[ Page 2149 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 2149

Oral Questions

Health care user fees. Mrs. Boone –– 2149

Closure of palliative care unit. Ms. A. Hagen –– 2150

Hospital board elections. Mrs. Boone –– 2150

Uranium mining. Ms. Smallwood –– 2150

Meat inspection. Mr. Rose –– 2151

Native education funding. Mr. Jones –– 2151

Tabling Documents –– 2151

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1987 (Bill 31). Committee stage.

(Hon. B.R. Smith) –– 2151

Mr. Cashore

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Lovick

Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Clark

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Mr. Williams

Mr. Rose

Hon. Mr. Dueck

Hon. Mr. Savage

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Miller

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations estimates. (Hon. Mr. Couvelier)

On vote 31: minister's office –– 2170

Mr. Sihota,

Mr. Ree

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

MR. LOENEN: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to introduce two constituents from the great riding of Richmond, members of the Social Credit Party, Nick and Lydia Plotnicove. Please make them welcome.

MR. CHALMERS: Without question, the Regional District of Central Okanagan in our riding of Okanagan South is one of the most efficient and well-run regional districts, and that's in no small way because of the experienced senior staff. Two of them are present today in your gallery, Mr. Speaker: Mr. Al Harrison, administrator, and Mr. Harold Reay, treasurer. On behalf of my colleague the first member for Okanagan South (Mr. Serwa) and myself, I would ask that everybody make them welcome.

MS. EDWARDS: I'd like to introduce in the gallery today my constituency assistant, Gail Gotto, who used to be with CUPE No. 947. Two of her former CUPE people are with her: Beryl Big Canoe and Helen Barnes. I wish you would make them all welcome.

MR. PELTON: On your behalf, Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome to the House today Col. W.E. McKinney and Mrs. McKinney, and Major W. Hogg and Mrs. Hogg. The colonel is honorary colonel of the Royal Westminster Regiment, and the major is regimental secretary. I would ask the House to make them all warmly welcome, please.

MR. BLENCOE: I don't have an introduction to make, but this is a great week in Victoria: it's Folkfest, put on by the Intercultural Association of Greater Victoria. On behalf of my colleagues from Victoria and Esquimalt and all the residents of Victoria, I would like to invite all the MLAs on both sides to participate in Folkfest this week. Before you go home for the long break this week, come down and enjoy Folkfest.

MR. DE JONG: On behalf of the first member for Central Fraser Valley (Hon. Mr. Dueck) and myself, I am pleased to introduce to the House Martin and Grace Gouldthorpe, who are accompanied by two visitors from Great Britain, Steven and John Hodgens. I ask the House to welcome them.

MR. SIHOTA: Joining us in the gallery today are two honeymooners who were married this weekend in Kamloops and will be living in the Vancouver area, one of whom is my cousin Shannon. I'd like to have the House join me in extending a very warm welcome to John and Shannon Moore.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Every minister I know has many staff members of whom he is very proud and whom he's interested in seeing from time to time. I'm fortunate to have some of those individuals, one of whom I thought it appropriate, by virtue of him being in Victoria today, to introduce to the House. I have with me, over here on business, dealing with regulatory matters, the director of corporate investigations of the Corporate Relations division. This gentleman, Mr. Al Dilworth, came to the position after receiving his law degree and having an outstanding career with the RCMP in their commercial crime section — a man of great legal background, a man who, like thousands of other public servants, contributes his time in the interest of the public. I invite the House to pay tribute to his presence and the thousands of other civil servants like him who perform such yeoman service in our interests.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Located in the gallery today are three of my constituents from the beautiful city of Salmon Arm, one of the nicest cities in British Columbia and located in the great constituency of Shuswap-Revelstoke. I would like the House to make welcome Bill Laird and his wife, accompanied by his daughter Samantha.

On behalf of the Minister of Tourism, Recreation and Culture (Hon. Mr. Reid), Hon. Mr. Veitch tabled the ninth annual report of the British Columbia Heritage Trust for the year ended March 31, 1987.

Hon. Mr. Davis tabled the 1986-87 annual report of the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation.

Hon. Mr. Couvelier tabled the annual report of the B.C. Systems Corporation for the period ended March 31, 1987.

Oral Questions

HEALTH CARE USER FEES

MRS. BOONE: My question is to the Minister of Health. Tomorrow B.C. celebrates Canada Day. Unfortunately, we in B.C. are celebrating it as $5 Wednesday, the day the regressive user fees kick in for the elderly and the sick. Has the minister decided to reconsider the imposition of these discriminatory sickness taxes tomorrow?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, we know we live in an imperfect world. We also know that money doesn't grow on trees. I don't think I have to tell the opposition that we have to collect money to spend it.

As far as the user fee is concerned, if we did not take some action to get some revenue before we can pay it out, we would have a two-tier system. I am trying to protect our health system, which is considered the best in the world. I am doing my damndest to protect that system.

MRS. BOONE: A supplementary to the minister. More than 24,000 B.C. seniors — nearly 10 percent of the senior population — have petitioned the government to cancel these user fees. What is the minister's response to these views? Do these petitions mean nothing to him?

[2:15]

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, of course petitions mean a lot to us, and we listen to people all the time. We are no different than you on that side. We are concerned about what the public thinks of us and whether they care and whether we care about them — and we certainly do. The impression that only the opposition cares for the poor or the needy is a fallacy. I think you know very well that we care very much.

However, as far as the user fee is concerned, there is a safety net for people who cannot afford it. You may argue that the safety net doesn't go high enough, that the cutoff is too low; and it may very well have to be amended. But there is a

[ Page 2150 ]

safety net, and I don't know how many hundreds of thousands there are in British Columbia who do not pay anything. They come within that safety net. I believe that I, you and many in this House certainly can afford that money. We should pay, because the system will not survive. We'll have a system like they have in England or New Zealand, which is completely socialistic. If you want a doctor in New Zealand, you carry Blue Cross, and you must then go to a doctor who isn't under the government plan.

