[ Page 7023 ]

CONTENTS

Ministerial Statements

Disposal of government documents. Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7023

Mr. Stupich

Hon. Mr. Chabot

Mr. Skelly

Hon. Mr. Smith

Mr. Macdonald

Real Estate Amendment Act (No –– 2), 1985 (Bill 66). Hon. Mr. Hewitt

Introduction and first reading –– 7028

Tabling Documents –– 7028

Oral Questions

Disposal of government documents. Mr. Skelly –– 7028

Mr. Lea

Ms. Brown

Mr. Howard

Family Law Reform Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 34). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 7031

Mr. Macdonald –– 7031

Ms. Brown –– 7031

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 7033

Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (No –– 2), 1985 (Bill 55). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 7033

Mr. Cocke –– 7033

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 7033

Court Order Enforcement Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 57). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 7033

Ms. Brown –– 7034

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 7034

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (N0. 1), 1985 (Bill 58). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 7034

Mr. Cocke –– 7034

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 7035

Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 45). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7036

Mr. Stupich –– 7036

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7036

Capital Expenditures Miscellaneous Amendments Act, 1985 (Bill 54). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7037

Mr. Stupich –– 7038

Mr. Rose –– 7038

Mr. Williams –– 7039

Mr. Cocke –– 7039

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7040

Motor Fuel Tax Act (Bill 63). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7041

Mr. Stupich –– 7042

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7042

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 1985 (Bill 60). Second reading

Hon. A. Fraser –– 7042

Mr. Cocke –– 7042

Mrs. Dailly –– 7044

Ms. Brown –– 7044

Hon. A. Fraser –– 7045

Coquihalla Highway Construction Act (Bill 2). Committee Stage –– 7045

Mr. Hanson

Mr. MacWilliam

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Skelly

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1985

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, it's a great pleasure for me to introduce and welcome to our great province and this Legislature, for his first trip to British Columbia since his accession to office, His Excellency Thomas Niles, the ambassador of the United States of America. He is joined by Mr. George Ogg, the consul-general situated in B.C.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, before the House divides on issues, I would like to inject a note of joy on behalf of the B.C. Lions, who, as you know, will be playing in the Grey Cup in Montreal against Hamilton this Sunday. As a member of the last B.C. Lions Grey Cup championship team of 1964.... I know that that's a secret to everybody here, but I don't mind confessing that I am very elated and really feel I'd like to don my suit again. Mind you, I've played too many games without a helmet, so I couldn't do that. Nonetheless, I would like to ask all members, on a note of cooperation and unanimity, that we pound the desks on behalf of our B.C. Lions and wish them well against the Hamilton Tiger-Cats.

HON. MR. BENNETT: May I join with the first member for Vancouver Centre, who indeed had a very illustrious career with the B.C. Lions. He was an outstanding player and contributed to the only championship team we have. Our best wishes to a team that many of us have cheered on for many years, often with a lot of frustration. I want the member to know that I will personally take his warm wishes to Montreal to the players, as I watch the game on Sunday.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to welcome to the House today two New Democratic Party candidates. One is the next member for Vancouver–Little Mountain, Dr. Adrienne Peacock; also, our candidate for — and the next member for — Burnaby-Willingdon, Joan Sawicki. They are here today with my wife Alexandra.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is a visitor from Florida. Although she is a Canadian citizen, she has lived in Florida for the past 29 years. It is not a very pleasant visit for Kay Avery. She is the mother of Wayne McCannan, the British Columbian who is in Costa Rica under extradition orders to Guatemala. Kay is here to help raise funds for her son, to help get support to try to bring Wayne back home to Canada. I'd like you all to join with me in welcoming her.

MR. VEITCH: I'd like to join with the opposition in welcoming the New Democratic candidates for a 1988 general election. I would also like to welcome two members of the Society of Management Accountants of B.C., Mr. Gim Huey and their executive director Mr. Bill Easton.

HON. MR. GARDOM: In the galleries today we have two of the executive of the Society of Notaries Public of B.C.: the president, Mr. Earl G. Stewart, and the secretary-elect, Mr. Stan Nicol. I would ask all members to make them very welcome.

MR. GABELMANN: I'd like the House to welcome three representatives here today from the Canadian Union of Public Employees: British Columbia president Mike Dumler, education representative Ray Whitehead, and their public relations director, Rob Mingay.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleagues on both sides of the chamber to welcome my wife Linda, who is in the gallery for the opening today.

Ministerial Statements

DISPOSAL OF GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a ministerial statement.

The former ombudsman for British Columbia, Dr. Karl Friedmann, has made, apparently on more than one occasion, extremely serious allegations regarding action taken by the Ministry of Finance for British Columbia in the summer of 1984. References indicated that a deputy minister and minister took steps to commence "a break-in, theft" and other improper actions. These allegations constitute an incorrect and a very damaging attack on the Deputy Minister of Finance for the province of British Columbia and on me as minister.

Mr. Speaker, there was no "break-in" nor "theft." In the summer of 1983 the Ministry of Finance contracted with a local firm, operating as R&B Paper, for disposal of considerable volumes of waste paper. Materials identified as confidential were to be shredded, and the Crown provincial was to receive payment for paper which R&B would then sell for recycling purposes.

R&B Paper commenced disposing of Ministry of Finance waste paper in October 1983 on what I believe to be a weekly pickup basis. In addition, on April 4 and July 9, 1994, significant quantities of records approved for disposal under this Legislature's Document Disposal Act were picked up at the ministry's warehouse.

However, over time, R&B Paper fell into arrears for their rented premises, and on July 15, 1984, the R&B stock of stored paper material was sold by R&B to a firm operating as Rolls Trucking for the sum, I am informed, of $2,800. On either August 9 or early August 10, 1984, the landlord from whom R&B rented premises telephoned my office and expressed serious concern that paper material stored in his warehouse was not secure. It was further indicated that some employees of R&B had been engaged in a dispute with their employer, and suggestions were made that confidential documents might be removed imminently and made public. I could not confirm then, nor can I now, that these threats were made in the manner reported to me.

[2:15]

On the morning of August 10, 1984, staff from the Ministry of Finance visited the warehouse in question. They reported seeing an enormous pile of garbage bags and boxes, many of which were broken, with their contents strewn about the warehouse floor. None of the waste paper contained in the warehouse had been shredded. Further, there appeared to be a considerable quantity of confidential material, marked obviously for immediate destruction. Such had not occurred. Further, at the time of this visit the landlord advised ministry

[ Page 7024 ]

staff that R&B Paper had sold their stock of stored, unshredded paper materials to Rolls Mucking, with whom the Ministry of Finance had no contractual arrangement for document disposal. The landlord produced a copy of the bill of sale. It was further concluded that the premises were not adequately secured and therefore that confidentiality of records could not be assured.

We were therefore dealing with a situation where private documents had not been shredded and were not stored in a secure manner, and where the firm with which we had a disposal arrangement had sold the material to another firm in an unshredded state.

Mr. Speaker, later that day — in fact, in the afternoon of August 10, 1984 — I met with the Deputy Minister of Finance and a member of his staff to discuss the problem of insecure storage of confidential, personal information and records. During the course of that meeting on August 10, I determined that steps should be taken immediately to ensure the security and the safe storage of this wealth of private and confidential material. That was my instruction to the deputy minister, and the following action took place: between 6 p.m., August 10, and 5 a.m., August 11, with access provided to the ministry by the warehouse landlord, and in his presence for at least some of the time, the ministry removed approximately 18 tons of paper, including documents identified as confidential and therefore, as I indicated earlier, marked for destruction. I am informed and am satisfied that only material originating with the provincial government was removed. This bulk of material was transferred to an adjacent warehouse where it was felt by ministry staff that security could be assured. Within days of that action the material was removed by another contractor and taken for secure disposal.

Mr. Speaker, let me briefly describe to the members of this House what made up most of the material about which I have spoken. Some of it related to corporate capital tax returns and working papers on various individual corporate tax material, government payroll computer printouts, as well as numerous boxes of other computer printouts and many, many garbage bags filled with an assortment of waste paper. In addition, there were T4 slips or reports, master employee records, payroll registers, audit materials and large quantities of microfiche relating to provincial home purchase mortgages, payment schedules and related documents. Other material related to family and children's services files, much of it obviously highly personal in nature and deserving of confidential handling and disposal.

Mr. Speaker, at no time on August 9 and 10 or later was I informed, nor did I have any reason whatsoever to believe that the material under discussion included any "government policy papers," ministerial submissions to cabinet or Treasury Board or anything else which could be construed as "political" in nature.

I recall with clarity, Mr. Speaker, my only concern on the afternoon of August 10, 1984. Precisely, it was this: material which perhaps hundreds of British Columbia citizens had sent to government could be in jeopardy in terms of the trust with which it was provided. It is a fundamental right of the individual in his or her dealings with government that where confidentiality is assured or required by law, confidentiality must be maintained.

Mr. Speaker, to continue. On August 13, 1984, the ombudsman's office received a complaint from Mr. Walter Rolls, to whom R&B had sold the paper after falling behind in their rent payments. On September 21, 1984, following a meeting with Ministry of Finance officials, Mr. Rolls accepted payment of $2,000 — not $3,000 as has been mistakenly alleged by Dr. Friedmann — as fair market value for the 18 tonnes of material. Mr. Rolls and R&B Paper signed a normal release of claim to confirm that all issues involved were fully settled and resolved, including the complaint he had filed through the ombudsman.

On October 24, 1984, the ombudsman advised the ministry that notwithstanding that the complaint had been withdrawn, he was continuing to investigate the matter on his own initiative. On October 31, 1984, he sent his preliminary report to the Deputy Minister of Finance. In his response to the ombudsman dated November 13, 1984, the deputy minister advised: "We accept that the original agreement with R&B Paper was inadequate to ensure the destruction of all confidential material. We can assure you that the administrative arrangements now in place for disposal of waste paper are adequate to ensure the confidentiality of all information contained in that waste paper."

It is to be noted that in his final report on the matter — the date, I believe, was June 12, 1985 — Dr. Friedmann made two recommendations to the Ministry of Finance. On June 25, the ministry responded with respect to those recommendations and was subsequently advised that the matter was considered to be closed.

Since August 22, 1984, the Ministry of Finance has contracted with Allan Paper Stock Co., with penalty provisions for non-performance for the secure pickup and disposal of records approved for disposal under the terms of the Document Disposal Act and waste paper which is deemed sensitive or confidential.

Mr. Speaker, to restate, there was no break-in and there was no theft. In the view of the Deputy Minister of Finance — a view to which I then and now fully subscribe — there existed a serious threat to the security of private and confidential personal records. The Ministry of Finance acted promptly and firmly to correct this situation. In our judgment then and now, the protection of information provided by individual citizens was the paramount consideration.

Mr. Speaker, the former ombudsman of the province of British Columbia has gone too far. He has placed himself in the role of judge and jury by suggesting that the Deputy Minister of Finance and I were involved in a criminal act. If there is a scandal in this whole affair, it is this: a scandal of irresponsible and outrageous misinformation offered in November 1985, some 15 months after the event. I cannot explain what motivation prompted the former ombudsman to precipitate this frenzy of concern and speculation at this particular time. That assessment rests with the members of this chamber and with the citizens of British Columbia.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, a charge of breaking and entering and theft has been made against the minister and some of his staff, and that is a serious matter. This morning I phoned the minister to ask whether I might see a copy of his statement in advance. He suggested that that was an unusual request, and I agreed; but this is an unusual situation. On other occasions we are given the confidence of documents such as budget statements and opening speeches in advance, and to the best of my knowledge such confidence has never been broken. I am sorry that we couldn't have seen this particular statement, because it is a very unusual situation for

[ Page 7025 ]

a minister to be accused of complicity in breaking and entering and theft.

We're assured by the minister that this is not the case, that he is innocent. We have on previous occasions been assured by government ministers that they are not guilty of charges that have been made against them. In this case, I can recall the same minister being questioned about cheques that went missing in his ministry, that were found in the garbage. I have yet to hear that that situation has been corrected and the details of the correction. The minister proved on that occasion that he is not capable of looking after the assets of the people properly. By his statement today, he is confessing that he isn't even capable of looking after waste paper.

Mr. Speaker, it is an unusual situation, It is a serious business when the minister is accused of something like this. As I've said on previous occasions, we've had the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) in particular assure us that the government was totally innocent even when, as on one occasion, the RCMP let it be known that they had recommended charges be laid — still the minister said the government was innocent. I think this is so important that we need something more than the minister's explanation of what happened. To clear the air, not just for this government but for the people of British Columbia, there should be a proper public inquiry in which all of the information will come out publicly, in which questions may be asked of all the people who took part in it, so that we can be assured not just by the minister's statement but by a proper inquiry that he is innocent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

MR. STUPICH: The shame, Mr. Speaker, is on the head of this government if it doesn't deal with this seriously. There is one comment of the minister that I can agree with totally. Twice he said to me, and indicated in his statement, that this is important; it is a serious charge. He takes it very seriously. I agree with him: it is serious. I'm certainly not accusing him of anything. But he has been accused....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I've accused him of sloppy handling of government cheques and sloppy handling of garbage. But that's the worst thing I've accused him of so far, and I think that was admitted; he confessed to that in his statement today. But I don't think it's enough for him to stand up and tell us and the public of British Columbia that he's clean. For his own reputation he should be asking for, and indeed insisting that there be, a public inquiry so that everyone can be reassured that such is truly the case.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a ministerial statement.

MR. LEA: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to reply to the minister's statement.

Leave not granted.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Hon. members, leave having been denied....

MR. SKELLY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if we grant permission for one private member to speak, I think that permission should be available for all private members.

MR. LEA: On the same point of order, it is any member's privilege to stand in the House and ask that leave be given. I mean, how many are there? What are they afraid of?

Interjections.

[2:30]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the rules that guide us in this chamber are clear. Without leave the member may not proceed. The matter is concluded. Leave has not been granted.

DISPOSAL OF GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, as minister responsible for the public service in British Columbia, I wish to make a statement in defence of the public service from the attack on their integrity and honesty by the former ombudsman and members of the New Democratic Party. I want to say that concern on this issue has been conveyed to me by public servants.

The former ombudsman now shares a radio show with the honorary chairman of the NDP fund-raising program, and has repeated his serious allegations of breaking and entering and theft on the show that he shares with Dave Barrett. The second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams), in his hatred for this government, has parroted the Friedmann statement on breaking and entering, more concerned with politics than the harm he has done to and the cloud of suspicion he has placed over the public service of this province.

