mean calling him the little man?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the member please withdraw?

MR. WILLIAMS: If that is offensive, I will withdraw. His actions are offensive, Mr. Chairman — his lack of action, his pressure on the ministry staff, the loss of the best people and the mismanagement of the public lands. That's what is offensive. It's everything around him that surrounds his office in this ministry that is offensive to thinking people in this province.

[3:15]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, if the member wishes to learn why Ralph Robbins and Bill Young, who had at one time in their careers held the position of chief forester, resigned, I suggest he ask them rather than try to tell the public why they resigned, in his view. I think he is doing a disservice to these honourable gentlemen who have spent many years in the public service.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds made comments about members of this government thanking the ombudsman. I'd just like to inform her — so she will sleep better tonight — that even though I disagree with the ombudsman and hope that he is replaced, I did write him a letter today thanking him for his six years of service to my constituents.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a couple of comments. Firstly, it is my belief that the shabby treatment and the lack of common decent courtesy that the government has shown towards the ombudsman is typical of the attitudes that they show to the people of British Columbia as well.

Mr. Chairman, that ombudsman is well respected by the people of this province. He certainly is well respected by the MLAs who have had any work done for them by him. He is well respected to the point where people are in tears in the ombudsman's office because of the fact that this government has treated him in such a shabby way. It's a disgrace, and they should hang their heads in shame.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. My point of order is that the Legislature, not the government, appointed the ombudsman. In her usual way, the member opposite is fouling up the record. The government didn't hire the ombudsman; the ombudsman was hired by this Legislature.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Comox continues.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: So keep your comments. You're talking against yourself

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, it is pretty clear that the members of the government have no respect whatsoever for the current ombudsman. They have displayed the most arrogant attitude that I have ever seen towards a person who has served this province extremely well.

Mr. Chairman, I don't have any more to say on this issue.

Vote 3 approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS

Vote 47: minister's office, $126,917.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few remarks, notwithstanding the hour and the day. There are quite a few things that I would like to discuss: constitutional property rights; the ownership of B.C. seabeds; constitutional matters that affect our aboriginal community; the reform of our central institutions and specifically the Senate of Canada; free trade for our country; a number of matters that have been on the constitutional tray for quite a while, the non-aboriginal constitutional items; an observation perhaps for partial solution, if nothing else, of the very difficult experience that Manitoba is undergoing concerning the language problem and the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada; equalization; methods and process for appointments to our courts and particularly the Supreme Court of Canada; Canada's taxation maze; marketing boards; and capital punishment.

Mr. Chairman, it appears to be the will of the House this afternoon that I not spend too much time. But I would like to refer, if I may, to two topics, and first make a general observation. I read this morning, or perhaps it was yesterday, a very interesting quotation in an article by Mr. Ronald Anderson in the Globe and Mail. He was quoting Mr. Grant Reuber, who is the president and chief operating officer of the Bank of Montreal. He identified four principal factors that were likely to determine the success or failure of our country. He said those are the willingness of Canadians to meet international competition in every field — we've had a lot of discussion about that on each side of the House; their willingness to invest in the development of the talents of their people; their readiness to provide scope for wide-ranging initiatives and adaptation by individuals and institutions; and underlying everything else, a reasonable sense of national unity and consensus enabling the country to focus beyond internal quarrels about the division of power and income.

By great coincidence, I happened to see in the Daily Telegraph a quotation attributed to Prime Minister Thatcher in Great Britain when she was referring to her concern about what she called the belittlers, the cynics, the denigrators, and she said she felt they are a corrosive influence on our society. I think the statements of Mrs. Thatcher and Mr. Reuber indeed bear scrutiny as far as the political process in our country is concerned today, and to a great extent the way it is indeed operating in our own province.

This is a small ministry, but I would be remiss if I did not express my appreciation to all of its members for their effort and their dedication and industry over the year; to our government secretariat; also to Mr. Peter Heap, our senior federal-provincial representative; certainly to Mr. Norman Tarnow for his industry and research throughout; to Mrs. Heather Sheffield in our Ottawa office; and I know all members would like to certainly have me recognize and extend my very best to our most capable and conscientious agent-general in London, Mr. Alex Hart.

[ Page 7018 ]

In referring to our secretariat, they spend a great deal of time processing the cabinet documents and acting as secretary to the many committees of cabinet. I would like to mention Mr. Bert Hick, Mrs. April Katz, Mr. James Alley and Mrs. Kathy Mayoh, and last but far from least, deputy minister Mr. Mel Smith, QC, who is certainly no stranger to this House or to the Canadian constitutional and intergovernmental role through three administrations, which is much longer than most of us have been here.