CLOSURE OF PALLIATIVE CARE UNIT

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the Minister of Health. The Royal Columbian Hospital palliative care unit is slated for closure on September 1. This unit serves a very large population east of the city of Vancouver, the suburban area of greater Vancouver. Will the minister assure us that he has decided not to approve allowing this closure until a plan is in place to replace this service for the terminally ill?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, this is my day. Everybody loves me and I appreciate that. I appreciate your question. However, we're talking about a very serious matter when we're talking about palliative care. It's certainly not our intention to have people out on the street when they need the assistance of other human beings perhaps more than ever in their life. I also heard the news, like you did, and I've already asked my people to check into this matter and report back to me what in fact happened, because I wasn't aware of it. I just wish people would contact their minister and say that this is their problem. At least I could have a handle on it and work out a plan like you mentioned, and I certainly will do that.

MS. A. HAGEN: Another question to the minister, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister decided, in his response to this issue, to review — with the staff, professional people and the boards of any hospitals that may be involved — which setting is the most appropriate for this palliative care service, given that the majority of people who are in need of this service are not necessarily elderly, but often in the 40 to 60 age range? Could the minister assure us that part of his review will look at the most appropriate setting for a palliative care unit in this region?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are doing at this time. We have been working on a plan for some time, trying to reorganize hospitals as to what they're are best suited for. Perhaps this particular service is best suited to other areas. We are looking at that and we are already in the process. Why this particular hospital chose to go public rather than ask us or rather than go along with our plan, I'm not sure, but it will be investigated and we'll report back to you.

MS. A. HAGEN: To the minister, Mr. Speaker. When the minister speaks of this area, he is in fact referring to the suburban area east of Vancouver — New Westminster, Burnaby, Coquitlam and south of the river area? I just want to be assured that we're looking at that area.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, that is correct.

HOSPITAL BOARD ELECTIONS

MRS. BOONE: Again to the minister — you truly are loved today. Last Thursday the Medical Association president asked the minister to establish a task force to examine public representation on hospital boards. Has the minister decided to establish such a task force or to refer the matter to a select standing committee of this assembly?

HON. MR. DUECK: That call for a task force was from the BCMA, I understand, or is that what you're referring....? We have not yet decided exactly in what way. We're constantly reviewing and looking at health costs and I'm not so sure whether.... The BCMA at this time has some very bright ideas. I've been in constant contact with them about utilization, about health care costs. We've had many, many meetings with the association, especially with the president and his executive, so what he has in mind at this point in time — I haven't been in contact with him since. That letter arrived the day he took off on his holidays, so I'm sorry I can't give you an answer on that.

MRS. BOONE: Supplementary. The Premier has publicly agreed that a task force with representation from the B.C. Medical Association, registered nurses, the B.C. Health Association and the ministry is one worth considering. Why does the minister not agree with the Premier?

HON. MR. DUECK: I've got orders here to watch it!

I'll tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker: when you're on the government side and the Premier asks you to do something, you generally don't argue. I have not talked to the Premier recently, but like I said, we've not yet decided. But we will look at it. I want to talk to the president and see exactly what he's got in mind. I assure you we're not going to have a task force for just the sake of a task force, which has happened in the past so many times. With municipal business it was the same way: you have studies, you have royal commissions, you have task forces. Then you put them on the shelf and you never look at them again.

I do not wish to do that. If we're going to have a task force, it's going to be a task force that comes back with facts and figures that we can look at and do something about. I do not intend to give you a spiel that we're looking into it by a task force or royal commission, and that's where it stays. That's what I want to do.

URANIUM MINING

MS. SMALLWOOD: My question is to the Premier. Mr. Premier, you said on the weekend that uranium mining is terrible. Has the Premier decided to reinstate the moratorium?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I was met by a group in Kelowna who were obviously showing their concern about uranium mining, or uranium in general. Incidentally, they were a very well-behaved group. We had a good little chat, and we certainly came to the conclusion that neither party liked uranium mining, and that all of us obviously, regardless of where we sit, have some fears about uranium mining.

[ Page 2151 ]

I also pointed out that we in British Columbia, unlike any other area in Canada, possibly North America, have regulations controlling the mining not only of uranium — which is highly unlikely in British Columbia because there are far better sources for uranium in Manitoba and Saskatchewan that are being mined without those regulations, and we all know where Manitoba's is coming from But anyway, what I did say was that we have the best regulations and that these would be in effect for mining in an area where there was even a chance of a uranium presence, and that all things would be controlled and closely monitored. The danger is probably a whole lot less now than what it was when we simply had a moratorium.

So I think, while they didn't totally agree with that, they were certainly receptive to the message, and I was pleased to have the opportunity of meeting with that fine delegation in Kelowna.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Supplementary to the Premier. It's obvious to people, as they look at this issue, that the government in the province doesn't have enough information. We all agree that uranium mining is terrible; we agree with the Premier on that. I would like to know if the Premier at the very least has decided to ask the Bates royal commission to finish its suspended inquiry into uranium mining in this province.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I feel that we have sufficient information. As a matter of fact, because of that information provided by the commission, we in British Columbia have the regulations in place. As I told the delegation there, they should be petitioning Ottawa and other provinces to see that other provinces and the federal government become as progressive and as concerned as we've shown ourselves to be.

MEAT INSPECTION

MR. ROSE: My question, Mr. Speaker, is to the Minister of Agriculture, and it is a health question as well.

Apparently the Mulroney government is going to withdraw its support for inspectors working under the provincial Meat Inspection Act. Is that the case? If so, what's the minister going to do about it?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I would suggest that we are undergoing discussions with the federal Agriculture department at this stage, relative to their proposal to downsize inspections. We are arguing our case that inspections are a necessary part of health standards for food production in this country — particularly in the meat sector.

MR. ROSE: I wonder if the minister can confirm that — except for Dawson Creek and one federal inspector in the Okanagan Valley tied up in one plant — there is no inspection of meat outside the lower mainland in the two places I suggested.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure of the exact number of inspector positions that have been filled, but I know there were more in place. Whether the federal government has decided to fill those positions, I have not been informed. But they've been made aware several times that it's important to have the meat inspection carried out.

MR. ROSE: Can the minister confirm that sales of meat products from uninspected areas are being shipped into inspected areas, contrary to the act?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: If that's the case, I'm not aware of it at this stage.

NATIVE EDUCATION FUNDING

MR. JONES: A question for the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations. As the minister is aware, the master tuition agreement, which governs funding between the federal and provincial governments with respect to native Indian education, expires today. We've had written questions on the order paper for several months now. Over a month ago, the minister promised that he would bring the substance of discussions with the federal ministry to this House, and we've seen nothing forthcoming on either of those. I'd like to ask the minister why he has been so unresponsive to our concerns with regard to the master tuition agreement.