I suggest that his statement was made with the blessing of his leader. Even the federal NDP in Ottawa is attempting its smear of the government and/or the public service.

MR. SKELLY: On a point of order, even a ministerial statement should not be abused by ministers to lie and make insinuations about other members of this Legislature that are absolutely not true.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

I'm sure that the Leader of the Opposition did not mean to infer that a lie had been made. Had that inadvertently been done, I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition would withdraw that.

MR. SKELLY: No, Mr. Speaker, the statement was carefully made. I'm just asking for your ruling on what the use of ministerial statements should be. Should the statements be used for political purposes? Should they be used to spread untruths or to insinuate that certain members acted in a certain way? Or should they be used responsibly by ministers to convey information about policy to this Legislature?

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

Interjections.

[ Page 7026 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, we will have order in this chamber or there shortly will be fewer members in here than there are at present. The Leader of the Opposition, in his statement to the Provincial Secretary, indicated — as the Chair recalls — that a lie had been made. I would ask that, if any such inference was made, in keeping with parliamentary tradition the Leader of the Opposition withdraw that particular aspect of the point of order he made.

MR. SKELLY: No such suggestion was made.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

With regard to the point of order made by the Leader of the Opposition, the Chair would remind all members that they have an obligation to follow the procedures in standing orders in the spirit in which they were written. Members and ministers have an obligation to follow the procedures as they were intended.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Before I was interrupted, I was saying that even the federal NDP in Ottawa is attempting its smear of the government and the public service of this province. Jim Rilton, NDP member for Skeena, told the Commons that he wanted to put Solicitor-General Perrin Beatty, Minister of Justice John Crosbie and RCMP Commissioner Robert Simmonds on notice of the need for a federal investigation into the matter, saying it strikes to the very heart of the criminal justice system. Fulton added that the three have a moral and legal responsibility to uphold the law and to investigate, charge and arrest all those involved, including the public servants of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, there appears to be sinister political links between the former ombudsman and the NDP. Members will recall that the ombudsman, toward the end of the last session, was filing reports in the House at a rate of almost one a day. Why was this issue not identified in all of his reports? He had many months to alert the Legislature to his concerns. Why did he wait 15 months to reveal what he considers to be serious wrongdoings? Why did he wait until months after leaving office? This raises the issue of confidentiality in the office of the ombudsman. I believe that a legitimate question can be put: did the former ombudsman remove from his office documents or files that rightfully are confidential and belong in the office of the ombudsman?

This is a very serious question, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Friedmann's attack, as far as I'm concerned, is a sleazy, reckless attack, as well as a political attack, that has revealed his true colours. The most regrettable part of his partisan display is that he has attacked the integrity of the public service, which this government will never tolerate.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I guess this issue has now, by the Provincial Secretary, been brought to the level where it should be.

Members of this Legislature, including the government side and the opposition side, had an opportunity to question the previous ombudsman when he came before a meeting of a committee of this Legislature which was struck to appoint a new ombudsman. In that committee meeting, it was indicated that the ombudsman felt some reluctance to pursue the Deputy Minister of Finance, because he was the same person that he was requesting his budget from. He raised this issue in that committee, and was shut up by the chairman of that committee and not allowed to discuss the issue.

We had an opportunity in a committee to deal with this issue and to question the ombudsman in some detail. The minister should not now be standing up in this House and accusing the ombudsman of cheap political tactics, when he had an opportunity at that meeting to question the ombudsman on....

HON. MR. CURTIS: He is not the ombudsman.

MR. SKELLY: You're right. The minister is correct. This province has no ombudsman now.

Mr. Speaker, they called a private citizen — the former ombudsman — before that committee, and he was willing to answer these kinds of questions. He brought that information up to the committee, and the Social Credit members refused to ask the appropriate questions. What were they trying to cover up?

I don't fault the members of the federal House of Commons for bringing this issue to the attention of the House of Commons and the people in Ottawa who have the responsibility to administer the criminal justice system in this province. Many people across this country are concerned about the reputation of the government of British Columbia and the province of British Columbia under the management of this current government. I don't blame them at all.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask leave to reply to the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

SOME HON MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SKELLY: Not unless all private members....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, did they say no again?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. LEA: Oh, they did.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, a conditional request is a no. Permission is not granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Just on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it has been the custom of the House to grant leave under these circumstances. I suppose the official opposition is wishing to change the custom.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The matter is concluded.

HON. MR. SMITH: I wish to make a ministerial statement, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed.

[ Page 7027 ]

DISPOSAL OF GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I agreed that I would have an investigation conducted into the criminal allegations that were made by the former ombudsman, and I wish to report to the House.

I think it's necessary, first of all, to look at the allegations. On November 15 of this year the former ombudsman is reported to have alleged at a public meeting in Duncan that a break-in had taken place in 1984 in a warehouse in Victoria, authorized by a deputy minister in the provincial government. Mr. Friedmann said that this action had taken place to retrieve documents that the government did not wish to fall into the hands of the opposition. He charged that these events constituted a breach of the criminal law, and he said further that the case should be investigated by the Attorney General's ministry or by Crown counsel, implying that investigations had not taken place because government officials were involved. He also stated that he had fought the Attorney-General's ministry for a number of months to get some action about the break-in and entry.

In an interview that he had on BCTV on November 17, Mr. Friedmann repeated the charge that a deputy minister had authorized the break-in at the warehouse and that this had been okayed by the minister, but he further said: "The government doesn't want to face the consequences either, when they break the law. They're sitting in the driver's seat. They control the criminal process of prosecutions, and they are in control of what happens to lawbreakers." Mr. Friedmann went on to say that a complaint had been made to him, and that ultimately a $3,000 payment had been made in compensation.

My colleague the Finance minister has set out fully the facts that gave rise to the incident that is alluded to by Mr. Friedmann. It's clear from what he has said that the Deputy Minister of Finance did bring about the removal of government documents from a warehouse in Victoria but that this was done with the permission of the landlord of the warehouse, who had warned that the documents were not secure, and that it was the landlord himself who opened the warehouse and suggested the removal of the documents to a safe place. It is also significant, Mr. Speaker, that the documents involved were confidential files of British Columbians, dealing with such matters as taxation, family services and home purchase mortgages. There can be no question, then, that these documents were consigned by the government for disposal and were held in trust by the government to protect innocent citizens mentioned in them.

But Mr. Friedmann's allegations are serious ones. If I might summarize their thrust, they are: that a break-in occurred at a warehouse in Victoria on August 10-11 constituting a criminal action — that's the first allegation; second, that the break-in was authorized by a deputy minister and approved by a minister, participated in by numerous public servants; and the third is that neither the police nor the prosecutor nor the justice personnel did anything about this case, presumably to protect public servants; and fourth, that Mr. Friedmann, then ombudsman, fought the Attorney-General's ministry for a number of months to get some action about this alleged breach of the criminal law.

Because of the seriousness of these allegations I asked my deputy minister, Mr. Edward Hughes, QC — for many years a judge in Saskatchewan, latterly of the Queen's Bench — to conduct an inquiry. Mr. Hughes has done so, and reported to me that there is not a shred of evidence involving any element of criminality arising out of the removal of the documents from the warehouse.

I now wish to respond, as a result of this investigation, to each allegation. First of all, the allegation that a break-in occurred, authorized by a deputy minister and participated in by public servants. There is no evidence to indicate any element of criminality. Not only did the Deputy Minister of Finance have the right to remove the documents which he held in trust for the public but he had a high duty to do so, which he discharged faithfully.

On examining the police records of the day that the incident took place, it is described, Mr. Speaker, in the police records as a civil matter. The police investigated on a complaint by Mrs. Rolls, the wife of the proprietor of the company that had the contract to control and dispose of the documents. The police recommendation was to take no action. No charge was recommended either by the police or by Crown counsel.

Then the allegation that police and prosecutors took no action because public servants were involved. As to that allegation, indeed, Mr. Speaker, had any charge been laid in regard to these circumstances, it would have been laid without evidence and would probably have constituted a breach of the process of the criminal court. No prosecutor working in our system would have authorized such a charge, regardless of who was involved. If Mr. Friedmann is suggesting that prosecutors and the police who work in our criminal justice system don't lay charges against public servants or officials because they favour them over other citizens, he is not only incorrect but his allegations are scurrilous.

Finally, his months of efforts with the Attorney-General's ministry. Mr. Speaker, my deputy has diligently searched the records of our ministry and those of the ombudsman's office as well. This search confirms that at no time did Mr. Friedmann make a complaint of criminal activity arising out of these events, either to the police or to my officials. This is supported by the records of the ombudsman's department. It is certainly correct that the then ombudsman assisted in negotiating a settlement for the paper disposal firm, and payment was made in the amount of $2,000 because of the loss of disposal revenue the company had suffered. This was a common procedure under the Crown Proceeding Act. It could hardly be constituted as an attempt to seal the lips of the complainer. The truth is that not only did the ombudsman not complain of criminal conduct; neither did the disposal company.

[2:45]

I must conclude, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that the allegations made by Mr. Friedmann are not supported by any of the records or by a shred of evidence. Tempting as it is to dismiss these allegations as the trivial ravings of a disgruntled critic, they must be viewed seriously, as they come from a once trusted high official in this province. His allegations are untrue, and they were intended to malign not only elected officials but also deputies, public servants and all those who work in the justice system, including police and prosecutors. False accusations of this dimension must sadden all of us because they strike at the foundations of the administration of justice, which in our system is based on a free society governed by the rule of law.

MR. MACDONALD: I am replying to the Attorney-General in my capacity as junior critic for that department. I

[ Page 7028 ]

have been listening to political diatribes in the guise of statements, including the one just made by the Attorney-General, and slashing attacks and insinuations against a man who is not here to defend himself.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: I don't know. The Attorney-General says there has been an internal inquiry. They have lots of internal inquiries, and I leave that part aside for the time being.

Can't the Attorney-General, as the chief law officer of the Crown, see that people's confidential records aren't better protected than this sort of thing that's been going on? You know, you say it's strewn like garbage in some little business that can't even pay the rent.... You've got the records of people and their personal files strewn like garbage around the floor, and then sold off to some trucking company. That's incompetence. That's a garbage in, garbage out government, and all of these political diatribes we've been listening to today are an attempt by the government to hide their gross mismanagement of the public....

You know, these documents, when they're confidential records, should be contained within the public service of the province of B.C. That's where they should be disposed of, under the act. Don't contract them out. You've got a record of contracting out to this, that and other people, very often to government friends. No wonder the records are strewn all over the place and are not being protected. What we're dealing with here, over and above any legal point, is gross incompetency on the part of the government.

MR. LEA: I'd like to ask leave to reply to the minister's statement.

Leave not granted.

Introduction of Bills

REAL ESTATE AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1985

Hon. Mr. Hewitt presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Real Estate Amendment Act (No. 2), 1985.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move first reading of the bill accompanying the message.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now, and in making that motion I would just like to make a few comments on the bill. The key feature of this amendment bill enables the superintendent of insurance to permit developers to submit a shorter, less complex disclosure statement in lieu of a full prospectus. This amendment recognizes that land development is sensitive to time constraints, and with this new provision in place, sales and lease transactions for subdivided land, strata lots and cooperative units will proceed without undue delays.

To balance less restrictive disclosure requirements for purchasers of undivided land, a right of recision and increased penalties for contravention are also included to maintain the consumer protection side of the act. Specifically, the recision right of three days now applying to purchasers of time-share interests would be extended to purchasers of subdivided land situated within the province in respect of a transaction covered by a prospectus or a disclosure statement. This bill also enables the superintendent to specify the form and content of the disclosure statement, to use his discretion to determine who should, and to broaden the sphere of potential liability from directors and developers to others who are familiar with the specific real estate projects covered in the disclosure statement. This also increases the penalties involved in regards to contravention of the act.

With those comments, I move that the bill be read a first time now.

Bill 66, Real Estate Amendment Act (No. 2), 1985, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled the 1984-85 annual report of the provincial Capital Commission.

Hon. Mr. Brummet tabled the 1984 annual report of the British Columbia Housing Management Commission.

Hon. Mr. McGeer tabled the seventh annual report of the Science Council of British Columbia, the annual report of the Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications, the eleventh annual report of the Universities Council of British Columbia, and the annual report of the Knowledge Network of British Columbia.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression that the Attorney-General was planning to make a statement on the crisis at Lyell Island. Does the Attorney-General plan to make such a statement?

Oral Questions

DISPOSAL OF GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance, in his statements, indicated that serious allegations were made against him, the Ministry of Finance and the staff of the Ministry of Finance concerning allegations of criminal behaviour. A statement appeared in the Times-Colonist on November 20, 1985 that the Deputy Minister of Finance, David Emerson, "said nobody in the Finance ministry considered the question of rightful ownership of the documents when they were retrieved."

Would the minister confirm that nobody in his ministry considered rightful ownership when the action was taken to retrieve those documents?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, that question asks me to provide a legal opinion.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, the statement by the Deputy Minister of Finance is that nobody in the Finance ministry considered the question of rightful ownership of the documents when they were retrieved. Nobody is asking for a legal statement by the minister.

[ Page 7029 ]

Will the minister confirm that nobody in his ministry considered the question of rightful ownership prior to retrieving these documents?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, in my view, as I indicated earlier, the question borders on asking for a legal opinion. I believe that the statement I made at length in this House a few minutes ago speaks for itself.

MR. SKELLY: Then I assume that the Deputy Minister of Finance was making a false statement when he indicated that.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: I'm just interpreting what the minister has said about the statement of the Deputy Minister of Finance, in which he said that nobody considered the legal ownership.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. This is question period.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance indicated that his main concern in retrieving these documents was that the confidentiality of the documents be protected, and that the trust established between citizens who provide these documents on a confidential basis also be protected.

Will the minister confirm that the confidential documents on computer paper were stored on the back of an open truck at Allan Paper Stock Co. Ltd. on Tyee Road for a week prior to Allan Paper Stock disposing of that computer paper?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, in order for me to assist the member with that question, could he attach some time-frame to it? Is he speaking of last week or two years ago? I don't know of the incident about which he questions.

MR. HOWARD: Old Cop-Out again.

MR. SKELLY: It sounds like a cop-out to me, Mr. Speaker.