Now very shortly I would just like to make one reference, and that is to the offshore situation in our province and what we are attempting to do with the government of Canada, which I am sure is going to be of exciting interest to all British Columbians and, I think, very necessary. I'm not going to be too long with this, but I would really like, if I may, to just define the ballpark.

We really have four areas. We have internal waters, which we call the inland marine zone, between Vancouver Island and the mainland. The territorial sea used to be three miles extending from Canada's base line on the western extremity of the Charlottes and the western extremity of Vancouver Island. However, by virtue of Canada, way back in 1970, altering its territorial sea, the distance is now extended from 3 to 12 miles.

The third point I'd like to mention is the continental shelf. That, in British Columbia's case — but not the case, say, in Newfoundland — is almost contiguous to the western extremity of our territorial sea. In other words, it extends about 12 miles out, give or take, off Vancouver Island, and certainly off the Charlottes.

Finally, there is the economic zone, which is a relatively new concept throughout the world, and that extends 200 miles from the baseline of any country. Within that area the country does not have ownership per se, but it certainly has the right to explore for and harvest resources.

We have really had our course charted insofar as developing this potential by virtue of judicial action. In 1967 there was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, and it held, as you remember, that the territorial sea, which was then three miles, and the bed of the continental shelf came under federal authority. However, in order to better clarify and confirm the British Columbia situation, the seabed of the internal waters — i.e., landward of the territorial sea — was designated by British Columbia order-in-council in 1981 as the provincial inland marine zone. In order to ensure orderly transition, arrangements were entered into with the various petroleum companies who had federal exploration permits — that they would be first recognized, and so forth, in due course. Then a couple of years later, in 1983, there was a federal-provincial agreement which established a joint environmental review process to assess the affects of offshore oil and gas exploration. As you all know, a moratorium currently exists.

Having the seabed of the inland waters provincial territory as opposed to federal, in essence, parallels the situation in other parts of Canada. Very few people, regretfully, understand that. The seabed of Conception Bay belongs to Newfoundland; the bed of the Bay of Fundy indeed belongs to Nova Scotia; and the bed of the Great Lakes, which is relatively unknown, right to the Canadian international border and right to the middle of the Great Lakes, belongs to the province of Ontario. So Canada's borders, seabed-wise, and Ontario's borders, seabed-wise, are exactly the same.

We had a great decision, as you all remember, way back in 1984. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the seabed of Georgia strait was provincial, so there was no longer really a no-man's-land, a federal land, between mainland B.C. and Vancouver Island. The court concluded essentially the position that we had always taken: that the seabed of those internal waters was part of B.C.

If you are speaking to your federal colleagues, or anyone else who might be interested in this, none of this interferes whatsoever with the normal division of powers of the British North America Act. The federal authorities still have their specific powers under the Constitution Act and the BNA Act, as does the province. Quite frankly, it's just a red herring to suggest that if there's provincial ownership this will interfere with the normal division of powers, because it doesn't. So what we're seeking here is simply an updating of Canadian constitutional law and an affirmation of the Georgia strait seabed inland marine concept to our northern waters, plus the extension of the boundary of the province of B.C. 12 miles westward off Vancouver Island and off the Queen Charlottes to include the bed of the territorial sea.

I said a word before about Ontario. Well, as I mentioned, its borders come right to the Canada-U.S. international water boundary line. Their boundaries are exactly the same as Canada's. Most significant is the fact that it owns these resources not out to a three-mile limit or out to the 12-mile limit but right to the international boundary. So that's what we're suggesting here.

[3:30]

This has been unchallenged since Confederation, so we have a different standard, regretfully, across the country. It has meant some dollars to Ontario, because every penny of royalty revenue has gone to the government of Ontario. I can give you a couple of figures here: in the last 11 years, licences, leases and royalties have come to over $21 million. That's all money for Ontario. We see absolutely no reason why Ontario should be in a different position than we are, and no reason why Canada should take any different attitude toward the resources off our coast.

There is abundant precedent in other parts of the world, which is again largely unknown in these quarters. Australia is one example. They did it as a result of agreement. The United States is another example, and they did it as a result of an act of Congress in 1953, wherein the coastal states in the United States were granted offshore jurisdiction to three nautical miles and to nine miles for the states in the Gulf of Mexico — Texas and Florida. But that again was before the 12-mile concept.