HON. MR. ROGERS: The hon. federal minister, Mr. McKnight, was in Victoria last week. We had a meeting to discuss a number of issues, among them the master tuition agreement. Negotiations are proceeding between the Ministry of Education and the federal Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. While the negotiations are proceeding, I know the question has been on the order paper, but I haven't been in a position to be able to answer it, because the details are not yet forthcoming.

We are endeavouring to work on it. We would like to put something in place very shortly. I believe Mr. McKnight views the matter as a priority, as we do. He is working expeditiously on the matter. I think we can have it resolved satisfactorily in the not too distant future. In the meantime, it would be merely speculation to try to answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Michael tabled the consolidated financial statement of the British Columbia Railway for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1986.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 31.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No.1), 1987
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 31; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: This morning, hon. members, we postponed a number of sections. We would like to go back and pick these up now.

[2:30]

On section 4.

HON. B. R. SMITH: Section 4 doesn't do what the member is afraid it did. It doesn't take away some right that a child over the age of 12 who has signed a consent would have to revoke that consent more readily. It simply separates, in subsection (9), the consent issue from the guardianship issue.

[ Page 2152 ]

If you read it carefully, you'll see that you have to take the words "subject to subsection (7)" out of "for an adoption consented to under this section, subject to subsection (7)," because they wouldn't modify anything. The section was previously aimed at adoptions that were consented to; now the section is aimed at voluntary surrenders of any kind, whether or not they're surrendered for pending adoption. The superintendent becomes the guardian to give legal status to the child in terms of guardianship after a voluntary surrender, but it doesn't erode the child's right under subsection (7). The child's right under subsection (7) is that they can revoke their consent — a child over the age of 12 can — without meeting that other onus of showing that it's in the child's own best interests. Other people can only revoke their consents.... A natural mother can revoke her consent only if she can establish that it's in the best interests of the child. But the child, as I read the section, can always revoke his consent without meeting that onus.

Taking those words out is not to take away any protection that the child has to revoke a consent; it is to separate guardianship totally from the consent issue. Guardianship is protected where there is any voluntary surrender. I hope I've made that clear. In any event, it doesn't do what your legal reading of it may have indicated. We couldn't leave in "subject to subsection (7)," the words you were concerned about, because they wouldn't modify or pertain to anything. There's nothing that would be subject to subsection (7) with the proposed change, but subsection (7) will still apply to every child aged 12 to 19 who had given a consent. That is, they could revoke it without meeting the other onus.

MR. CASHORE: I find that helpful. I think it would be more helpful, though, if there could be a fuller reason as to why this amendment is taking place. What has precipitated the need for this change?

HON. B.R. SMITH: The Supreme Court decision of December 1986 left tenuous for the first time the child's legal status before the completion of an adoption. That's the reason for it. That is the case that brought forward the earlier amendments to give expression to the right of a natural father who wasn't married to the mother, but that decision also left uncertain the child's legal status prior to adoption.

MR. CASHORE: I'll conclude with this: the legal counsel I spoke to this morning has a different interpretation of this. I myself do not have the expertise or the background to make that judgment, and I will leave it at that.

Section 4 approved.

On section 10.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm having some trouble catching up here, but I believe that the member from Nanaimo wanted to raise the issue on section 10, which had been postponed.

MR. LOVICK: Would the Minister of Finance be good enough to share with us the result of the search and investigation that was carried out in response to my question this morning?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I thought for a moment I was going to be denied the opportunity to develop the position here.

The problem arises by virtue of some confusion in the various pieces of legislation — the separate acts — as to the regulating authority. This Company Act amendment will clarify that matter. Without this amendment, the Securities Commission would have to regulate real estate companies that are already regulated under the Real Estate Act. By virtue of the references being made in those various statutes, a housekeeping initiative to clarify the matter became important.

MR. LOVICK: To make sure I understand this, is the minister then telling us that the statute prior to amendment was in effect redundant? Is that the case?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: With the introduction of the changes to the Real Estate Act, it became redundant; that is correct.

Section 10 approved.

On section 21.

MR. CASHORE: I understand that the Attorney was going to consult on this section with regard to the Family and Child Service Act and some of the points that I and the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) raised this morning.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Yes, I'll give some examples of occasions on which the workers who represent the superintendent feel that disclosure of information would benefit the child's best interest. Disclosure of information regarding sexual abuse by a person in a position of trust — a schoolteacher — to the responsible administrator, say the district superintendent. That's probably one of the best examples I can give you. Disclosure of the identity of a complainant to the police to assist them in their investigation of a child abuse complaint. Disclosure of case information to a family court counsellor who is completing a court-ordered custody and access report. Disclosure of information to a probation officer for the purposes of completing a report on a child in care. Disclosure of background information — e.g. names and birth dates of siblings — to a child in care or a former child in care. Finally, disclosure of information to an individual responsible for service to a child in the care of the superintendent — that is, to a teacher, physician or psychologist.

Those are the types of situations where the superintendent has felt that he is hamstrung under section 22 from making those types of disclosure.

MR. CASHORE: I thank the Attorney-General for bringing forward that information. It is good and helpful information with regard to the reasons that such information might be given.

However, that kind of guideline is not entrenched in this amendment, and given the way in which the issue here has to do with the whole area of the protection of rights, it behooves us when we do pass such legislation to include guidelines that ensure that it is manifested within the confines of that kind of responsible action on the part of the superintendent or the superintendent's representatives.

I appreciate the answer. I still feel very uncomfortable about us passing this section at this time.

[ Page 2153 ]

I believe the second member for Nanaimo wishes to make an introduction.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall leave be granted for the member to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. LOVICK: I am reluctant to interrupt the flow of things, but I see two very old friends and very distinguished guests in the precincts today and ask the House to join me in welcoming them. The first is Mr. Ron Riley, who was an organizer for the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, and the second is Florence Riley, who was secretary to Bob Strachan, the leader of the official opposition some time ago.

MR. SIHOTA: I still feel uncomfortable about section 21. I think that some of the examples that the minister has raised are legitimate; others are not as legitimate. I don't want to get tied up on the examples; I just want to step back a bit.