Will the minister confirm that the documents he discussed in his statement were placed on the back of an open truck and left at Tyee Road for a week? After the documents were supposed to be disposed of and the confidentiality of those documents was supposed to be protected, they were left outside on Tyee Road for a week for anyone to take a look at who cared to.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I would invite the Leader of the Opposition to make further inquiries with respect to that. I indicated....

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I meant further inquiries through his research department, if it still exists.

I dealt with the significant confidentiality of a wealth of material that was brought to my attention in August.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: If I might be permitted to continue, Mr. Speaker....

In addition to the confidential material, there was considerable material which could not by any stretch of the imagination be considered to be confidential. I'm informed that it included old telephone books and blank computer printout material. Therefore....

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: A lot of material that was not of concern in terms of confidentiality. Therefore I cannot assist the member with respect to the question he has put. I would suggest that he determine, through his own sources, whether perhaps the paper to which he referred was indeed not confidential.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, it appears that the Minister of Finance is unwilling to answer any questions. That's the reason we've been asking for a public inquiry. What this House needs into this incident, and into every other incident of mismanagement on the part of this government, is a complete public inquiry.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, is there a question? There is obviously no question. The member for Prince Rupert.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: Is it okay now?

MR. REID: Yea democracy! We want to hear you.

[3:00]

MR. LEA: They'd probably stop this too, if they could.

I have a question for the Attorney-General, with some preamble. I also listened to the statement by the Minister of Finance. As I started to say earlier, I've known him for 14 years, and I can't in my wildest dreams imagine that he would ever authorize an illegal act like that which has been described.

I also heard the statement by the Attorney-General, and he rightly described his deputy as an honourable gentleman with a good background. However, these are serious allegations that Mr. Friedmann made.

I believe that it is not good enough that we have people who are themselves civil servants to government doing the investigation. That isn't good enough.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, we must have a question at some point.

MR. LEA: I would like to ask the Attorney-General whether he has considered — not having a public inquiry, because we're going to have calls for about 70 or 80 of those over the next two weeks — asking the RCMP, an impartial body, to take a look at the allegations made by Mr. Friedmann and then report to the Attorney-General, and having the Attorney-General report back to the House. I believe the minister and I believe the deputy, but the people out there have to believe it. With that in mind, will the Attorney-General be calling the RCMP to ask for an investigation into this?

[ Page 7030 ]

HON. MR. SMITH: I'm glad to respond to the member for Prince Rupert, who doesn't take his legal advice from the author of a squash book sitting across from us, who did, I thought, a tour de force today of keeping a straight face.

I think the member for Prince Rupert raises a fair question. This investigation didn't just involve the deputy; it involved looking at the records of the Victoria city police and inquiring through the system. If there was something, even a tiddle, of evidence there, I'd be quite happy to go further with it. But to investigate fantasy is somewhat difficult to condone, and the process doesn't get improved by doing so. If somebody brought a shred of evidence, most certainly we'd go further with it.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Human Resources. In his statement the Minister of Finance stated that confidential family and children's services files were among the garbage which was scattered in this warehouse. Now that the incompetence of the Minister of Finance to deal with these confidential files has been brought to the minister's attention, can she tell us whether the Ministry of Human Resources is doing anything to protect the confidentiality of the people who in all good faith think that they're giving confidential information when they fill out those files?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the disposal of documents is well known to the member who asked the question, as it is to all of us in this House. When documents reach a certain age and it is no longer necessary to keep them after so many years, the minister has to sign for the disposal of those documents. It then goes before a legislative committee that reviews the disposal of those documents. Nothing that has been said today, nothing that I have heard in the past, nothing that has been brought to my attention leads me to believe in any way whatsoever that the confidential documents of the Ministry of Human Resources have ever been strewn around the floor or seen by people who would be able to use them for purposes that we in this House would be concerned about.

So the answer to the question is that I am not concerned about it. I believe that our security is excellent.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the Minister of Human Resources, confidential information of a family nature never ceases to be confidential. Saying that the document is old doesn't mean that the information ceases to be confidential.

Now that the Minister of Finance has informed us that that confidential information was included in the documents which were, in his words, strewn across the floor in this warehouse, is that minister going to do anything about changing the way in which that confidential information is disposed of? Or are we to tell people that the confidential information they give the Minister of Human Resources is not confidential?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, we all know that the opposition is attempting in some way to try to get out of the allegations — which they have assisted, in their remarks today and in their remarks on television and in the newspapers, of perpetrating. However, to claim that confidential documents which remain confidential and are destroyed by government when they are past the time to keep them in government offices, and when the Attorney-General and the Minister of Finance spoke of the events which led up to this particular case which has been raised by a former employee of this Legislature, it was clearly explained that the Minister of Finance took steps to protect that confidentiality. I believe those steps were taken, in all good conscience, to protect the confidentiality of the Ministry of Human Resources.

MR. HOWARD: May I ask the Attorney-General a supplementary question with respect to part of the statement made by the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) earlier today in which he said that Dr. Friedmann had taken documents from the ombudsman's office which were public property and which he was not entitled to have. Inasmuch as this smacks of some illegality on the part of Dr. Friedmann — theft, perhaps, of public documents — is the Attorney-General willing to investigate, lay charges against Dr. Friedmann, if they can be substantiated, or the alternative — have a public inquiry into the whole thing to see whether or not the Provincial Secretary is maligning somebody from the sanctity of this House?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I didn't....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I take offence at the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) rising to ask a question on a statement that I didn't make — suggesting that I made a certain statement in this House. Apparently he wasn't listening very well or doesn't hear very well, because I never suggested the point that he's attempting to raise a question on.

HON. MR. SMITH: I will most certainly make a comment on that after I've looked into this matter. I don't think the allegation was one of theft. I didn't take it as that. The allegation was that files had been removed. It doesn't seem to me to require a royal commission, but it could receive a report back to the House, and we'll certainly take action. I know that there are matters involved in this that are being discussed with lawyers. But I'll make a report to the House.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I wish to request leave of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely that Wayne McCannan, a Langley resident and owner-operator of Wayne's Ravel Service Ltd. with offices in Surrey and Langley, was imprisoned in Costa Rica in July. He spent 112 days in jail, and on October 25 Wayne went to court in Costa Rica. The court ordered that he will be extradited to Guatemala to face fraud charges. Wayne is appealing that decision, but as yet no new date has been set for the trial. The usual time period for this is three to five weeks.

The purpose of requesting this debate, Mr. Speaker, is to have this House vote to have the provincial government make representation to the federal government to bring Wayne McCannan home from Costa Rica. The reason that it's urgent, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that if Mr. McCarman goes to Guatemala, we'll probably never be able to bring him home.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair will undertake to review the matter and bring a response back at the earliest opportunity.

[ Page 7031 ]

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to standing order 35 to ask leave to move the adjournment of this House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the employment crisis in the province of British Columbia. The province has seen employment drop from a peak of 1,315,000 in July 1981 to 1,245,000 in the last month reported — a decline of 70,000 employed over the last four years. It's also seen unemployment increase, during the same period, from 82,000 in July 1981 to 192,000 in October 1985 — an increase of 110,000 unemployed.

Clearly there is an employment crisis in this province, Mr. Speaker, and the Legislature must deal with this matter in all possible haste.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair will undertake to review the matter. However, I would advise that this matter has been dealt with on numerous occasions. The results have been brought to the attention of the members on numerous occasions, as well, about the matter and its ability to qualify or otherwise under standing order 35. Nonetheless, hon. member, I will undertake to give that the attention of the Chair.

MR. SKELLY: The situation continues to get worse, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

Hon. members, the Chair has been advised that, by agreement of the House leaders, the question period members' statements for Friday will continue even though we have not had the opportunity to make the usual submissions by Tuesday. Therefore I would suggest that members so interested make their submissions to the Chair by 6 o'clock this date. That is an agreement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: So ordered.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call second reading of Bill 34.

[3:15]

FAMILY LAW REFORM AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

MR. SMITH: Moving second reading, Mr. Speaker, I just mention a few of the key features in the bill. This bill amending the Family Relations Act, is long awaited. I think the amendments that are here today should meet with the approval of all sides of the House. The objectives are to further discourage the abduction of children as part of custody disputes between estranged parents, particularly the removal of children over provincial and international borders; to assist the courts to locate children who are being hidden to frustrate the enforcement of child custody orders; to strengthen the powers of the courts to make garnishee orders, orders for the seizure or management of property, orders for the imprisonment of persons who defy court orders to pay maintenance and other orders to facilitate the payment of maintenance to economically dependent spouses and children; and further to facilitate the automatic enforcement of maintenance orders by allowing, as we have not done in the past, designated public officials to have access on a strictly confidential basis to information in the records of public and private agencies indicating the whereabouts and assets of persons defaulting in the payment of their maintenance obligations.

The legislation will revise the reciprocal enforcement of maintenance order programs which facilitate the making and enforcement of maintenance orders where one spouse in British Columbia and the other spouse elsewhere are dealing with each other.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

It will abolish as well certain obsolete civil legal actions whereby a husband can sue for monetary compensation where his wife had been seduced or was being harboured outside the family home.

I commend the bill for the observation of the House, and I'll be pleased to respond to the member's observations on second reading. I now move second reading.

Motion approved.

MR. MACDONALD: I accept that many of these matters should be questioned in committee, but the Attorney-General, in one of the first sections of this bill, which I can't refer to by number — and he's not listening at the present time — is abolishing one of the oldest forms of action in our law. That's the suit for breach of promise of marriage. The Attorney-General's attitude seems to be that if it's old, dispose of it. That's a very ancient action used by women who have been in many cases debauched, and in other cases despoiled, with evil intention, in the expectation of getting married. Now what's wrong with that action when you consider the wide range of perfectly ridiculous laws that are there before the courts to enforce?

I know the Attorney-General will say: "Well, they've done it in other provinces, therefore we do it." Lockstep, eh? But there can be real injustices, particularly in the case of a woman — I suppose it could apply to a man too — who has been led....

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: It can apply to a man, I'm assured by a nod of a very sagacious head. But a woman can receive genuine injustice in terms of the expectation of marriage, being promised marriage, by somebody with evil intention who has no intention whatsoever of marrying.

AN HON. MEMBER: A cad.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, let the cad be visited with damages, and why not? Why abolish this particular action just because it's been done in other places? I suggest that the Attorney-General take this section under advisement and, if he doesn't respond at the end of second reading, that he respond properly in committee.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I thought that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) stayed in the House because she wanted to speak on this bill. Maybe she will later on.

[ Page 7032 ]

I just want to jog her memory and remind her of the very first time that I had contact with her was in 1971 when she introduced a similar piece of legislation herself as a private member in this House — the amendment to the Wives' and Children's Maintenance Act. At that time in my role as ombudswoman for the Status of Women Council of Vancouver, I had the opportunity to deal with that piece of legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ombudsman.

MS. BROWN: No, I was an ombudswoman at the time.

But what this shows you, Mr. Speaker, is how slowly the laws of the land and justice grind their way when they have to deal with women and children. Indeed, amendments to legislation dealing with maintenance go back many, many years. I was just refreshing my memory with reading the Royal Commission on the Status of Women report which was tabled in the federal House, I think, in 1970; it started its survey, I think, sometime in 1967. At that time recommendations were made to improve the payment of maintenance to spouses. Here we are 15 years later finally getting a bill which is not perfect — which is imperfect — but which is nonetheless a very small step in the direction of doing something about the nonpayment of support by errant spouses.

What I don't understand is why we still have to use this old-fashioned legal machinery to get maintenance orders enforced. Why not just deduct at source? Maybe when the Attorney-General is closing debate on this legislation he can explain to us once again why it is possible to garnishee wages for nonpayment of car payments, or for nonpayment of payments on a refrigerator or a stereo or whatever, but for nonpayment of support of your children it's not possible to do so. You have to go through this cumbersome legalistic machinery simply to get a basic right like payment of support for children and payment of support to a spouse to be enforced. Why are we still doing it that way? Why do we not go to the garnishee of wages? I understand that one of the reasons given is that the paperwork is going to be a burden on employers. It's going to be a burden on small businesses, for example, to deal with another deduction from a person's wages. In fact, the amount of money spent on the court process would make it possible for us to compensate employers and small businesses for the task of this additional deduction at source. And it would ensure that those payments are made first, Mr. Speaker, because one of the things the act still doesn't do is to place a priority on the payment of maintenance and support for children. In fact, the judge has the discretion — which in many instances the judge exercises — to look at the other debts that a husband would have before deciding what the maintenance will be. I know that's not covered in the bill, but the judge has the discretion to decide that first we deal with a father's car payments, payments on a stereo, the fridge, the yacht, the condominium in Maui and everywhere else. After that's done, what's left over goes to pay support for the children.

Once that decision is made, enforcement becomes the problem. What we learn from other jurisdictions and from statistics here in Canada is that after the first two years, less than 50 percent of these payments are actually made. Part of the reason why the Ministry of Human Resources has been so persistent in seeing this legislation introduced is that for people in receipt of income assistance, the statistic is even lower. It's about 11 percent, or something in that regard. We know from the Wisconsin experience, and the experience in other parts of the world — certainly in North America, Mr. Speaker — that in many instances it has nothing to do with ability to pay. In some instances it has everything to do with ability to pay, but in many instances it has nothing to do with ability to pay.

So now we have a piece of legislation that's going to give a person who has the ability to pay, and doesn't pay, the option of going to jail, which is a wonderful option. We learn from research in the United States and in other jurisdictions that when the threat of jail is used, suddenly a number of these fathers find they are able to pay. Nonetheless, what we also learn from those experiences is that the fathers who end up in jail are in most instances the ones who do not have the ability to pay. So how is this law going to be enforced without being an undue burden on those people who do not have the ability to pay? Speaking to women's groups, for example, we are told there could be an escalation in violence directed towards them from their spouses because of increased hostility around this whole area of going to jail if there is nonpayment. All of this could be avoided if we could deduct the maintenance payment at source. It could be taken right off the top, in the same way that the federal government, to be sure your income tax is paid, deducts it at source; and if you've overpaid, they return it to you.

If we really are serious about parents of both sexes meeting their commitment to their children, why do we not make it a priority that that's the way in which it is done?