Mr. Chairman, just a word in closing this issue about a few items of policy. It's possible today under the Constitution Act and BNA Act for Canada and the United States to reach agreement one on one, but if they don't reach agreement, it has to be left up to the courts, either as the result of actions taken by a province or by the federal government or by taxpayers. The gentleman who really provided the breakthrough in Canada was the Rt. Hon. Joe Clark. I think he deserves a terrific amount of credit for this. His policy was of the genesis that appreciated that people who lived in the coastal provinces view the ocean and everything under it as an extension of their livelihood. He made a very forceful statement when he was Prime Minister, and I'd just like to read it to you: "We've been long dedicated to the belief that the provinces should own the mineral resources off their shores and enjoy legislative jurisdiction over those resources

[ Page 7019 ]

comparable to their jurisdiction over natural resources located on shore within their boundaries." In short, he said, seabed resources in the province should be treated no differently than resources on land.

We agree with this wholeheartedly, Mr. Chairman, and we have taken steps, with our federal colleagues. We attempted to do this with Prime Minister Trudeau's administration. Some of his ministers were favourably inclined, but as far as he was concerned it was no way, Jose, and it just didn't move forward an inch. But at the present time, my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Rogers) and I have been in communication with the Hon. Clark and the Hon. Pat Carney. We've informed them that we would like to get on with negotiations as soon as we can. We've requested meetings and we're looking forward to them. Their responses have been very cordial and certainly affirmative as far as process is concerned. It's the expectation and hope of both of us, and indeed for the interests of our province, that this will be able to get underway as soon as possible.

With those few comments perhaps it would be a little more propitious if I left the other 17 topics for discussion at a later date, perhaps in this form or perhaps in another one.

MR. HOWARD: I think it's very appropriate that the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations chose to relate the most detailed portion of his remarks to the ocean and the sea. That reflects precisely where this government is most of the time: completely at sea with things.

I would like to point out too that I think he missed a very important aspect of the base line from which is measured seaward the territorial sea; that is, the portion from the northwestern tip of the Queen Charlotte Islands, Langara, or North Island, as it's locally known, across Dixon Entrance to a point of Canadian territory at Cape Muzon. That has been a question in conflict with the United States for a long period of time. Their claim is that that is international waters, and our claim is that it is not but should be contained within the territorial sea and a straight base line drawn across there outwards from which we measure the 12 miles. I regret very much that the minister didn't see fit to refer to that as being probably the most important aspect of the question of territorial sea in the northern waters of this province.

We want to form an alliance with the former minister of transport, the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), who thinks that the office of Intergovernmental Relations is a sinecure, unnecessary, a waste of money, and should be abolished. We just think the Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations is not a ministry; it has as its head a person who really is looked upon as a senator. It's a sinecure; it's not really a functional part of government. There are two parts to it. One is intergovernmental relations, and any time there are any intergovernmental relations to become involved in it's the Premier's office that does that, not the minister's office. And if it's just to be a secretariat to cabinet and handle the various secretarial structures to cabinet committees, that can ordinarily be done with a public servant; we don't need a full minister for that. We think this ministry is a waste of money.

Vote 47 approved.

Vote 48: intergovernmental relations, $2,504,861 — approved.

Vote 2: auditor-general, $3,655,695 — approved.

On vote 1: legislation, $10,458,961.

MR. HOWARD: Before vote 1 passes, there's an item in here of $59,553 for something called "legislative procedure review." We just got through with a parliamentary committee spending an extensive amount of time last year going over the rules, revising them, updating them, modernizing them, eliminating the jargon, and that sort of thing. We have a brand new set of this century quality rules. Why do we need to fork out $60,000 for some legislative procedure review? It has been reviewed. We came in with a decent set of rules. When it comes to the procedure, that is what we do and how we function under those rules. We rely on the distinguished gentlemen at the table to do that. Is this what this is for? Or is this for something else?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, to the hon. member for Skeena and to the committee, in the preparation of vote 1, as the member would appreciate, the process is not quite like the preparation of other votes, where ministers must make their case with respect to how much is to be spent and whether it should be spent. Vote 1 is pretty much, I think, year in and year out and under any number of administrations, as it is considered to be by the Speaker.

The specific amount to which the member refers $59,553 — is somewhat less than that which was estimated for 1984-85. Frankly, at the time of the preparation of these estimates, I had no way of knowing whether there might be further considerable work to be done by a committee in legislative procedure review. Therefore I can tell the committee that it is likely that this amount will be underspent. But I still do not have that guarantee. When we reconvene at some point, there may be something to be assigned to that review process.