I am sure the minister understands that under the Family and Child Service Act there is a provision for essentially an extreme ex parte move on the part of the ministry when it wants to remove children from their places of care. That has to be substantiated with some documentation. It's been my experience that some of that documentation — not in all cases — is extreme and designed to support the application in front of the court when that's necessary to seek removal and apprehension of a child,

The Attorney-General and I understand — this is not to impugn anybody — that there is an art to drafting affidavits. Sometimes the material encompassed in the affidavit is a little stretched. I have always had some difficulty in having that type of information boomerang back and be used against somebody else in a subsequent application.

It's for that reason that I feel that section 21 goes too far. We're always walking the same tightrope in these types of cases. There is, on one hand, the need for the authorities to be able to do their job in an effective and efficient way, and to act efficiently in cases that invite immediate action.

So if the school or the social worker or the police officer or the probation officer needs some information that's legitimate, I don't really have a problem with section 21, except that there have been a lot of cases in my experience — not a lot, but there have been cases — where the other side of that tightrope also comes into play. The other tension is the use of information in a way that comes very close to abuse of that information. Given the way in which information is secured for family and child service applications, it seems to me the section is going too far. That's the first point.

The second point is simply this: many of the examples the Attorney-General uses involve social workers, probation officers, police, and school officials. The interesting part of this is that much of that information is used for an application originating in the Family and Child Service Act, and that creates an interesting paradox. The examples raised are situations where other people are using that information, in any event, to bring forward an application. It's a forerunner to the application. So in a funny sort of way they may be getting back their own information. That in itself, I think — and I realize that door swings both ways — attacks the need for this type of provision, in a funny sort of a way.

So I feel very uncomfortable with the broad wording of section 21. It talks about receiving or providing information with respect to any person, and of course that can go quite far. I just think the section is too broadly worded, and I want to reiterate my call earlier on for a section that is better crafted than the one that's before us. I certainly intend, if it's forced, to vote against it. I would hope that we can withdraw it and come back with something that's a little more livable.

[2:45]

HON. B.R. SMITH: I must say that I tried to think of ways that I could limit the ambit of it without losing the ability of the superintendent to do things to protect children or to disclose information specifically to protect children. It's very hard to get any kind of limiting ambit, except the concept that it must be for the best interest of a child; unless we were to limit all of it by requiring the approval of a judge before it was disclosed, which we could do. I'd be prepared to consider that.

But that sort of thing, while it protects against these abuses that both you and the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) so correctly point out are there, also has the inescapable tendency of providing work for our profession, and I'm always trying to find ways of not doing that in legislation. We've got court applications required for all and sundry things on the statute books; maybe the fewer the better. But I'd defer to you.

MR. SIHOTA: I was conferring with my colleague. I think an application before the courts would be an appropriate safeguard. I'm quite content to support it on that basis.

HON. B.R. SMITH: That being the case, I will move an amendment to section 21, so that following the words "the superintendent may" appear the words "after obtaining the approval of a judge of the Supreme Court."

"The superintendent may, after obtaining the approval of a judge of the Supreme Court, disclose...." I would move that amendment.

Amendment approved.

Section 21 as amended approved.

On section 36.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the minister said this morning that there were several ways in which this section has been changed. I'm not clear how any of them are, but I'll just ask one question. It's not really part of this inquiry. I notice that subsection (4) reads: "The government is not liable on a guarantee or indemnity given in contravention of subsection (3)." The way I understand that, if the government makes a mistake and gives a guarantee which exceeds the authority of some regulation, then the government's guarantee is no good. Who's asking questions? Is somebody out there that has a government guarantee concerned about the validity of these guarantees?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, it develops that apparently there is some confusion about the ability to give guarantees, and the wording of the current legislation is to clarify the matter. The amendments are designed to clarify and remove any doubt on the matter. But the current wording, prior to amendment, has apparently raised doubts in some quarters.

[ Page 2154 ]

MR. STUPICH: I'll just try once more, Mr. Chairman. It may be that the minister would rather not answer; I don't know. Is somebody asking questions about the legality of these guarantees? The government has been doing this for decades, and I've not heard of anybody saying,"Is this guarantee worth the paper it's written on?" or saying that it isn't worth the paper it's written on. How is it that it arises on June 30, 1987, that we're asking questions about whether the guarantees given over the last two, three, four or ten decades, as I say, may not be worth the paper they're written on?

I suppose I should take up your time, Mr. Chairman, and tell.... Not necessary?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I'm advised, Mr. Chairman, that this clause is already contained in section 56(4), and that it was deemed advisable to include all of these relevant references in the same section. It's a housekeeping amendment, and it presently exists under a different section.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I knew it was there, but the minister didn't know it was there. I really just picked on that as one section, to say: well, what's different? This clause is exactly the same — well, perhaps the commas aren't all in the same places — as in the original provision. What I'm trying to find out is: what new authority or what new guarantee is the government giving, or what new ability is the government going to have to guarantee something that hasn't been there before? As the minister correctly pointed out, that section is in the old one. What's new in there? That's really what I was asking.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: It doesn't add any new authority. It doesn't change the status quo, but it is intended to clarify the situation.

MR. CLARK: I just want to follow up a little bit. I'm wondering how it clarifies it, because we're having some difficulty. I'd like the minister to try to explain a little more clearly how this section clarifies it from the previous section.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Could I have the question repeated, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CLARK: We're just having trouble identifying how this clarifies the previous section. I wonder if the minister could go through it again and more clearly articulate what has changed.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, section 56(l) gives us the explicit authority, whereas under the previous act it was only implied. There was apparently some question in recent history surrounding the authority. The intention here is to provide specific authority, to avoid any possible confusion.

MR. CLARK: Coming across my desk recently have been a number of changes, orders-in-council, regarding B.C. Hydro and guarantors and indemnities. With respect to this section of the act, I wonder if this has any bearing on that at all.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The intention of the amendment, of course, is to apply to all situations for which I'm a fiscal agent. But Hydro did not specifically prompt this amendment.

Sections 36 to 40 inclusive approved.

On section 41.

MR. CLARK: I'm not sure whom to address; I guess it's the Attorney-General. The rationale for changing this — is it simply a technical change to do with the fact that the head office is not located in Vancouver any longer?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The old legislation said, "located in greater Vancouver," and as we all know, it's in Burnaby. That's why we had to make the amendment.

Section 41 approved.

On section 42.