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to give the impression that I am not going to support the legislation. I recognize that it is a very small step, but at least it is a step in the right direction. All I am asking the minister to do when he closes debate is to explain why it is that he is still using this old-fashioned, cumbersome and unsuccessful way of dealing with this very serious problem. We know from the research done at the University of Wisconsin and from the International Conference on Matrimonial and Child Support in Edmonton, Alberta, that divorce has an especially destructive impact on the economy of the parent who is left with the support of the children, and that in most instances, that is the mother. In fact, men experience a real decrease in their income of about 10 percent after divorce — and if they do pay their support payments, it is a decrease of about 19 percent — where sole support mothers caring for the children experience closer to a 30 percent decrease in their income, which would be really difficult. So I think I would appreciate the minister commenting on those things.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I am very glad about the decision that was made to clean up the whole business of interprovincial and international adoptions. This business of abducting kids and one parent kidnapping kids from the other is one that has created a lot of pain not just for the parents but for the children themselves. I certainly support those sections of the legislation that deal with that.

In support of what my colleague the member for Vancouver East said about the breach of promise, I realize that it is a very old-fashioned and archaic piece of legislation. But I have spoken to people who have indicated that it is a kind of protection for those women who in the heat of the moment and without thinking will make irresponsible financial decisions upon the promise of marriage. I don't know whether we should indulge their irresponsibility by leaving this Section in there, or if we should say: "Well, if they were so silly as to believe that that person meant it when he said he was going to

[ Page 7033 ]

marry them, then they deserve to be punished." I don't know. I don't like the idea of it being removed. I think it is a form of protection for men too, who probably on the promise of marriage will sign over their entire estate to the woman of their love. I don't know; I am not familiar with these things, but I certainly agree with my colleague that if it has been working, there is really no reason for us to remove it.

I am hoping that when the minister closes debate on the maintenance section, he will explain to us why we still have to go through this method of enforcing maintenance when there is such a simple and straightforward way in which the federal government has shown us we can actually get this money by simply deducting it at source.

[3:30]

HON. MR. SMITH: In closing debate, I'll respond first of all to the subject of the removal of the action of breach of promise. I guess it's fair to say that it's not being removed just to keep up with other jurisdictions or to be trendy. It is being removed because it was thought that the remedy of seeking monetary compensation for that sort of wrong in this day and age was probably no longer too efficacious. It was never suggested in this amendment that there is a condonation of people who promise marriage to the ladies and lead them on and then don't marry them.

MS. BROWN: Or vice versa.

HON. MR. SMITH: Or vice versa, exactly, and I might add that the legislation did apply to spouses, as you know, and it can happen the other way.

In a modem society, the damage actions there are probably not socially desirable and are often, of course, very vindictive and destructive.

The comments of the member for Burnaby (Ms. Brown) on maintenance are very good ones. Even without this amendment, section 16 under the existing act allows the court, under the wage assignment provision, to make what really is exactly the same kind of order that is the practice of the federal government — that is, a wage assignment that binds the existing employer and any other employer that the defaulting spouse is employed by later who is served the notice of that section to make monthly wage assignments directly to the family court, who pays it to the spouse. I think that is a good section.

In here we are just simply trying to strengthen the garnishee power a little more where it's not possible to do a wage assignment. It may be, for instance, that the person works on a commission basis and doesn't have regular salaries that you can attach it to. Then you're pretty well stuck with trying to find out who owes money to them, so you can attach those moneys. You have to do it, unfortunately, by garnishment. We've extended the life of these garnishee orders from three months to six months, which will improve.

But you know, I agree with everything she says. I do feel, though, that the Family Relations Act, now and as amended, goes about as far as we can go to address these things. Many of these problems are problems of enforcement. They're not problems of legislation; they're actually enforcement problems. They highlight the need. It's very important, I think, that the authorities who are enforcing family maintenance orders have access to confidential information as to the whereabouts of spouses. It is one of those areas where we have to override the rights of privacy, and we have to give that information. I know the member supports me in this point of view, that they have to have that information. They have to be able to get these characters who are not discharging their obligations, are taking off and spending the money for other purposes. So I'm pleased to see her support those provisions and the provisions for reciprocal enforcement and preventing the movement of children across borders, as has taken place in the past.

I have pleasure in moving second reading, and I will be glad to respond further when the bill comes to committee.

Motion approved.

Bill 34, Family Law Reform Amendment Act, 1985, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 55.

ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1985

HON. MR. SMITH: Because the bill is one of these grab-bags, Mr. Speaker, beyond the brief description I gave under the new rules in first reading, there's no point in my adding anything. I think I should deal with it section by Section 1n committee, which I propose to do.

MR. COCKE: On the condition that each clause will be given the latitude of debate in second reading.

AN HON. MEMBER: As is the custom of the House.

MR. COCKE: As has been from time to time the custom of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I've discussed that with the Deputy Speaker, and it's agreed.

The minister closes debate on Bill 55.

HON. MR. SMITH: I close the interesting debate that we've had and move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 55, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1985, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Seconding reading of Bill 57.

COURT ORDER ENFORCEMENT
AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

HON. MR. SMITH: This bill really provides for the implementation of a convention between Canada and the U.K., providing for a reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. It was signed in Ottawa on April 24, 1984. The purpose of the convention was to protect Canadian-owned assets in Britain from being attached by litigants in countries which were signatories to the European convention of 1968 in regard to

[ Page 7034 ]

this matter. Since the government of the U.K. Is expected to become a party to this European convention this year, the necessity of passing this legislation is to protect B.C. residents who own property in the United Kingdom. The implementing legislation has already been adopted at the federal level and in at least five of the provinces.

MS. BROWN: In the absence of the spokesperson for the Attorney-General and the deputy spokesperson of the Attorney-General's department, I am going to speak on their behalf and say that I think they support this bill, and that we're going to support it as a result of that. But I have to say a few more words, because I think the next piece of legislation is the motor vehicle one, and our spokesperson has gone for some material. So would you like me to speak until he gets back, or would you wait until he gets back?

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Oh, you have one before that. Oh, okay. We're going to support this legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Further debate?

HON. MR. SMITH: I close the debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The question is second reading of Bill 57.

Motion approved.

Bill 57, Court Order Enforcement Amendment Act, 1985, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Is Mr. Hanson your spokesperson on the Motor Vehicle Act?

Interjection.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, we can start it off. Second reading of Bill 58, Mr. Speaker.

MOTOR VEHICLE
AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 1), 1985

HON. MR. SMITH: The Motor Vehicle Amendment bill principally is designed to do some things that will assist in the drinking-and-driving field. The major one is to close the loophole that some convicted drunk drivers were able to employ to delay the imposition of the mandatory six-month prohibition from driving. Previously, by simply filing an appeal, the prohibition was automatically stayed until the bill was heard, and of course it doesn't exactly inspire speed in getting on with your appeal if you have a stay until your appeal is heard. An amendment to the act will require a person appealing a conviction to apply to the court to have the prohibition stayed, so there is still an opportunity to do that. A person who feels that they are innocent and have been wrongly convicted can get a stay from the court, but it just doesn't happen automatically. This, we think, is also going to reduce the number of frivolous appeals, because it's no secret that in some cases appeals were launched to allow the driving to continue to a time when it was more convenient to lose the licence. So that's the purpose of that amendment.

Bill 56, the miscellaneous statutes amendment act which we dealt with in this session, contained provisions that allow the continuation of the superintendent's authority to prohibit from driving those who commit serious Criminal Code driving offences or who have evidenced poor driving behaviour through the accumulation of a large number of convictions for provincial driving offences. The administrative procedures supporting the prohibitions have been subject to attack, Mr. Speaker, in a number of arguments under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and in the recent case of Hundal in the British Columbia court of appeal we argued the right of the superintendent to prohibit driving where there had been an accumulation of over 88 penalty points. That was a Charter case in which it was argued that because the superintendent had not held a formal hearing in relation to the suspension of Mr. Hundel's licence, that the suspension was invalid and was to be set aside. That's a case that I actually argued in the court of appeal successfully, and the decision was in favour of the legislation. But it seemed to us that we should strengthen the legislation to clarify it, so that it would be clearer that we were not in any way violating the Charter and that we could deal with these people with serious accumulation of points. The amendments will make it clear now that the superintendent can prohibit a driver from driving on the basis of any part of his record without the necessity to consider other information.

The bill also provides for procedures to allow the provincial court to extend the time within which a person may dispute a traffic violation report. It was a very short time. You almost got your ticket, took it home, found your glasses, and your time to dispute the violation notice had gone by. So I never liked that one very much, and I think we're going to improve it.

It will also be allowed to appeal a determination of that court where a person fails to appear at a dispute hearing through no fault of his own — maybe he was in the wrong court, notified the wrong place or something like that.

[3:45]

Finally the bill contains a number of housekeeping amendments, one of which is intended to ensure that vehicle owners remain liable for municipal parking violations. These may be mostly technical in nature, but they are important to the traffic enforcement program.

I would be pleased to respond after members have spoken on second reading.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, for the most part the bill is acceptable, as far as we're concerned. I know sometimes one gets a sense of deja vu. I recall that the last time I spoke on a Motor Vehicle Amendment Act the Attorney-General of the day asked if we were serious on this side of the House about blood testing. I want to congratulate the government on eventually bringing in that very thing, compulsory blood testing, and leading the nation vis-à-vis drunk drivers.

We are in a situation right now in which the Motor Vehicle Act is a very important act in this province — and anywhere in the world where people drive. Some people out there have the opinion that a driver's licence is a prerogative to do anything you like once you get it, as opposed to getting the feeling that it's a privilege to drive. I don't think that any government, no matter how irresponsible, can ignore the fact that it is important that people not only obey the law but also

[ Page 7035 ]

know the law, and also that they be educated to not, in fact, break the law. I feel that this bill provides some areas — the area of plugging a loophole created by a recent court decision where an owner was reprosecuted because his vehicle was parked in violation of a municipal parking bylaw. The defence was that there was no evidence to show either that the owner parked the vehicle or that municipal bylaws were covered by section 76 of the Motor Vehicle Act. This amendment specifies that the municipal traffic bylaws are specifically covered by the act and thus enforceable. The onus is now on the owner to show that the person who had the vehicle when the alleged offence was committed was not entrusted by the owner with the vehicle. In other words, you have to show it was stolen. So if I lend my car to my kid, my friend, or anybody else, I take full responsibility for having done so. That's quite acceptable.

We have some questions for the A-G on second reading of this bill. My first question would be: has the government decided that they are going to proclaim the 1982 amendments? Section 69.2, also passed in 1982, provides for imprisonment for non-payment of fines. Are they going to proclaim that? Also, has the minister been advised on whether this amendment is consistent with the Charter? What we're really discussing in this particular Section is lining up with the Charter, wherever the government deems to see fit. The cure will speed up prosecutions against corporations, but since the cure violates the legal tradition and also the Charter, perhaps the cure is worse than the disease.

When, if ever, will you proclaim the 1982 amendments? The next one: has the minister advised us...? He didn't in second reading. But has he advised anybody on whether this amendment is consistent with the Charter? We're asking those questions.

I think it is so long since we have been here, and on this particular subject, and as we all know there was another person who had the responsibility on this side of the House for this particular area of concern, who now finds himself elsewhere....

MS. BROWN: Happily.

MR. COCKE: Happily. We were more than delighted.

Mr. Speaker, Section I amends section 69.3 on ex parte proceedings. That's been unproclaimed since 1982. The A-G should be asked, and we're asking, when all those 1982 amendments are to be proclaimed. I asked you about one.

Section 69.2 also was from 1982. The amendment introduces an inequity into the law: where ex parte trial may proceed will depend on the nature of the defendant. So we're talking about the defendant being a corporation, or a person, and so on and so forth. We're just wanting to know exactly what direction the government will be going.

I would also like to ask the Attorney-General where we stand now on the whole question. Has it been resolved once and for all, on the whole question of the police taking your keys, impounding your car for 24 hours, and then you have the right to go and get it the next day if there is some doubt as to whether or not you are drunk? I happen to be one who feels that that is a relatively good idea, rather than having a lot of cases come before the courts because they're not sure and because they don't have time to check out everybody.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, I notice that the Attorney-General, who was carrying the bill, has moved out. His bills were going through so quickly, I guess he couldn't stand it.

He quickly rushed out, I presume because of a dizzy spell because of the speed. Now we're going to have to listen to the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) answer my in-depth questions about this bill that I know so much about.

MR. STUPICH: There's a cabinet meeting going on.

MR. COCKE: Is there a cabinet meeting?

MR. STUPICH: There's nobody left.

MR. COCKE: That's right, all the papergate guys have gone.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, we would like to hear one or two answers before we vote on this particular bill.

HON. MR. GARDOM: On behalf of my colleague the Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker, I will be closing the debate, if there are any other interested speakers.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House will have to be advised then.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I have so advised.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, the Chair has to do it, hon. member: the minister is closing debate. Presumably there are no other speakers.

In recognizing the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, the House is advised that the minister closes debate.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, in response to the questions of the hon. member for New Westminster as to when the government proposes to proclaim the 1982 amendments, I would say that they are under discussion at the present time concerning a few problems in implementation vis-à-vis penalty and so forth, and it is contemplated that they will be proclaimed in due course.

The second question as to whether or not the thrust of the bill complied with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as to whether that had been given consideration by the ministry, I am informed the answer is yes, in the affirmative. It is considered to be unoffensive to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 1, though, would like very much to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) when he articulated to the House that driving today is a privilege and not a right. We have to remember, Mr. Speaker, that essentially a vehicle can end up being really little more than a weapon on a highway. I think society has very clearly indicated...

Interjection.

HON. MR. GARDOM: As my colleague the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) mentions, a lethal weapon.

I think it's been very clearly indicated to the political process throughout our country that Canadian society is not prepared to continue to tolerate the deaths and the injuries and the tragedies that are resulting from automobile accidents. It's a never-ending fight. There has to be a continuing amount of effort developed at the community level — at the public level — to see that there is very much a change of attitude, specifically insofar as it relates to drinking and

[ Page 7036 ]

driving. Drinking and driving is nothing more than a crime. It is a criminal offence, and it has to be looked at in that light.

The hon. member talked about penalties. I've always really favoured an additional type of penalty. I think that there should be some type of custody — be it social agency custody or custody in the corrections system — for any offences that involve drinking behind the wheel. I've made this type of speech in this assembly before, Mr. Speaker, and I was accused of being pretty hard-line on the thing. Well, it seems to me now that the general public are supporting that position, because what I'm suggesting at this point is something that will be life-saving. We owe that to society, and I think the sooner we get to definitely having specific penalties which involve interfering with the liberty of the subject when it relates to drinking and driving, the better.

Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleagues across the floor and indeed on this side of the House will have other comments when we come to committee stage. I would therefore move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 58, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 1), 1985, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 45, Mr. Speaker.

FINANCE STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 45, Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1985, which the Votes and Proceedings will show was introduced on May 30 of this year. The bill before us, as my critic opposite will know, contains a number of amendments which are to be introduced uniformly in the 11 major tax statutes administered by the Ministry of Finance. The list is, I'm sure, also known to the member: Corporation Capital Tax Act, the Gasoline (Coloured) Tax Act, Gasoline Tax Act, Hotel Room Tax Act, Insurance Premium Tax Act, Logging Tax Act, Mining Tax Act, Motive Fuel Use Tax Act, Social Service Tax Act, Taxation (Rural Area) Act and Tobacco Tax Act. Given that these are designed to establish consistency and improve fairness in certain administrative aspects of the tax system, and that each of the four items is suggested for inclusion in each of the 11 statutes, I propose, if it is the wish of the House, to specifically address each amendment only once, and then ask for discussion and debate at that time. It is an omnibus bill, but if it is acceptable, I can just briefly touch on the amendments which it contains.

The first amendment standardizes the conditions safeguarding confidentiality of tax records — the restricted circumstances when disclosure is appropriate. It also establishes a penalty for improper release of taxpayer information by a public employee.

This provision also allows intergovernmental sharing of tax record information for the purposes of administering the tax system. Most provinces, including Ontario, already have such a provision for sharing information regarding taxpayers who conduct business in one province but maintain business records in another. This amendment will also allow other provinces to begin exchanging with B.C. Information needed to effectively administer the statutes and ensure that interprovincial businesses pay their fair share of taxes in the province of British Columbia.

[4:00]

The other three amendments were suggested to me in the course of the tax study tour in the fall of 1984 — the public meetings about which I have spoken. These are sensible improvements related to one another. They protect the rights of persons and businesses requested to pay the government amounts of money that they hold on behalf of tax debtors. The first of these makes it clear that money held for a tax debtor in his role as a trustee may not be requested in a demand notice. The reason for this is that the notice should only be effective for deposits which a taxpayer has access to and is entitled to withdraw for his own purposes.

The second of this group of amendments limits the period that a demand notice remains in effect to 90 days. Presently the period is open-ended, and the government feels that this is just too onerous. A limited demand notice is preferable to the government, and to me, and it is consistent with federal and provincial income tax legislation.

The final change protects persons and businesses acting in accordance with a demand notice. Money paid by them to the government on behalf of tax debtors will be deemed to have been paid by the person or business to the debtor corporation, thus protecting them from action by the debtor corporation. I note for the House, Mr. Speaker, that an equivalent provision is contained in both the federal and provincial income tax legislation.

In my belief the several elements contained in this bill will assist and benefit many in the province of British Columbia, and will also improve consistency by introducing these provisions in all the tax statutes to which I referred. I commend it to the members.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, after the heat generated earlier this afternoon, it's almost comic relief to talk about protecting confidentiality at this point and in this context.

However, it's well that the minister's explanation was given once, because if he gave it with respect to every Section it would be exactly the same, word for word. It's doing the same thing with a number of statutes, as the minister said. The purposes of the legislative changes announced by the minister are laudable. The changes in the legislation are fair. The opposition will support this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister closes debate.

HON. MR. CURTIS: With respect to confidentiality, indeed, quite apart from the discussion which occurred earlier today, there are those, as the member would know, having served as Minister of Finance — and as others would recognize — who believe that they should have access to tax information that is resident in the Ministry of Finance. They make inquiries. They may be acting on behalf of someone else; they may be professionals; they may be those who are concerned about a particular firm. The number of inquiries with respect to tax information made by individuals regarding small or large businesses is quite surprising — it was surprising when I first learned of it some time ago. While it doesn't happen every day, it happens often enough that I really think we have to address that. The answer at all times is absolutely no. In that regard, those who are in charge of the revenue section of

[ Page 7037 ]

the ministry are very cognizant of their duty and responsibility. So I'm speaking of those who would like to have information that is provided to the government and is still held by the government with respect to taxes due, penalties or whatever. That's one of the reasons for that.

I thank the member for his comments, Mr. Speaker. With respect to Bill 45, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 45, Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1985, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call second reading of Bill 54.

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS ACT, 1985

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move second reading of Bill 54, Capital Expenditures Miscellaneous Amendments Act, 1985. The purposes of this bill, which was also introduced in the spring and therefore has been available for review for some considerable time, are to streamline the borrowing and approval process for school and hospital district capital expenditures, to broaden the range of debt instruments through which provincial financing authorities may raise funds, to introduce off-lending provisions for these authorities and to make a number of other technical amendments relating primarily to borrowing.

Members who were present at the time will recall that in 1983 amendments to the Financial Administration Act were passed which allowed the provincial government to borrow funds on behalf of Crown corporations and to re-lend those funds to the Crown corporations. The purpose of the 1983 amendments was to utilize the province's credit rating to obtain funds for Crown corporations at a cost below that which some Crown corporations, particularly the smaller ones, could achieve on their own. This procedure, as members will recognize, is referred to as "off-lending." In this bill I've introduced parallel amendments for the school and regional hospital district and post-secondary institution capital financing authorities to streamline their off-lending to the bodies on whose behalf they currently borrow.

During the period when the off-lending program for Crown corporations was being developed, the government also examined the process and procedures by which school districts, regional hospital districts, colleges, institutes and universities borrow money to finance capital expenditures. The result then was implementation of measures to improve the accountability and the control of these capital expenditures, and to lower borrowing costs through the establishment of a new capital project certificate of approval process. The purposes of the capital project certificate of approval process are to first improve accountability, to improve control, to lower borrowing costs and to provide additional information on the progress of approved projects.

If I might briefly explain how this process works. Local entities — a term a number of us use to describe school districts, regional hospital districts and any post-secondary educational institution receiving government debt-servicing assistance for capital expenditures — are required through submissions from their respective ministers to obtain Treasury Board approval for their capital projects. Treasury Board considers all requests in the context of the government's fiscal position and its long term fiscal strategies. If a request is approved, the responsible minister then has the authority to issue certificates of approval to that local entity.

This certificate is used by the local entity to secure short-term borrowing at a financial institution through what is in essence a line of credit. Banking arrangements are set up by the Ministry of Finance which allow the local entity to borrow funds indirectly from the provincial government and which covers any draws on the line of credit made by that local entity.

This represents a significant cost saving for interim financing of capital projects, which obviously benefits the taxpayer, the local entity and the province. I estimate that annual savings from this program exceed about one-half million dollars. As projects are completed, the short-term borrowing is converted into longer-term debt through the financing authority.

Although this process is in place currently, outdated administrative requirements in the School Act and the Hospital District Act impair to a certain extent the ability of the new process to function efficiently and effectively for school and regional hospital districts. The amendments before the House today will shorten these administrative requirements appreciably without any change in the level of government approval over school and regional hospital district capital expenditures. I should add, for the information of members, that to the best of my knowledge both the school districts and regional hospital districts are supportive of these proposed amendments.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

The current provincial financing authority legislation which establishes the educational institutions capital financing authority, school districts capital financing authority and regional hospital districts capital financing authority is restrictive in that debentures are the only debt instrument that can be issued to raise money. In an age when innovative financing methods are constantly being developed, this seems to us to be an overly restrictive provision, and it requires amendment. So we have tabled through this bill amendments to each of the respective statutes to permit the issuance of all forms of securities by these financing authorities. These will allow the three financing authorities to utilize a variety of debt instruments that more accurately reflect the needs of the individual school districts, the regional hospital districts and educational institutions. I believe this will, in the long run, lower costs to these entities.

These are the three major thrusts of this bill: first, permit off-lending by the three financing authorities; secondly, streamline the school and hospital district capital approval and borrowing processes; thirdly, broaden the range of securities that the financing authorities may use to raise funds. In addition, as I indicated, there are a number of technical amendments to improve control but at the same time provide flexibility in areas such as emergency expenditures and capital project requests.

Mr. Speaker, the amendments to the Financial Administration Act are designed primarily to clarify existing legislation. The amendments also authorize borrowing in forms other than through the issuance of security, such as through bank lines of credit; provide that borrowing approval by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may be authorized in either

[ Page 7038 ]

Canadian dollar or foreign currency terms; provide that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — may specify the amount that the Minister of Finance may borrow to meet the needs of the consolidated revenue fund. Under current legislation, this amount may be determined by the Minister of Finance, so we are broadening that control. .

Provision for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to authorize this amount I think ensures greater control and accountability. It also will require the Minister of Finance to table in the Legislature each year a report of the guarantees and indemnities provided under the Financial Administration Act.

So, Mr. Speaker, Bill 54 accomplishes two major goals: first, the streamlining of the school and hospital district capital approval and borrowing process; second, to make what are in effect technical refinements to legislation for consistency purposes. I trust that the House will support this amending bill. I move second reading.

MR. STUPICH: The opposition will support this bill. As the minister quite clearly points out, it has to do with borrowing, really. All of the changes have to do with borrowing. And if there's anything that this government should be good at by now, it is borrowing.

When this government took office in December 1975 the total debt of the province — and it was all in Crown corporations; there was no net direct debt at that time — was $4.4 billion. By the end of 1985, ten years later, it will be $19 billion. They've had a lot of practice at borrowing. They've had a lot of practice at changing legislation and bringing in new legislation to deal with borrowing. The bill before us now does clean up some of their problems with respect to borrowing.

The minister's press release dated June 24, 1985: "To streamline and modernize capital borrowing procedures." That's good. We'll certainly support that. The fact that it was introduced in June 1985 is good as well. The minister is able to point out, with some satisfaction, that school districts and regional hospital districts have been consulted, and they support the legislation. I think that's a good procedure: to introduce the legislation, to give the community time to respond, and then to pass the legislation and make it effective. One wonders, if it is as good as it is — and I believe it is — why we've had to wait so long to pass legislation that is going to save, in the minister's estimate, some $500,000 a year; but I suppose the government has other timetables.

There was another paragraph in the minister's press release that surprises me a little: "The proposals in this bill will significantly shorten the approval process for school and hospital capital projects." Mr. Speaker, I believe the situation now and in the past and in the future will still be that the decision as to when a certain hospital is going to be built, or when a certain school is going to be built, or a school is going to be extended, or a hospital is going to be extended, or whether a municipality is to undergo some public works project that requires borrowing — that the decision in detail will be made by the Minister of Finance. Perhaps on the advice of cabinet, but the Minister of Finance is the one who says when these things are going to happen. It was that way under W.A.C. Bennett, it was that way when the NDP were in office, and it's that way today. I don't see it shortening the process, unless the minister wants to have some flexibility so that he can shorten the process to meet certain timetables. I suspect that that is maybe what is in mind. I think up to now the Minister of Finance, as a member of the government, has had the authority to speed up these projects or slow them down at will. I don't say that's necessarily wrong. I know it was government policy until 1972 under W.A.C. Bennett, and after 1972 under Dave Barrett, that projects like these were used to fuel the economy when the economy needed fuelling, and were used to slow down the economy if the economy was racing too fast. That's fine; the government should have that responsibility, and should accept the responsibility for keeping the economy moving when it needs some government involvement, and for getting out of it when the economy doesn't need that kind of assistance.

[4:15]

There are some concerns about some of the details. We'll deal with those, of course, when we come to the committee stage, Mr. Speaker. But I think all I can say — and I've said it already — is that we'll support a bill that does clean up borrowing. I would like to offer the minister a bit of advice. It's the same kind of advice that I passed on to the Legislature some time ago, quoting his predecessor from the same constituency — no, I guess he was Oak Bay: Herbert Anscomb. He tried to persuade the governments then and after to do their borrowing in Canada rather than outside Canada. It used to be the practice, again under W.A.C. Bennett, to do as much borrowing.... As a matter of fact, for years he didn't borrow anything outside Canada. He was able to do all the borrowing that he needed within Canada out of various pension funds and through parity bonds.

My concern, Mr. Speaker, and I have quoted this previously, is that B.C.'s debt — taking Crown corporations and everything else — outside Canada now exceeds $4 billion. That means that we have to export or, by some means or other, raise some $500 million a year by borrowing further, by selling round logs to China, by selling the products of our mines. They don't want Canadian dollars, Mr. Speaker; they want something of some intrinsic value. The more we increase that debt, the more — to paraphrase Herbert Anscomb — we put ourselves at the risk of economic conditions in other jurisdictions and the risks attendant upon that.

Ways have been found by other jurisdictions to try to borrow less from abroad and to have a higher percentage of our borrowing within Canada. That's the one thing I would like the minister to look at. It's so easy to go to New York. It's so easy to go to Tokyo, as he's done — they may be very nice trips — and to Europe, and raise money in all these places and justify the trip on the basis of the money raised. But, Mr. Speaker, it is costing the people of Canada whenever any Canadian government goes outside of our borders and borrows from foreigners.

Mr. Speaker, I say that the opposition will be supporting this bill.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, this is a bit of a departure from the way that school districts have operated in the past. I defer to my hon. colleague, the member for Nanaimo, and his long experience in financial matters if he tells me that this is a superior way for hospitals and schools to be financed. If the spokesperson in finance has agreed with the minister that the minister's suggestion outlined in the bill is a superior way to borrow than the practices of the past, then I'm willing to take his advice on that. I'm not so sure.

I'm a little concerned about the fact that, again, hospitals and school districts will lose control of their own borrowing. The minister rushes, I would think, to the counter-argument

[ Page 7039 ]

that the superior credit rating of the province will enable, as he said in his press release, these substantial savings of up to $500,000, which is a sizeable sum but in terms of the total borrowing is a drop in a bucket — because the province has a superior rating, as far as its borrowing is concerned. But I recall from the previous session that the credit rating of the province fell from triple-A, by Standard and Poor's, to an AA rating.

I don't think that this is the time for the minister to be bragging about how successful we are and what a tremendous rating the province has, and that that is the reason for a particular kind of new technique that has been suggested. I suppose that I tend to be rather cynical about things like that, and I don't know that these motives, told and clarified by the minister, are necessarily the ones that are operative. I hate to be suspicious, but sometimes I feel that there is a hidden agenda in this thing.