MR. HOWARD: I just wondered if there was any plan with respect to that. I realize that this comes under Mr. Speaker, and I realize how improper it is to engage Mr. Speaker in a debate in this House. I do recall, though, that under vote I in the House of Commons of Canada, when the Hon. Roland Michener was Mr. Speaker and I was first elected there, Mr. Speaker Michener did occupy a seat in Committee of the Whole and answer questions posed to him by members of the committee as to what the funds were available for.

I would also urge perhaps a different mechanism for dealing with the legislation item vote, and that is for us to have in this structure something similar to that which exists in other legislative assemblies and other parliaments — that is, perhaps a group of commissioners of internal economy, which comprises members of the assembly and members of the treasury benches, who work together as a team and as a group in conjunction with Mr. Speaker to have a sort of composite approach as to how the expenditure program is to be developed and what is required. It thereby permits input into that group, which is in another jurisdiction called the commissioners of internal economy, and permits for input from members of the House as to the development of this sort of thing. That process then allows an examination that involves Mr. Speaker but does not subject Mr. Speaker to what I would consider to be — and I felt so then — an indignity of that office: being involved on the floor of the chamber in a

[ Page 7020 ]

debate answering questions, in what sometimes can become a political arena rather than a simple exploratory one. We could overcome that by the commissioners of internal economy.

Secondly, there is a legislative....

AN HON. MEMBER: Political arena?

MR. HOWARD: Sometimes. Not now, because the Minister of International Travel has gone from the chamber for the time being.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, I haven't. I'm right here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Reference to another minister when dealing with the Speaker's vote....

MR. HOWARD: I looked in that direction where he sits, and I was hoping.

But sometimes it does. In any event it would obviate that.

Secondly, there is a legislative procedure review act — or some statute of a title similar to that. It's under that that the office of Mr. Speaker is established. It's under that that the authority is given to Mr. Speaker to assign functions and to undertake examinations of things so that we are all operating on a current basis. One of the provisions in that statute authorizes Mr. Speaker to engage in an examination of televising this chamber, and broadcasting, etc. The parliamentary committee of the last session unanimously recommended that we proceed to televise the proceedings in this chamber. They recommended also that the next phase of that be an examination into the logistics and the costs, and what may be required from an engineering and a technical point of view actually to put the camera system in place and how it would function. That was not followed up by a subsequent motion during this session to reassign the committee to have that authority, but as I read the Legislative Procedure Review Act, Mr. Speaker has that authority. Unless I hear a voice to the contrary, I have to proceed on the basis that there is an authority in that — I don't want to dig it out — to examine the question of television.

[3:45]

What I'm getting at is that I think we should be televising the proceedings of this chamber. [Applause.] It took the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) a little while to catch up on that one, because he and I had....

I am very serious. I don't think we should be deterred by the fact that the government has not seen fit to bring in a motion authorizing the Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services to proceed to authorize that other kind of examination. I would hope that there could be an opportunity under the Legislative Procedure Review Act. If the person in charge of that act or who has knowledge of that act would open it up and look at the fine print and implications of it, there might be an opportunity to proceed with the next phase of that examination so that we get television into this place, and thus get this place into the homes of the thousands and thousands of citizens in this province who would just love to know what's going on here. They may turn it on once and then decide they want to go to something else. That's what television is all about: the more channels there are, the more options available. People may opt for something else, but they should have the choice. They should have the option of turning it on in their living rooms, or wherever their television set might be.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: They can also turn it off.

MR. HOWARD: Maybe. That's an option. But if we don't televise it out of here, they ain't got the option. We should give them that choice: to view or not to view. That's a fundamental part of a democratic system. It was fundamental in the gallery, when the media — which call themselves by some estate name now, fifth estate or whatever it is — got into Parliament at Westminster. That was bringing the people in to see what Parliament was doing. They didn't have television then, but we've got it now. We've got radio and television, and people should have the opportunity to see what we're up to. This is not our Legislature. We're not the owners of this institution; we're just the tenants. The owners are the people out there who foot the bill — $9 billion worth of bill this year. The least we should be able to afford in return is the opportunity to see what we do with their money.

Vote 1 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, during proceedings in Committee of Supply I made reference to a particular report and document, and upon request offered to table it in the House. I ask leave to table the document referred to.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Gardom tabled the 1984-85 annual report of the British Columbia Systems Corporation.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move that the reports of resolutions from the Committee of Supply on the April 9, 23, and 30, May 9, 10, 13, 14, 23 and 30, and June 3, 4, 6, 10, 13, 17, 18, 20, 25, 27 and 28 be now received, taken as read and agreed to.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty for the public service of the province there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund: first, the sum of $8,929,000,000 towards defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986, the sum to include that authorized to be paid under section 1 of Supply Act (No. 1), 1985; and second, the sum of $413,491,000 for recoverable disbursements required for the purposes referred to in schedule C of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986, the sum to include that authorized to be paid under section 2 of Supply Act (No. 1), 1985.