MR. WILLIAMS: Maybe the government could advise the House what the justification is for this, Mr. Chairman. This is supplying domestic water to the United States of America, crossing the 49th parallel into Point Roberts. Historically the government of British Columbia has not wanted to get into this kind of international relationship in terms of delivering water to that small end of the peninsula — and I think with good reason.

The job of the GVRD is to look after the needs of the people in Canada within the GVRD. The little peninsula of Point Roberts has undergone a great deal of land speculation over the years; that continues to be the case. The prime limitation to urban development in Point Roberts is water supply. What you're talking about down there is a desert in the summertime, which is a population limitation on Point Roberts. The alternative is some kind of pipeline from Bellingham or something like that, or some kind of deep well that goes forever. That's their problem in Point Roberts.

The question is: does this government want to provide for land speculators in the Point Roberts peninsula? Check the land ownership. You'll certainly find some significant, good Socred supporters down there from the lower mainland who are large-time speculators in land, who hold the bulk of the undeveloped land in Point Roberts and who will become overnight millionaires as soon as you deliver Canadian water across the border.

This is a mini-scale of the problem of the southwestern part of North America today. I wonder if you've thought about the kind of values you're delivering in a pipe across the 49th parallel through Delta municipality. If you think about the infrastructure that is in place for the GVRD water system and the kind of multimillion-dollar capital investment it represents, is it any wonder that, if you get at the other end of the spigot, you too start getting in on those millions of dollars invested by the citizens of the greater Vancouver region — not by the people in Point Roberts, not by the handful of Canadian speculators who are down there. Really, this is little different from the grand issues of water transfer from water rich British Columbia to water-poor areas in the southwestern United States. This is a nice little mini-example of what the game is.

You think about the infrastructure in water in the greater Vancouver region. There's the Cleveland Dam on the Capilano River. There's the whole pipe system under the First Narrows, which now has to be rebuilt over to the city of Vancouver. Then there are pipe systems across the Fraser River, through Delta municipality. There are supply systems

[ Page 2155 ]

in the Coquitlam River watershed, and on and on — an incredible multimillion-dollar infrastructure. Are you willing to deliver that for pretzels across the border to a handful of speculators in Point Roberts? It appears to me that you are.

The former administration refused — that is, the administration of W.A.C. Bennett. The administration of  '72-75 refused, and it's been refused to date. What new evidence has come forth that justifies this kind of transfer of water resources from Canada to the United States?

They've already done a little number down there in Point Roberts. They got rid of our favourite little home-grown monopoly, B.C. Telephone, and they've decided they're tying in with Whidbey Island or some other little local utility down in Washington state. Fine; so be it. It's another sovereign country, a sovereign jurisdiction, and so it should be for water supply. If they can get water from Whidbey Island as they can get their telephone system, fair and good; that's fine. But that's the United States of America. That's not Canada.

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

We have no obligation, as the owners of that utility system in the greater Vancouver region — or as the province, the owners of the water — to deliver water to Point Roberts. Have you ever checked the property ownership maps in Point Roberts? That's who you're delivering the millions of dollars to — some of them well-known, prominent Social Credit people from Delta who are the significant landowners in Point Roberts in Whatcom County. This is little different than the games that have gone on in the Los Angeles basin all of this century. You transfer water to those water-poor areas, those deserts, and the people who own title to the land become overnight millionaires.

[3:00]

If you're a good negotiator, then maybe you would negotiate the difference in land values that are the result of the water supply system being delivered. But let's be fair about it. Let's do it on a fifty-fifty basis, Mr. Minister. Establish land values in Point Roberts on those big, dry acreages right now, before there's water — and they can't subdivide or develop while there's no water — and then we'll see. As those land values accrue, we'll split them fifty-fifty between the province of British Columbia and those owners.

AN HON. MEMBER: It would make a good deal.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's a reasonable deal. They've still got lots of money in pocket, and there's new revenue for us, for our utilities and for British Columbia, the owners of the water.

MR. REE: They're not rich.

MR. WILLIAMS: What's that? They're not rich? Ho, ho, ho! They're not rich, not at all — very clever. Get up in the debate, if you feel like it, in a few minutes.

You know, this guy, this minister over here, is the man who has been fronting the negotiations on South Moresby. He keeps upping the ante: $106 million isn't good enough; $150 million may not be good enough. He has been demanding $200 million from the people of Canada for a park in South Moresby.

What kind of bargaining has he done with the Americans when it comes to serving Point Roberts? You tell me, Mr. Minister. Are you getting guidance from your leader on that negotiation, or is it all okay? Is it a nudge and a wink to their good Socred members from Delta who are the big landowners and will become overnight millionaires as a result of the delivery of water across the 49th parallel? Are you the same kind of tough fighter for provincial rights when you're dealing with landowners — speculators — in Point Roberts as you are when you're dealing with the federal government, who want to provide a significant national park in the Queen Charlotte Islands? I think not.

This is no insignificant issue. This is not any minor amendment to a bill. We have not delivered water domestically to the United States of America from this jurisdiction, from that region, throughout this century. We have not delivered water across the 49th parallel for domestic and development purposes, and that's what this amendment will do. This is a question of our rights and privileges as owners of the resource in Canada. You will indeed be making a handful of people super rich.

I ask the minister: have you checked out the landownership pattern in Point Roberts? Do you know how the benefits are going to be distributed in Point Roberts? And why shouldn't the people of Canada, the people of British Columbia in that region, share in the huge windfall in terms of land values that will result from this decision?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, as is typical, the member sure gets upset when he suspects that some development's going to take place. This legislation simply allows the GVRD to sell water. They are the seller. Point Roberts is going to finance a five-million-gallon reservoir to be built in Delta by the GVRD, which will be used to balance the Point Roberts and Delta water supplies. The GVRD will realize a financial benefit of $40,000 per annum by becoming the water supplier.

If you want us to start tracking land development in the United States, maybe that's your policy, but I don't really think it's ours. It's a sovereign country, Mr. Member. If you want to inject yourself into dealings in another country, that's your business, but it certainly isn't the business of the province of British Columbia.

Just let me impress upon you again that this is a GVRD sale to Point Roberts — their water system. We have simply put enabling legislation in place.

MR. WILLIAMS: Who is injecting whom into what jurisdiction, Mr. Minister? Don't fudge and say it's the GVRD. The GVRD is a creature of this province. It's your act, and the question of transfer of water to Point Roberts or to the United States is a provincial issue.