Is it not possible, Mr. Speaker, that if the minister has total control of all the borrowings for schools and hospitals throughout...? That is exactly what is happening: he has total control. When the minister has total control, he can schedule these borrowings. Maybe that's not a bad thing. Maybe it's something that needs to be undertaken, so you could schedule these things out and they wouldn't all jam up at one point. At the same time, approvals are now going to be totally in the hands of the minister, and the scheduling.

Will the scheduling and the approvals come down just prior to an election? I mean, will certain approvals all of a sudden appear for us, and the various areas be showered with goodies just before the election time? I know, in terms of capital borrowing, that the total borrowing — the total capital expenditures on all schools for the province of British Columbia last year — was $25 million. That's for leaky roofs, new buildings, school expansions, etc. In my own district, School District 43, there is a need right now, as demonstrated by the treasurer and the school board — expressed by the treasurer; a decision by the school board — for $12 million for this year. In other words, half the capital requirements of the total expenditures last year is needed by my one school district. And, you know, there are over 70 school districts in the province, so that would be a major scheduling problem.

But the minister controls the amounts that are going to be spent on school budgets. The ministry now controls the amount that's going to be spent in capital, in maintenance and in every other part of a school board budget. So what I'm suggesting here is that yes, there may be some savings, and yes, it may be streamlined; but local autonomy is again, I think, put at risk. It reduces the local autonomy and puts the Minister of Finance in the driver's seat. That's why I'm concerned.

Another thing that happens is that some of these portions have been called little technical amendments for clarification. It looks to me that there isn't the same kind of public disclosure when things are handled centrally as there is when they are handled in a decentralized way within a school district. Usually, these things come before the people — whether it's health, hospitals or schools — in terms of some kinds of bylaws which can be debated and which can go to the people for full discussion. That may occur now but it won't occur in future — or it's unlikely that it will occur in future. The minister might contradict and debate that point with me and say: "Well, they can go through the same process. If the board wants to build a new building or expand a high school or add a swimming pool or do whatever it wants, it can have the discussion locally and then send it along to us, and in our own good time we'll decide when we're going to authorize the borrowing." Maybe at the most favourable rates, maybe just before an election — who knows? We don't know.

Again, I think it is a mark of this government that powers that were once dispersed throughout the province, where people who would be affected by the decisions had a say in making those decisions, have been severely eroded over the last three years. I think this is another example of that kind of centralization. As I say, I support the bill with some reluctance. I know that there is a practice in this House to get up and speak against it and vote for it. My colleague, the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), has suggested it is worthy of support. I defer to him, but I would just like to have on the record my concern about the uncertainties existing in my own mind about this relatively new procedure.

MR. WILLIAMS: I have some trouble with the idea and I know it's in the earlier statute of 1981 — of the authority to borrow with respect to inadequate funds in general revenue. It just seems to me that this is accepting the idea that we are going to be in a deficit position on a regular basis, and that the Minister of Finance simply wants to be in a position to run to the money markets and deal with his problems. The Americans are looking at constitutional amendments in terms of dealing with debt questions, and to have complete freedom as you have under the present statutes and this statute, only with cabinet authority to go borrowing to deal with operating funds, strikes me as quite unsatisfactory. That's not in the tradition of this province, other than the recent history under this administration. I must say that I have some trouble with that kind of open-ended borrowing authority for the Minister of Finance for current operations.

MR. COCKE: I think that this bill is indicative of a government that has gone crazy on centralization. The minister got up and talked about: "Well, now we're streamlining things; we're getting everybody to the point where they can benefit — that is, these smaller Crown corporations — from the province's relatively good credit rating." Then he goes on to say that this bill takes us into that situation where school boards, hospital boards and so on can get into the same act. Well, Mr. Speaker, I wonder how many of these institutions, these districts, have been beset by the higher interest rates.

In any event, whether it has been one or two, or three or four, I sometimes feel that it's much better if there is some local input. The local input isn't here if it's up to the minister to give the final authority for the borrowing. I don't subscribe to the fact that this government has done a good job on borrowing. When we lost government in 1975....

MR. REID: Forever.

MR. COCKE: That sure isn't true. You're going to find that out sooner than you think. There's the member for Surrey telling us "forever." He's a one-term wonder.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for New Westminster has the floor on Bill 54.

[4:30]

MR. REID: Stake your seat on it.

[ Page 7040 ]

MR. COCKE: Yeah, I'll bet my seat on it any old day.

Mr. Speaker, this government started out and told us all the marvellous things they were going to do in 1975-76. They were going to put the province on its feet. They were going to get the province out of debt. In 1975 we had a total debt — no direct debt — of $4 billion. That Minister of Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) over there is trying his best to outdo that by himself. Today in this province we owe $18 billion. It took us a century to get to $4 billion, and now here we are at $18 billion debt. And the Minister of Finance, on a bill such as this, comes to us and says: "Trust me." How can I trust that Minister of Finance, who has been the incumbent Minister of Finance over most of those years? He's got us into most of that debt by his authorizations and by his borrowings. And now he comes to us after bungling everything in this province and says: "Trust me. We are streamlining things. We are going to put this province right on the road to better interest rates.

Mr. Speaker, I would far rather some of these borrowing decisions be made in New Westminster than in Victoria with the present incumbents in power. They have ruined the financial structure of this province, and yet they were the ones to come in and do it for us. They were the ones who were going to clean up the "mess."

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: What a beautiful job we did in retrospect, notwithstanding that one-time wonder from Surrey, Mr. Speaker. Notwithstanding that one-time wonder from Surrey, who will never be back again after the next election....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, that's my concern. My concern is that we bumble....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The members will come to order. The member for New Westminster has taken his place.

MR. COCKE: The government has bumbled the finances of this province. They have us in a position now, when we desperately need jobs so badly that we're hurting and when we've a lost generation of young people out there, where we aren't in the financial condition to see to it that they get the jobs that they need.

They say: "Trust us." They blew it, Mr. Member for Vancouver East, during the better times. And now we're in the tough times. When government should be there to take care of the needs of society, they can't do it. The Minister of Human Resources can't do it. No minister in this government has the kind of attitude that they need, just by virtue of their mismanagement of our economy, and they come to us and say: "Trust us."

Fortuitously for that minister, one of our cooler heads, the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), who thinks mathematically, indicates that because there is some sense in this bill, we're going to support it. I'll support it reluctantly because that member says so. But I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, I just want the province to know that I do not support this government in any way, shape or form. They are a disgrace. They are a financial disaster and have been since day one.

Mr. Speaker, the minister asks me a question, and I'll answer it. The government owed ICBC $200 million at the time. ICBC therefore showed a deficit of $182 million.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: He knows it, and everybody else knew it. You were here, Mr. Minister, when we passed that act in 1974 allowing the gas tax to be used for the purposes of ICBC. So don't give me any of that stuff from the Cariboo. We know what they are famous for.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) was clearly out of order in his comment.

MR. COCKE: And I was too.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: And the member for New Westminster was as well. Bill 54, please.

MR. COCKE: Certainly. I get a little bit nervous when they get me out of order like that. I try so desperately to get back on track, but you know how it is with us boys from the little towns like New Westminster, where good decisions are often made. But they are not made often here. That's why I have so much trouble with this bill. That's why I have trouble when I hear the minister saying we're going to streamline it. They have streamlined us down the tube, Mr. Speaker. Go out and talk to your constituents. Get out of that cabinet room for about 10 or 15 days. Just travel the province and hear what people have to say about what you've done. Haven't they told you what you've done? Haven't they told you what you've done to their children? Haven't they told you what you've done to their jobs?

How come British Columbia has the worst record in Canada? How come everybody else has had some restoration? How come every other jurisdiction in this country has had an improved economic situation, with one exception our beautiful province?

HON. A. FRASER: Too many socialists in it.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the remarks of the Minister of Highways, whether socialists or non-socialists, the citizens of this province in by far the majority would echo exactly what I have been saying about this government, about their responsibility and how they have turned their back on their responsibility.

I sit down saying only that I have a terrible time supporting anything that the Minister of Finance puts forward on behalf of this humbling government giving them more control, when their control of the past has put us in such a precarious situation. That's all I can say, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, it's the first day back in the fall. I've resisted the temptation to interject that this is a Capital Expenditures Miscellaneous Amendments Act.

I would like to respond to a couple of questions. The approval process is to be shortened, and as I indicated in opening debate, while there may be some in the school or hospital area in the province who are not pleased with the legislation, they were consulted in advance in very general form prior to the introduction of the legislation, and all that I

[ Page 7041 ]

have heard in the interval is that those local authorities, local entities, welcome these changes.

What is the approval process? We can deal with this in committee perhaps more appropriately. But in one instance we have a Section in the existing legislation where it has been found over time unclear as to whether borrowing under that section requires an order-in-council approval. That refers to short-term borrowing. These, as members would know, are taken on a daily basis, in many instances. It has very little to do with the actual approval of a project, but the approval mechanisms which flow once a decision is taken by a local or regional authority with the provincial government to proceed with a project. With that kind of uncertainty in one section of existing law, is it not a little ludicrous, is it indeed not pointless, to require and insist that there be an order-in-council every time working capital, as a project proceeds, is borrowed daily, or for a one-day, three-day or a seven-day period? That's the kind of thing we're talking about in terms of streamlining: requiring an order-in-council approval for each borrowing, meaning money which is taken in short term in order that a project can proceed and progress payments can be made.

I invite the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) who expressed some doubts — to call his regional hospital district directors or school trustees this evening, or tomorrow, as he chooses, to determine if they are distressed. I don't believe that they are. As I say, the bill came in some months ago. There was consultation in general form beforehand, and certainly local agencies have had an opportunity to review it in detail in the meantime.

The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) alluded to borrowing in Canadian dollars. He reminded the House of the late Herbert Anscomb as Minister of Finance. For capital purposes, we have not been borrowing in other than Canadian dollars — and being specific, capital purposes, for operating purposes as well, but since this is a capital bill — for some considerable time. He alluded to a trip to Japan. That money was in Canadian dollars. We borrowed in Canadian dollars. We borrowed in the Japanese market, but we are fully protected in terms of any currency fluctuation between the yen and the Canadian dollar. It was a pleasant 22 hours which I spent in Japan, not days, in order to conclude that particular borrowing. There have been two or three of those where we have been borrowing offshore but in Canadian dollars. I simply want to make that point very clear.

I urge members who have doubts about the intent of this legislation, which is not to centralize, but rather indeed to assist local entities in the streamlining of their process when capital projects are underway, to make contact as they wish — this evening, tomorrow or over the coming days — to assure and to satisfy themselves that indeed the local authorities with which we deal once a project has commenced are satisfied with this amending act. I move second reading of Bill 54.

Motion approved.

Bill 54, Capital Expenditures Miscellaneous Amendments Act, 1985, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I call second reading of Bill 63.

MOTOR FUEL TAX ACT

HON. MR. CURTIS: Bill 63, the Motor Fuel Tax Act, is a bill which was quite consciously and deliberately introduced to be left on the order paper in order that it could be reviewed by all interested individuals in British Columbia. As I said at the time of introduction, it is to consolidate the three existing fuel tax statutes into one act. So the Motor Fuel Tax Act now takes the place of the Gasoline Tax Act, which provides for the taxation of aviation fuel and clear gasoline. This act was first introduced in 1923. The Gasoline (Coloured) Tax Act, which provides for a lower rate of tax on fuels used off public highways, was initially introduced in 1946, and the Motive Fuel Use Tax Act, which provides for a higher rate of tax for the on-highway use of diesel fuel, was first introduced in 1959.

[4:45]

These existing fuel tax statutes were amended earlier this year to accommodate or incorporate the fuel tax policy changes which were introduced in the March 14 budget. The consolidation of the fuel tax statutes, in my view, represents a commitment to — here is this word again, Mr. Member for Nanaimo — streamline and simplify government policies.

I assured the House at the time of introducing the bill that there were no policy changes through the consolidation contained in Bill 63. I think that it will reassure and will be found to be of assistance to purchasers of various fuels, tax collectors and manufacturers of fuel — to all who are involved in the distribution and purchase of the fuels which are taxed under these three acts.

The consolidation was undertaken solely to bring together common administrative provisions and to restructure them so as to enhance the readability, if I may say so, of the statutes. We have individuals now having to refer to one statute, then to another, wondering if that is the precise document which they should be reading with respect to tax.

There are administrative changes only, which fall within the category of refunds, appeals and the creation of a new category of registered consumers. This new creation is being adopted to provide a classification separate from that of a collector for persons who manufacture, import or acquire fuel for their own use. Previously these individuals were classified as collectors, when in fact they were not actually collecting tax but were required to pay tax based on their own consumption within the province.

The provision dealing with appeals from the minister in the supreme court — that's section 40 of the bill — has also been changed to bring it into line with court practice. There is no effect on the taxpayer other than that an appeal would be brought under the provisions of supreme court rules, rather than the awkward and admittedly confusing provisions of the existing statutes.

Finally, the time frame for which a taxpayer is eligible to claim for a refund has been increased from one year to three years to make it consistent with the Social Service Tax Act. In a related amendment, a $10 minimum has also been placed on the refunds to reduce the level of the cost of administration.

Mr. Speaker, we have had a positive response. I won't say overwhelming, because not everyone has a specific interest in a consolidation such as this. But from those who are interested in fuel tax statutes, we have, I can tell the House, had positive response to the consolidation that is before us.

I move second reading of Bill 63.

[ Page 7042 ]

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my ability, I have established that there are no changes in policy, and it's not a way of getting more revenue just by trying to sneak something different through. We are satisfied about all of that. I have not heard one single comment from outside of this chamber, either pro or con. None of my colleagues, to the best of my knowledge, has heard anything against the legislation. I assume from that that everyone is happy with it. In view of that, the opposition will support this bill.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member for Nanaimo. It was not a best-seller. But we did send copies of the bill upon introduction. We sent it to various parts of the province and invited comment. The little comment that came back was positive and favourable.

I move second reading of Bill 63.

Motion approved.

Bill 63, Motor Fuel Tax Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Second reading of Bill 60, Mr. Speaker.

MOTOR VEHICLE
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1985

HON. A. FRASER: This is just a number of amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act that allow for administrative simplicity. For example, a person must now notify the superintendent of motor vehicles of a change of address in writing. One of the amendments in Bill 60 allows the superintendent to accept other forms of notice such as verbal notice given by a driver when he attends a motor licence office.