Motion approved.

[ Page 7021 ]

SUPPLY ACT (NO. 2), 1985

Hon. Mr. Curtis presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act (No. 2), 1985.

Bill 53 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be committed for second reading forthwith.

MR. WILLIAMS: On a point of order, the intent of the bill before the House is not clear to me.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. member will bear with us for just one moment, the bill will be circulated to the members in the chamber.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I was going to explain that the bill will be circulated — as you wish — in just a moment. It is the supply bill introduced in order to provide supply for the 1985-86 fiscal year, and it will be here in a moment, sir.

MR. SPEAKER: The bill will now be circulated. If members would just keep their places for a moment or two....

Hon. members, the bill, having been circulated, I would call on the Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I have very few remarks. The supply bill, Bill 53, has been circulated as you observed, sit, and I moved second reading.

It is introduced in order to provide supply for the 1985-86 fiscal year. The amount requested is that resolved by vote in Committee of Supply after consideration of the estimates that were tabled on March 14, 1985. Included in the total amount to be appropriated is $540 million for expenditures associated with the government's economic renewal program. These expenditures are to be made in order to facilitate the program as dealt with in previous sittings this session.

Mr. Speaker, in order to maintain uninterrupted delivery of government programs, may I suggest to the House that it is essential that this supply be granted expeditiously. I also understand that His Honour is in the precinct awaiting our deliberations this afternoon.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, as the minister noted, this process started on March 14, some three and a half months ago. During that time the opposition has advanced many arguments concerning the ways in which the government is raising the amount of money that it's raising, and concerning the proposed expenditures. They are concerns that in many instances the expenditures were not adequate to meet the needs of the people of the province. We raised those arguments over and over, both during the general debate on the budget itself and in the various estimates that have come before us.

In dealing with the estimates, we have an option of either voting against them or reducing them. We have no option to move increases in expenditures. While we could advance the arguments, we could not move that there be increases in expenditures. It's easier, I suppose, to argue in favour of increases when one is on the opposition side of House. But I believe there were some very sound arguments raised with respect to various ministries. I won't mention them at this time for fear that I might be out of order, but I think there were good arguments raised. We're not doing our job as members of the Legislature in voting the minimal amounts of money for some ministries where the job to be done is so much more important than we are recognizing in voting the amount of money that we have voted.

As is normal, it's easy to be in favour of general economy. I think I've quoted Anthony Eden on previous occasions: "Everyone is in favour of general economy and yet in favour of particular expenditures, but it's just not that easy." Health, Education and Forestry are three examples where we just aren't doing our job, and yet we made these arguments. We had the opportunity, as I say, to simply move reductions, not to move increases, but we did argue. At this particular time there's no point, in my opinion, to hold up the Supply Act. We have made those arguments and have lost on the vote — and certainly it was ordained that we would lose, the numbers being what they are. If we voted today, we would lose. However, we have no intention of holding up what we consider are minimal provisions for very important services. The opposition will support the passage of Supply Act (No. 2), 1985.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move second reading of Bill 53.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: With leave, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 53, Supply Act (No. 2), 1985, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

The House in committee on Bill 53; Mr. Ree in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Schedule approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

[4:00]

Motion approved.

Bill 53, Supply Act (No. 2), 1985, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, His Honour is within the precincts.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I believe the Lieutenant-Governor will be in the chamber within a very short

[ Page 7022 ]

period of time. Possibly we could keep our places until that time.

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

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Forest Amendment Act, 1985

British Columbia Railway Amendment Act, 1985

Small Business Venture Capital Act

Provincial-Municipal Partnership (Taxation Measures) Act

Revenue Sharing Amendment Act, 1985

Industrial Electricity Rate Discount Act

Critical Industries Act

Travel Agents Amendment Act, 1985

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1985

Lottery Corporation Act

Special Enterprise Zone and Tax Relief Act

Coal Amendment Act, 1985

Natural Gas Price Act

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1985

Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 1985

Applied Science Technologists and Technicians Act

An Act To Incorporate Chilliwack Foundation

Vancouver Stock Exchange Amendment Act, 1985

An Act to Amend The Trinity Western College Act

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these bills.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Supply Act (No. 2), 1985.

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

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

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

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 4:05 p.m.