This is like negotiating on the Skagit. In 1960 you guys sold out the Skagit for pretzels — a few thousand dollars for flooding in Canada — because you didn't think about what the power was worth. You talked about some scrub timber, and you got paid for scrub timber on the Skagit. It has since cost us an arm and a leg in terms of power to pay off the Americans, to prevent the flooding of the Skagit in that same lower mainland. The issue is exactly the same: incompetence in negotiating; absolute incompetence in terms of not knowing what you're selling. You need an informed buyer and an informed seller, and you've got an informed buyer down there and a totally uninformed seller in the form of this minister. He simply doesn't know what he's selling. He gets up and says: "Oh, well, it's $40,000 per annum." Forty

[ Page 2156 ]

thousand per annum is like a corner grocery store, and what we're talking about is millions and millions in increased land values at Point Roberts.

Development is effectively frozen in Point Roberts because they don't have any water. It's as simple as that. What do you think it would cost to extend a water pipe from Bellingham to Point Roberts? What do you think it would cost to extend a water pipe from Whidbey Island to Point Roberts? It would probably be a billion-dollar exercise. That is the kind of negotiation one should think about: what are the alternatives? If the Americans really want all this development in Point Roberts, okay, it's their jurisdiction. But what would the alternative cost them? That's precisely the way Canada should be negotiating on everything to do with the Americans. What is the alternative for the Americans in terms of cost? Don't price it on the basis of some little reservoir in Delta. It's absolutely incompetent and extraordinary that nobody has it together over there in terms of the kind of bargaining opportunity you're faced with. When it comes to extending electricity generation to the Americans, what we should be thinking about is the cost of the alternative in the United States, in terms of dealing with pollution and everything else. And so with this. We must ask ourselves what the alternative costs the Americans. You're not asking yourself that at all.

What we have is the country bumpkin dealing with the Yankee trader again. For a hundred years we keep electing administrations in this province that are the country bumpkin against the Yankee trader. The Columbia River Treaty lost us hundreds of millions of dollars.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: No, hundreds of millions. The Skagit lost us tens of millions of dollars because of the same kind of incompetence, not knowing what you were selling and what its value was.

When I think of that handful of landowners and the kind of gravy train this represents for them.... Who has shares in George Hodgins Realty, for example? One of the major landowners on the Point Roberts peninsula, a solid Socred backer to the core. Well, you know, George is already wealthy, but George is going to get it multi times again because he's the major landowner down there — good, solid Socred support. I'm sure that really doesn't have anything to do with the issue at all — hardly at all.

The minister gets up and says: "It's not me. It's the GVRD." But that's his creature. And then he says: "But it's really okay, because we're getting $40,000 a year." Forty thousand a year! That's just peanuts. I don't know where you get your advice from, Mr. Minister, in terms of....

MR. SIHOTA: He's just left. Just keep on talking.

MR. WILLIAMS: Maybe he's gone out for help. Maybe he's getting some advice belatedly.

AN HON. MEMBER: Here he is.

MR. WILLIAMS: I wish you'd gone out for advice earlier, Mr. Minister, in terms of this particular issue, because the reasonable thing for a minister to ask would be: "Well, gee, how come it wasn't done before?" How come Mr. Williston never agreed? How come Mr. Williams never agreed? How come even old patsy Waterland never agreed? But they didn't, and if I were minister, I'd tend to be a little conservative and cautious on things like this and say: "How come none of those other people through the century thought it was the right thing to deliver water to Point Roberts?" It hasn't been asked; it clearly hasn't been asked.

It is unreasonable. It doesn't make sense. You don't see the kind of bargain for what it is. It's that kind of blind-sided, small shopkeeper mentality that pervades this administration, an administration that ends up charging seniors $5 to go and see the chiropractor, that says,"After all, money doesn't grow on trees," and then they give the trees away that are worth money. It is a shopkeeper mentality that counts the pennies and loses the millions. It really, really is.

You're giving away millions here, Mr. Minister. If you want to help out the seniors and the people who need chiropractors and physiotherapy and so on, just charge the Americans what the stuff is worth. You won't have to have any fees for seniors, Mr. Minister of Health. You won't need any fees at all. The answer is: money, indeed, does grow on trees if you just see the trees for the forest. That's all. But we'll get into that lesson next week.

Meanwhile, we're back in the Ministry of Environment which is the old waterworks agency of British Columbia. As we indicated during the estimates, they don't even look after the waterworks very well, because for $40,000 a year....

Lord, why don't we offer to privatize the inch of the pipe at the 49th parallel? Now there's a golden opportunity, gentlemen, for real entrepreneurship, real privatization. One inch of the pipe between the reservoir and the 49th parallel: let's ask the private sector what it's worth. You could then form the Point Roberts Waterworks Company Ltd., and the Point Roberts Waterworks Company Ltd. could then say to Mr. George Hodgins Ltd., who owns the bulk of the dry land down there that's just crying for water: "What's a chunk of the pipe worth, George?" George would say: "Well, right now my land is worth, oh, $3,000 an acre without water and without subdivision and development rights; but with a chunk of the pipe I suspect it might he worth $150,000 an acre or better, maybe $200,000. So you know, it would be an awful lot more."

Then it's a matter of saying: "Well, I guess it's worth, then, $70,000 an acre to me, or $100,000 to me, to have water; and for a chunk of that pipe I'll give you $100,000 an acre." Then you have to ask yourself: what's the acreage in Point Roberts? So it's this way: you write down $100,000 and then you multiply by the number of acres, and you draw a line under it and then you do it across, and if you're into technology you might even use a computer to be sure of your number work — because the Canadians do have trouble with those Yankee traders.

So $100,000 times what? Undeveloped acreage in Point Roberts. A thousand acres? What is 100,000 times 1,000? How many millions is that? I'm having trouble. It's 100 million. Wow!

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's more than forty thousand.

MR. WILLIAMS: Even if the figures are a little bit exaggerated, Mr. Minister, we're talking about hundreds of millions here over time as a result of an inch of the pipe.

[ Page 2157 ]

Now I've been joshing you a little bit, but the fact of the matter is that if you boys — and ma'am — over there were really serious, because I know you're ready to privatize just about everything that's going, and probably have without authority or statute, but that's another story....