Other provisions included in Bill 60 are the clarification of the term "legal entity, " the setting of a minimum fine where a person uses another person's driver's licence, the setting of a maximum fine for corporations where a corporation's vehicle is involved in a serious accident, and the removal of the prohibition on having TVs in cars in order to allow the installation of these units under certain conditions when used as a safety device.

Mr. Speaker, these are the short comments I have on this bill. It would probably be better dealt with section by section at third reading, but those are my comments on second reading. I move second reading of Bill 60.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, Bill 60 is an interesting bill, and it's a bill we'll support.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Once or twice the government puts forward legislation — usually inadequate.... Often the minister who was elected the same year I was — the Minister of Highways — is the author of some of that not too bad legislation.

MR. HOWARD: Why is he the only sensible fellow in cabinet?

MR. COCKE: However, Mr. Speaker, that sensible member of cabinet has made some very disastrous mistakes in the course of his career. You know, we've got a requirement in this bill that if you replace the chassis, replace the body, change the fuel system of your car, etc., it has to be reported. Good enough. The last time we sat in these hallowed halls I brought to the attention of that minister the fact that I saw a car that had a piece of tin holding up the front seat. The seat wasn't even bolted to the frame, the chassis or anything else. That junker was being driven by a young kid who didn't have to take it through motor vehicle testing. The minute that car appeared at a motor vehicle testing station it would have been off the road. And I have seen so many that deserve to be off the road right now. It's an absolutely shocking situation.

The reason the minister is bringing this in is the fact that if you change the fuel system you might be changing it not from gas to propane or natural gas; you might be changing it the other way. As an example, new Morgans cannot be driven in this country, because they don't meet the pollution standards — which the member for Surrey would probably know, if he had any cars of class. But the fact of the matter is they have been known to bring those cars in with a propane tank and no gas tank, and then they're modified when they get here. That's what the minister is doing, among other things.

So we'll give him a little bit of credit there. But I'm sure going to take some credit away from him when he fiddles with safety on the road by allowing cars out there that shouldn't be out there. And sitting right across from me is the person who knows it best of all: the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), who has to put up those gigantic sums every day to take care of the wrecked bodies that are derived from wrecked cars in British Columbia. Sure, a lot of it we can ascribe to drinking, but there's a lot of it we can ascribe to the fact that there are junkers on the road in this province like you've never seen before. I guarantee that you can't drive three blocks in this town tonight on your way home without finding a number of one-eyed cars coming towards you. One eyed cars: one light out, the other light on. When there was motor vehicle testing, you didn't see very much of that.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The members will come to order. Could we return to the principle of the bill before us.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I go along with the fact the minister has stated that if your licence is cancelled it must be surrendered. I certainly agree with that. Previously it was cancelled, and that was all. I would ask the minister: how are you going to enforce it? Maybe you'll tell us when you're winding up debate on this.

As far as using somebody else's licence is concerned, it used to cost you a 15-buck fine; that is, for the person who lent the licence. Now the minister has raised that fine from $100 to $2,000, and I say congratulations. The police were having a serious problem. I go out and get smashed, drunk or whatever, and lose my licence, and then I come to my friend, brother or whatever and borrow his licence for the evening. I think the fine should be significantly increased, and that's going to happen. I hope this bill is proclaimed really soon.

There is another Section in the bill that relates, in my opinion, to people like Conmac, who ran those buses, those derelicts, where the fine was a maximum of $500. Now the

[ Page 7043 ]

maximum is increased to $25,000. It should be $25 million when lives are lost. I congratulate the minister for that. I think it's time we looked at the serious responsibility behind running motor vehicles on our highways and byways. If they're not up to scratch, then I believe the fine should be very significant.

[5:00]

Again I say to the minister: why in the name of heaven did you ever cancel motor vehicle testing? That was a safeguard that should not have been cancelled but should have been spread throughout the province. We didn't have it everywhere. That's what we should have done. I would have agreed to contracting out in small communities where you couldn't afford to put up a major B.C. government motor vehicle testing station, contracting out to the local efficient car company. But to cancel it altogether is to go back to the Dark Ages, and we see the kinds of cars that I have described. Because of the situation in the province today, because of the economic circumstances that people find themselves in, there is naturally a tendency to drive junkers. You can't afford to go out and get your car fixed if you haven't got a proper job or if you're only earning $4 an hour, like they're going to be paying at Expo. You certainly can't afford to get your car fixed, so you drive that junker hoping you're going to get away with it.

Mr. Speaker, that minister, before he retires — before the next election — should undo the damage that he did before. He should come back to this House, stand before the chamber, apologize for what he has done and reverse his decision. We wouldn't have the derelicts on the road if there were tough testing laws out there. People would be prepared to pay for that test, so that it wasn't a burden on the other taxpayers of the province.

MR. WILLIAMS: Get rid of the derelicts.

MR. COCKE: You're getting into a pretty sensitive area there, Mr. Member for Vancouver East. When you say get rid of the derelicts, you've got to do the whole job and get rid of them all — every single one of them.

Again, I implore that minister to do the will of the people. Do the just, fair and proper thing and reinstate automobile testing in this province as we once had it — only next time broaden it out to take in every area in British Columbia. It won't cost you a nickel if you do it on a pay-as-you-go basis; in other words, let them pay for it.

I also am pleased about the fact that there is an amendment now that one can walk with the traffic, providing there is a proper white line indicating a walkway along the highway, because sometimes, to walk against the traffic, you have to take your life in your hands to get over there. So I think that, under these circumstances, as long as there is a white strip there and as long as the cars know that they must not go over that white strip, I think you're just as safe on that side. On the other side of the road there may not be that kind of safety, particularly in getting across the road.

On bicycle changes, the minister has indicated that cycles can be on sidewalks, providing municipalities and so on go along with it. Believe me, I'm an impassioned defender of people who ride bicycles. You know, I've got to a point now where I only dare ride my bike on the weekend in New Westminster. I go from my place near Queen's Park out to Central Park in Burnaby and back, which is a fair little chunk of distance, and I've been knocked off that bike twice in the last....

MR. REYNOLDS: Not guilty.

MR. COCKE: He says: "Not guilty." Prove it. No, listen, I told a major transfer company, one that you would all know, that at 8 o'clock on a Sunday morning on one of the streets in Burnaby — a well-used street — their truck pushed me off my bike into the ditch, and they claimed they didn't have a truck there. I saw the sign trailing off as I was lying in the ditch. One of the problems....

MR. MICHAEL: It's that home-made wine.

MR. COCKE: Not at 8 o'clock on Sunday morning.

One of the problems that we have is we have not paid enough attention to providing proper bicycle tracks. We have a real need for bikeways. Riding a bike is a very healthy proposition. In Europe, where they have bikeways — where they get them away from traffic — they provide people with an opportunity to (1) get from where they are to where they are going, (2) be non-polluting, and (3) have a healthy bit of exercise on the way. I know a minister of the Crown who does that regularly. I see him when I'm out, beetling around in Victoria from time to time — that budworm minister, the minister of timber and log exports. The one thing that he does right is ride a bike.

I believe that we should be making far more accommodation for people who want to ride a bike safely, and I agree that there should be a lot more care given to seeing to it that people are competent on those rigs, because you're sure in jeopardy when you're riding without any protection.

AN HON. MEMBER: A vehicle testing station.

MR. COCKE: I don't want a vehicle testing station for bikes. I just want a vehicle testing station for the cars that go 60 to 90 miles an hour on our roads and are lethal weapons. A bike is only a lethal weapon to the person on it, so don't hand me that stuff.

Another amendment that I will agree with is the whole question of medical doctors being obliged to go to the superintendent to tell of one of their patients who is unable, in their opinion, to drive a motor vehicle any longer. Now that's been expanded to take in optometrists, psychologists and others. I agree with that. I remember some years ago I had an old colleague in my former business, and that's so long ago now. I got to my office one morning and got a phone call. Somebody had seen this person driving on the wrong side of the freeway.

AN HON. MEMBER: He didn't think so.

MR. COCKE: That's right. He didn't think so. He'd had a stroke. Nobody had taken away his driver's licence. Nobody had reported it. That poor devil fortuitously got out of it. Somebody up there was looking after him. But that's the kind of thing that can happen. When you have people who are incompetent, either visually or physically, you have to see to it that they're off the road. As I said on a previous bill this afternoon, driving a motor vehicle is not a right, nor should it ever be a right; it's a privilege. So we have to see to it that other people are not placed in jeopardy by virtue of the fact

[ Page 7044 ]

that somebody decides in his own mind that he's competent to drive. That must be an objective opinion. That objective opinion cannot be made subjectively.

Mr. Speaker, with one or two admonitions to the minister, I would just like to say that our side will support this bill.

MRS. DAILLY: I want to take a moment on this bill to make my annual representation to the minister. I can tell he knows that I'm going to ask him again, for I don't know how many times of asking, to please restore motor vehicle testing in this province.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: I don't know what the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is saying, but I think it is an absolute disgrace that that cabinet minister can sit there and try to defend the fact that we do not have motor vehicle testing in this province. I realize that the statistics show that motor vehicle accident deaths are down. I'm quite aware of that fact, in case the minister is planning to get up and tell us this. I think we would all concede that one of the major reasons is that this recession has certainly brought a decline in the number of cars per family that we used to have on the road. How many of these....

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: That's right, the number of cars may be up.

The problem is, as the former speaker said, that there isn't one day that we go on the roads of this province that we don't see a car coming toward us that should not be on the road. I've talked to garage owners who have said that the wrecks that are coming in to be filled up with gas terrify them. They leave garages and go out on the road with no brakes, no proper lighting, and I don't know how many other defects. The responsibility lies right on that government and that minister. They are playing with the lives of the people of this province by not having proper testing.

I recently saw that a private firm is setting up vehicle testing....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. If the ministers would carry on their conversation outside, the Chair would be able to listen to the member for Burnaby, who has the floor at the moment.

MRS. DAILLY: Thank you. I've lost my great train of thought now. I'll have to try to get back and pick it up again. That Provincial Secretary refuses to listen to the points I'm making. He wants to interject.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, while the member collects her thoughts, I thought I would talk about the fact that the testing stations were only in the lower mainland and Victoria. But the NDP never did anything about testing stations in the interior of British Columbia...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member....

HON. MR. CHABOT:...between 1972 and 1975.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member!

HON. MR. CHABOT: Lo and behold, all of a sudden they show their concern.

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Provincial Secretary knows that that was not a point of order.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

MRS. DAILLY: He's getting nervous, and he knows that this policy is a disgrace. I understand that accidents are up in this province. I'm sure the minister is aware of that. Deaths are down, for which we're glad. I give credit where credit is due. I give credit to the Social Credit government for bringing in the seatbelt legislation. I have always given you credit for that. But you had to negate all the good you did in doing that by abolishing government motor vehicle testing.

Now that the Provincial Secretary has quieted down, I remember the line I was on. I wish luck to this private company which is now opening up testing. They are out trying to make money. You can't blame them in this economy that we live in today. We give them credit for that. But I thought how ironic it was when the reporter who was doing the interviewing said: "Well, isn't this great? Now we're going to have automobile testing back in British Columbia, particularly in the lower mainland." I was very frustrated listening to that because I was afraid that the reporter was missing the big opportunity that she should take to point out to the public through her TV show that we are not restoring motor vehicle testing the way it was. This is still a voluntary thing. You only go into this private company if you feel like going in and, frankly, if you have the amount of money which they stated.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to bore the House with this, but I tell you that I cannot miss the opportunity to get up on my feet and address the Minister of Highways on this important issue. He's been very stubborn about it. His government has been stubborn. The problem is that the lives of the people of B.C. are going to be affected eventually through accidents and maybe something more serious — through their deaths.

I ask the minister to please reconsider this.

[5:15]

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure if anyone asked about the cancelling of licences. According to the legislation, once a licence is cancelled it has to be surrendered. I don't know whether, in introducing the legislation, the minister explained just how this was going to be enforced. I certainly hope that, when he's closing it, he'll tell us what he's going to do. Are police going to go to these people's houses and lift the licence from them, or are they going to be relied upon to turn in the licence themselves? How is this going to be enforced, and how are we going to ensure...?

HON. MR. CHABOT: We'll send a volunteer to pick them up.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, the extremely clever Provincial Secretary suggested that we would send a volunteer to pick up the licence. Clearly, we're not serious about this business of lifting licences.

[ Page 7045 ]

Earlier the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) introduced legislation that had to do with the lifting of licences for drunken driving and that kind of thing. This legislation says that the licences have to be turned in. I would like to know just how that's going to be done. How is that going to be enforced?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, we've had a good hearing of some of the problems that exist in driving and with motor vehicles. I will try to answer some of the observations made.

First of all, on the so-called defective vehicles that are on our highway system, I see them; I would point out to you that they are illegal. There is a law that says a vehicle must be in proper mechanical condition. Maybe they're not all caught, but what you're observing is against the law. That has been in the Motor Vehicle Act, as I understand it, for years and years.

Regarding motor vehicle testing stations, government made the decision in 1983 and closed them, and they have no intention of reopening the testing stations. I would say that a lot of reasons can be given, but I'd like to inform the House, Mr. Speaker, that fatalities are down each year. It appears that there is going to be a substantial drop in 1985. So far this year has been excellent. The number of registered vehicles in the province is about the same. So I think the campaign — drinking and driving and so on — is paying off. It certainly is in the fatalities. I believe ICBC has said that motor vehicle accidents are down, and they're passing on the savings in the new premium year, 1986.

Two members asked about the surrender of the driver's licence. The notes I have on that indicate that currently a provision exists to cancel a driver's licence, but no authority exists — and I think that this is the change we're looking at here, Mr. Speaker — to have the licence surrendered after cancellation. In this bill now before us, one of the amendments will require a licence to be surrendered by a driver who has had his licence cancelled for medical reasons or for failing a driver's examination. As I understand it, I assume the law takes over if they don't comply. There is a distinct change here in this amendment, no question about that.

The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) brought up a good point about the white strip and about use outside the white strip. I might say that the policy decision of the Highways ministry.... We have a lot of paved two-lane highways without a white strip. That is based on width. I'm pleased to inform the House that where the width is 24 feet, which has been the standard, a white line will not be painted; but when we repave, the width has been expanded another four feet, and then the white strip goes down. That has been happening for two or three years, and gradually we will get all the area covered. But as I said earlier when we opened debate on this, no doubt more questions will come up in committee.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill 60, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 1985, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Committee on Bill 2, Mr. Speaker.