If you asked the private sector what that pipe was worth in the hands of a private company, then you would, indeed, get the answer. Now I haven't even checked; is it a private water company in Point Roberts?

[3:15]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, it's Point Roberts Water District No. 4. I'll advise the committee that if they look at further sections, the GVRD may enter into further agreements, and if the member thinks they should extract a higher price, I guess they could.

MR. WILLIAMS: There you are, you see. There's really a need for leadership at the provincial level. This is still a community of municipalities we're talking about, and there's no question they have very able engineers and traditional civil people. But I'm sure none of them have bargained internationally for water before. I think there's a real need for leadership here on the part of the province, because this is a natural in terms of some decent negotiations in terms of those huge land values.

We did this arithmetic here, and we're clearly talking tens of millions over time, and it appears to be much more than that. You've been willing to trade it off, or the GVRD — through you — appears to be willing to trade it off for the $40,000 per annum. That clearly is out of whack.

There's one side of the equation which is the business of how much the land increases in value down there; but there's the other side of the equation which is the amount of investment and infrastructure in the GVRD in terms of the water system. It's mammoth, because it's a century of public works we're talking about here, a century of public works from the Capilano River system to the American border. That's an incredible amount of capital that has increased in value over time beyond the book value by leagues.

I urge the minister to reconsider this. If this section was stood down, and you began some really serious negotiations, I think you would be flabbergasted at the kind of opportunity it represents for proper bargaining in terms of a tremendous asset held by the people of British Columbia. It is just a taste of the value of the resources of British Columbia in the future.

We don't want the Americans to see us for the fools we are and have been, in terms of international negotiations on our resources. The little Point Roberts one is just one more example of inadequate negotiation, not seeing the opportunity it represents, not seeing what the alternatives would cost the Americans, and not seeing what the benefits are for the Americans. You have to measure the alternative costs, and what the benefits are for them; then we can come in marginally under those costs and they still have a good deal. We might even cut their costs in half; they'd have a super deal, and we'd have a very good deal.

That's the kind of competence we need in dealing with our neighbours to the south. They appreciate competence, and they know a decent bargain when they get it. But they also know when they've run into a patsy, and that should not be the case with respect to Point Roberts.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll just state it again. If the member looks further down the bill to section 45, he'll see that the GVWD owns the water. Section 45 gives them the right to make an agreement, and I think the member, who makes a very persuasive argument, should be approaching the GVWD with that argument.

Interjections.

MR. CLARK: On this side of the House, the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) made the statements more eloquently than I do. Maybe I could just probe with the minister whether any homework has been done in this regard.

For example, does the Minister of Environment know what the alternative costs to Point Roberts are for alternative supplies of water? In other words, does the minister know what the estimate is of the worth of the water to Point Roberts? Has there been any of that analysis done by the minister, before we pass this section? Have there been any estimates of the population growth as a result of increased water access to Point Roberts? Have there been any estimates of the ramifications of increasing the population in Point Roberts?

For example, I happen to know someone who lives in Point Roberts, works in British Columbia, but pays taxes in the United States.

Interjections.

MR. CLARK: He may be a Socred. I don't know his politics.

All I know is that we are embarking on a section which is going to increase the population of Point Roberts, and which could have implications for British Columbia. The question is: has any of the homework been done, even if you accept — which I don't at all — that we should defer this to the Greater Vancouver Water District? But even if you accept that for a second, there may be implications for the province, in terms of having a higher population in that little peninsula, because they may in fact be working here and paying taxes in the States. Has any of that work been done, and has there been any analysis as to the alternative costs for Point Roberts? Has there been any cost-benefit analysis, in other words, which is the normal practice in government before we embark on trading in any commodity — whether or not we're getting a good deal? If any of those studies have been done, could we see them before we pass this section?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't have that information here. The agreement was struck in 1986 with the former minister and also the governor of the state of Washington. I presume you could find out that information from the Greater Vancouver Water District. You're a Vancouver MLA, and I presume they would be willing to discuss that information with you. Also, under the upcoming section — section 45 — allowing them to negotiate, you could get that information from them. But the costs of an undersea pipeline would be very high.

MR. LOVICK: I'm just a bit concerned when I hear the minister say that effectively we ought to defer to the GVWD on this thing. Is the minister then telling us that should, let us say, the GVWD decide that it can get a rather healthy price,

[ Page 2158 ]

we are saying to that body that it has the autonomy to negotiate with the Americans and get a deal which has a tremendous potential economic impact, and the provincial government will step back from that and say: "Well, you earned the money; therefore it's all yours and we won't touch it?" Are we saying that that body is indeed autonomous to that degree?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) has eloquently described the pipeline system that the GVWD has in place. It's their pipeline system. It's their water. This is simply governing legislation. Who else would the water belong to except the water district? It is being supplied to the Point Roberts Water District. It's local autonomy; your second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) talks about it all the time.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, now I'm beginning to feel a certain tremor. The earth is beginning to move somewhat. Look, we're talking about international matters of jurisdiction — about jurisdictional dispute, if you like, on international grounds. We're also talking not about ownership on the basis of who owns the conduit, for heaven's sake; we're talking about the resources of this province. Those resources don't belong simply to the residents of the GVWD, unless we can somehow come up with a system of determining ownership of water resources by saying,"Here's where groundwater stops and starts, here's where rivers begin and end," and we know precisely where every ounce of that water came from. It seems pretty clear to me that we don't know that, and therefore we assume, as a matter of course, that the provincial government has jurisdiction over that resource.

If I say nothing else that might have some appeal to the minister, let me try this simple appeal to logic. If the enabling legislation to make this happen — to give the GVWD this kind of power — must be passed by this Legislature, then it necessarily follows that this Legislature has control of, and an obligation to husband, those resources. Does that not follow?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I guess you could make that argument. Would you propose, then, that the province of British Columbia take over the Greater Vancouver Water District? Is that your proposal?

MR. LOVICK: No, I'm certainly not suggesting that, Mr. Chairman. I'm surprised that the minister would engage in that kind of freshman debate technique. That's obviously a red herring; that's not the issue. The issue is whether the provincial government, through the Ministry of Environment — and perhaps other ministries as well — sees the opportunity that has been pointed out here and will do something to work directly with the GVWD to ensure that the people of this province get full value for that resource. Frankly, Mr. Minister, I'm not sure that the jurisdictional lines are as clearly drawn as you seem to think they are. I'm not sure, in fact, that the Greater Vancouver Water District does indeed have that much claim on the resource. I have a hunch that if anybody chose to do so, it could end up in a Supreme Court battle that would go on for a number of years.