COQUIHALLA HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION
ACCELERATION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 2; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I have some questions with respect to the number here of $375 million. I wonder if the minister would assure the House that that would be an accurate assessment of the cost of the project. Three hundred and seventy-five million dollars is a substantial amount of money. We are hearing rumours that it could run substantially higher than $375 million, and I wonder if he would please advise the House on that. We have indicated that we are certainly not in favour of the toll approach; that we feel that's a discriminatory approach to funding a transportation system.

I might just point out to the House that that $375 million for the Coquihalla is approximately ten times the subsidy for the entire B.C. Ferries system. The former highway-equivalent subsidy, as it was named, is now approximately $40 million for the B.C. Ferry Corporation. To illustrate the scale — the number of people carried on the B.C. Ferries system, the amount of subsidy, the importance of that system for the people not only of Vancouver Island, but of the mainland — it was pointed out the other day in the Minister of Finance's semi-annual report that the B.C. Ferry Corporation has something in the order of a $12 million surplus for the first six months. The minister has indicated that some of that would be used up in lower capacity time over the winter months, but our argument is that the fare structure of the ferry system is too high. It is really beyond the ability of the ridership to maintain that, and that is why the ridership is low. If they were to take some of that $12 million surplus and lower the fares, it would increase the ridership on routes 1 and 2, which are the main lifelines between Vancouver Island and the mainland.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are on section 3 of the Coquihalla Highway act, and it's quite specific.

MR. HANSON: I understand that, Mr. Chairman. This particular section of the bill deals with the authority to borrow $375 million. My questions relate specifically to: does this $375 million figure accurately reflect the amount of money needed to complete the Coquihalla Highway? Secondly, would the minister consider lowering the ferry fares to stimulate the economy of Vancouver Island, to stimulate commercial traffic and the commercial ridership?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first part of the question is in order, hon. member. The second part would not be.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, the amount stated in here under section 3 is $375 million, and that's the estimated cost of building the Coquihalla from Hope to Merritt and from Merritt to Kamloops. We hope to achieve that goal by freeze-up 1987.

[ Page 7046 ]

MR. HANSON: Would that $375 million figure include any snow removal costs, or would that be in another aspect of the budget? Is this strictly construction, or is it also any kind of snow removal, etc., during construction period?

HON. A. FRASER: To answer the member, this is for capital construction. It has nothing to do with an item like snow removal. That comes under the maintenance side of the budget, once any new road is put in the system. This is strictly capital — the road and the bridges.

MR. HANSON: Is there any truth to the suggestion that snow will have to be trucked out of the Coquihalla Highway at various points?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the minister may wish to answer that, but the question clearly does not relate to this section, which refers to construction of the highway and, secondly, to a toll system.

HON. A. FRASER: I'll just say that we don't anticipate any more trouble with snow removal there than we have night and day in the Rogers Pass on the Trans-Canada.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I understand the minister to say that the $375 million includes the cost of, I believe, phase 1 from Hope to Merritt and phase 2 from Merritt to Kamloops. But I was wondering if the minister could clarify if any of those costs will be rolled over into phase 3 — which I guess should be the Okanagan link — and whether there has been any final decision on the exact location of phase 3 — up the west side of Okanagan Lake or coming up the old 97. Has there been a final decision? Are any of those costs included in this total of $375 million?

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

HON. A. FRASER: The member refers to what we call phase 3. The $375 million refers to phases 1 and 2. We haven't announced that we're going to go ahead with phase 3 from approximately Merritt to approximately Peachland. We haven't come up with any firm dollars on that. In fact, it's my understanding that the design and engineering, heading west from Peachland, is taking place right now. I believe it's a rough estimate before final engineering, but phase 3 is considered to be probably $125 million. But they haven't even settled the route yet as far as phase 3 is concerned, to come up with an accurate estimate.

[5:30]

MR. COCKE: I just want to ask the minister again about this $375 million. We know that the minister, if he had an opportunity, would double-track the Coquihalla, if he thought it would get him an extra vote. Possibly, if he's going to double-track it up and down, that'll keep the snow off the bottom track. Maybe you could use that in the winter.

I drove up there the other day and had a look at the Coquihalla. It's quite a stupendous project — to get us from here to wherever. We're just not quite sure where it's going.

Tell us what it's really going to cost. Our problem on this $375 million is the fact that, while we have an amount in the bill, we have so much legislation that permits this government to increase that amount to anything they want by order-in-council. Let the minister just come clean, and then we'll get on with other things.

HON. A. FRASER: I stated earlier that we hope to have the Coquihalla........ Maybe I should give you a brief update on where we're at. At the present time we have 90 percent of the road built and paved from Hope to Merritt, which is phase 1. According to what we know now, we should open that Section in May or June of 1986. We're in the process at the present time of calling contracts on phase 2 from Merritt to Kamloops. The bids that are coming in are excellent. It appears that we will be able to build from Hope to Merritt and Merritt to Kamloops for the $375 million, have the job completed on a four-lane basis and hook up with the TransCanada near the Afton copper mine on the Trans-Canada west of Kamloops by freeze-up 1987. But we will probably have the section from Hope to Merritt available for use in late May 1986. In the interim, we have rebuilt and improved Highway 8 to Spences Bridge and Highway 5 from Merritt to Kamloops to accommodate the anticipated increased traffic that we will put on those roads. That work is already completed. But we are still of the opinion that we will do phase1 and phase 2 for $375 million. I might tell the member for New Westminster that we are building a snowshed at a cost of $7.5 million, and I think we got the roof on the snowshed yesterday.

MR. SKELLY: Of the $375 million that we're approving here today, will the minister tell us how much has already been spent?

HON. A. FRASER: I can't give you an accurate figure, but I would be guessing fairly close if I said we've probably spent about $250 million to $260 million now on the section between Hope and Merritt, and probably $5 million to $7 million between Merritt and Kamloops, because we have already done a small amount of construction there.

MR. SKELLY: If this is the legislation that provides the funds for the expenditures, where did the minister get the money that he has spent to date?

HON. A. FRASER: We got it from the government of British Columbia.

MR. SKELLY: Selling documents, I suppose.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Leader of the Opposition on section 3.

MR. SKELLY: Well, this is a concern of mine, Mr. Chairman, because a government that goes to the fine points of requiring other people to obey the law.... If the government wants to establish some respect for the law, then the government should conduct its spending and its practices in accordance with the law.

My understanding is that we're here today to vote the money necessary to build a highway, and yet the minister tells me that $250 million to $260 million of the money that we have not approved yet has already been spent, and that the minister obtained it from government sources.

That takes me to the second part of my concern under section 3. The government is empowered to borrow the amount. If the government has the amount from other

[ Page 7047 ]

sources, why are we putting this province even deeper into debt when it's clear that the government already has the money.

MR. REID: It's called creating jobs, if you know what that means.

MR. SKELLY: I'm sure that the member for Surrey is not aware of the fine points of these issues.

Mr. Chairman, it's important for us to know. If this place isn't to be considered by everybody as a total sham, it's important for us to know where the money is coming from. It says here that the government needs to borrow the money in order to pay for the highway, yet the minister tells us that he obtained the money from government sources. Do they need to borrow the money or don't they? If they've already spent the money, what are they going to do with the money that they're going to borrow? There are a lot of questions that have to be answered under this section, and we want the minister to answer those questions.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Are you really the Leader of the Opposition?

MR. REID: No, the leader is over here.

Interjection.

MR. REID: He's not sure himself.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

MR. SKELLY: I want to ask the minister if he really needs to borrow the money, because this province can't afford to borrow much more money. In the space of four years you've taken us from $4.4 billion in debt — a debt which took 101 years to build up — to $17 billion in debt. And the direct debt is now greater than the previous total. It's important for us members of the Legislature to know that if the government doesn't need to borrow the money for the purpose of building the Coquihalla Highway, then let's eliminate that section from the bill. By all means, we're willing to appropriate the amount of money that this government requires to build a highway that's already 90 percent complete. Let's be realistic: it wouldn't make sense not to do that, Mr. Chairman. We're willing to approve the money after the fact. But if we don't need to borrow the money, why should we do that? The minister should get up on his feet right now and tell us why he wants to borrow $375 million that he doesn't need for this particular purpose.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I haven't got with me a.... Talking about money, the money for this was in the budget as well — in the Transportation and Highways budget. When you asked the question.... I'm sure there was an item specifically on that under "Economic Recovery to Create Jobs." We've been very successful in creating a lot of jobs on this construction project. Just ask the contractors of British Columbia about that.

Regarding the point that the Leader of the Opposition is trying to make, the bill talks about the authority to borrow. It doesn't necessarily say the money will be borrowed. It's right in the bill.

Interjections.

HON. A. FRASER: The authority to borrow is right in here. I imagine that decision will be made by the government — whether they borrow it or not. This is the authority to borrow.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, with the greatest respect for the Minister of Highways, if we voted for the money under the budget for the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, that's fine. If the highway is already 90 percent complete, fine. If the minister needs legislative authority to spend that money — and he's saying that he doesn't — fine. Let's go through that process just to get the highway complete. But if he got the money from other government sources and he doesn't need to borrow this money, I think it's incumbent on responsible legislators not to give the money to a government that doesn't require it and not to allow them to borrow it when they clearly don't require it. This government borrows on the credit rating of the taxpayers of this province, and they've already played fast and loose with the credit rating of the people in British Columbia. I am suggesting to you, Mr. Chairman, that it is time for this government to stop playing fast and loose with the credit rating of the people of British Columbia.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister another question, because I think this is our best opportunity to ask some questions about the entire project. If phase 3 is constructed, will a new Okanagan bridge be required just outside Kelowna, and at what cost?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, in this bill we're dealing really with phases 1 and 2. The question is about phase 3. Just briefly, I am not aware of any new bridge needed on phase 3. Are you referring to the bridge across Okanagan Lake? I don't know what you are referring to. There certainly will be bridges in phase 3 — on any new road you have to have bridges. But there is no intention that the big bridge at Kelowna has anything to do with phase 3.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I know the project in the minister's plans is divided into three phases, but this is really the Coquihalla Highway project. We are interested in the costs incurred, and we are interested in the alignment. I'd like to ask the minister how the alignment of the road was chosen. Are there independent reports recommending the present alignment, and can they be tabled in this House?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I'll ask the member a question. Which sections do you want the reports on? We've got lots of them on the alignments and how they were chosen and so on.

MR. HANSON: We would be particularly interested in the alignments of phases 2 and 3, and also the Merritt, Falkland, Enderby, Mabel Lake and Three Valley Gap options. We're interested in the topographic choices that were made, because one seems to be a high-elevation alignment and another could have been a low-elevation alignment. We're interested in the reports that were presented to the minister, and the basis upon which his decision was made.

[ Page 7048 ]

My question then is: would the minister table in the House the reports that he used to determine the alignment of phases 2 and 3?

[5:45]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair brings to the attention of the House that section 3 should be considered strictly with respect to the borrowing and not so much the alignment or the location of the highway. Possibly the committee will keep its debate within this section of the legislation.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I have no reluctance in tabling in the House how we arrived at phase 2 of the Coquihalla. We haven't got phase 3 done, so I can't make that commitment.

MR. SKELLY: Surely if the minister doesn't need the money under section 3 we could probably spend our time more usefully talking about other issues. The minister has indicated that he doesn't need the money borrowed under this section.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: I was just thinking that, if the minister doesn't need the money, we can spend our time in a more worthwhile way talking about the alignments of the highway under this section. Then we won't waste our time in the Legislature.

MR. MacWILLIAM: It seems that a critical issue has been brought up here regarding the whole intention of the bill and the fact that the government is asking this House to approve the borrowing of hundreds of millions of dollars which is already spent. It's a very critical question, because if we've already spent it, why the devil do we need to borrow it, unless it's for other purposes? The minister has in fact said that 90 percent of this highway is already constructed. Now, unless the government is holding off paying it's bills, which isn't always unusual, if we have 90 percent of the construction completed on this highway and the costs of that construction have been dealt with, why are we borrowing this money? I just can't understand it.

Just for the moment, let us assume that out of the goodness of our hearts we did approve this. I would like to ask the minister how the debt for this borrowing of $375 million would be retired. Over what terms would that debt be retired?

HON. A. FRASER: I want to clear up one point. You're saying that I said 90 percent of this project is completed. I said 90 percent of phase 1 is completed, and we still have most of all of phase 2 to do. I want to make that abundantly clear. We are not 90 percent completed — of the $375 million that is in section 3. It is 90 percent of phase 1 and a very little percentage of phase 2. Those contract tender calls are just going out, as I said earlier, so the percentage done is a lot less than your 90 percent. Ninety percent of the $375 million total is far too high; we are way lower than that.

Regarding the other part of your statement on how we are you going to finance that, that would be up to the Finance minister. We don't arrange financing in the Highways ministry.

MR. MacWILLIAM: But would not the minister concur with me that in his earlier statements in the House he in fact suggested that it would be refinanced through the application of tolls on the highway? Is this the mechanism that the minister suggests using to retire the debt load of $375 million?

While I'm up, perhaps I can address the question that seems to be in dispute here regarding the percentage completed. If the minister says that the 90 percent figure is too high, what is the percentage figure on completion of the overall project as applied to the $375 million request?

HON. A. FRASER: To answer the last part first, I'd guess 60 percent of phases 1 and 2 are done. But you are inferring it was 90 percent, and I wanted to correct that.

Regarding tolls, the reason the toll is on there — and that was explained in second reading — is to pay for the stepping up of activity. It was planned to be eight or nine years. This section of the road is going to be built in two or three. It is estimated that the tolls will take in approximately $20 million a year, which is about half what the interest carrying charges are.

MR. HANSON: The capacity of the highway will be 25,000 to 30,000 cars a day. I'd like the minister to confirm that or give us another number that is indicated in his reports. What is the highway capacity in absolute terms and what is his forecast for the actual usage? Will he table those reports? In other words, will there be more than 10,000 vehicles a day using the highway? If he's saying that the tolls will take in half of the interest charges, is he saying to the House that there will be an ongoing drain in terms of dealing with the carrying charges of the present borrowing?

HON. A. FRASER: I'll have to get you the capacities and that. I haven't got that here. I'm saying that the tolls will pay about half the carrying charges. It wasn't anticipated to pay them all.

MR. HANSON: Some of the information is not readily at hand with the minister, and I would like to move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:53 p.m.