MR. WILLIAMS: I don't want to get overwrought or anything. I just suspect that.... One, we're advised in the statute that this is actually a Ministry of Municipal Affairs matter. It isn't fair, after you.... Somebody's upstairs handling this stuff.

The issue is the jurisdiction of Crown provincial, and the water resources are Crown provincial assets, clearly. The mandate of the GVRD is clearly within the region, and doesn't go beyond the 49th parallel. So the question of going outside the province, or outside the GVRD, is an issue for legislators; that's why it's before us today. That issue is clear. I just suspect that they have not really thought about all the implications of what they're doing; that it's being seen simply as a narrow water service engineering question. And that's. a tradition, I think, of most engineers: to not really appreciate the broader economic questions.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: We'll get to Hornby Island yet. It's about a month away, from the looks of things right now, with all these minor amendments and little statutes that you keep bringing in, just as you've done today. Our summer is getting frustrated by the government.

I suspect that they haven't really thought about those broader implications. For example, there's the International Joint Commission; trans-boundary matters end up being in their jurisdiction. It seems to me that once we get involved in cross-border activity, and then we want to pull out of it, we're into an IJC problem.

There may be a time down the road, once Point Roberts has water, when the demand keeps growing; you're dealing then with the size of the pipe. As Point Roberts' demand increases, the size of the pipe across the Fraser has to be increased — both arms of the Fraser. The size of the pipe at First Narrows has to be increased, our reservoir supply has to be increased, and so on. So at some point, if you proceed with this, we may feel that it doesn't make any sense to continue delivering water to Point Roberts, because the cost of the new supply will be excessive. Or there may not be a supply. Then we have a very serious problem on our hands.

[3:30]

I suggest that we would end up in the hands of the IJC, and still be obliged to service that little peninsula, no matter what the density was. Yet, in effect, we were the authors of the problem by providing the water in the first place, by being the good guys, if you will, and we end up carrying the can down the road. That doesn't make any sense. So I think there's that question: the IJC, future demand, the capability to meet that demand, and the cost of meeting that demand.

But beyond that, as they get more development in Point Roberts, it raises questions of pollution. What we're talking about is this little peninsula south of the 49th, and the pollution ends up in our bays and waterways. So we have all of Boundary Bay — a major regional park at Boundary Bay — that would be impacted by pollution from Point Roberts. I don't think those questions have been addressed, Mr. Chairman.

Then there are the other questions about demands in Delta for other services. The hospital is in Delta. There is no hospital facility in Point Roberts, and on it goes. So there are these ancillary demands in Canada for people residing in the United States. There is this whole string of demands there that I can see coming down the road, and problems that impact on Boundary Bay and Tsawwassen in terms of pollution.

MR. ROSE: And traffic.

[ Page 2159 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: Traffic through the Tsawwassen neighbourhood.

So as a trade-off for the $40,000 it just starts looking foolish. I don't want to harangue the minister, because this came through Municipal Affairs. But it does seem to me that at the very least, this is something that should be looked at in more detail. Ideally, it should go to a committee of the House for genuine, thorough review. It would be a reasonable thing to go before a committee of the House. I don't think it's a critical matter. Point Roberts has gone along for a century or more with its existing water supplies.

So if the minister were prepared to consider something like that, we could have a real look at the longer-term implications, because I think they're fairly serious. That's really why it's never happened before.

MR. ROSE: I wonder if the minister would be prepared to do that, and pull this section of the act. I think most of the arguments have been put. However, there are a couple that haven't been put. If there's a big increase in population density there, highrise or whatever.... It's also part of a salmon resource; it's also a waterfowl refuge. That's the only place where eel grass grows, and that's what the black brant, which is a rare species — a practically endangered species on this coast....

It seems to me that if there's a big population density increase, and highrises and retirement places, that has all kinds of implications for traffic and traffic patterns throughout the lower mainland. The people currently living in Tsawwassen will not put up with the kind of arterials they have now. As the member for Vancouver East pointed out, the $40,000 per year return pales in comparison with the costs evoked, in my mind, in terms of services, should there be a massive population increase.

You may say that the GVRD has this jurisdiction and the power to bargain, but it seems to me it has implications beyond that. It's an international agreement. It goes beyond just a B.C. water resources agreement. It would seem to me to have at least some — although small; perhaps a drop in the bucket compared to rediverting a river....

It's very difficult to talk to the minister when he's engaged in some other conversation.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I know, you're keeping an eye on me and an ear on him.

Regardless of the persuasive powers of my hon. friend who has just come back from an extended trip — and I wish him bon voyage on his next one — I wonder if it isn't worthy of further consideration than we can give it today. Yes, we can ram it through. You've got the power to do it, but you're not going to have us vote for it, because we think it should be delayed.

It's not necessarily that we want to turn off the tap on our American friends — what few live there; it's mainly Canadians who live down there, and I'm told that mainly Canadians are the landowners. But aside from being unneighbourly, there are substantial costs for us to face, and I don't think we've looked at the implications of it. I think that perhaps the most charitable thing I can say is that it seemed to be a neighbourly thing to do, without having a look at the implications for our own back yard: the sewage going into the salmon runs; the Tsawwassen.... and all the possible pollution in that whole Mud Bay-Boundary Bay area — areas that are very important to us.

I think it certainly bears some further examination. I don't know — perhaps the minister can tell us — whether or not this has been cleared through Ottawa, because it's an export of water across an international boundary. I don't think there's any question about that, and there is a federal implication.

AN HON. MEMBER: Has he checked it?

MR. ROSE: I don't know if this has been checked out, but perhaps the minister could tell us about that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I can't advise you of the international implications, but look at these sections. As I said, 45 indicates that negotiations may carry on. I think your arguments, if they are persuasive, could be made to the GVWD.

Secondly, there is a very good benefit to Delta from this, because that's where the reservoir is, and it gives Delta more reservoir capacity. As a matter of fact, I've just been advised that the New Democratic members on Delta council voted for this. So you're kind of flying in the face of your own party, and it would appear to me that you're flying in the face of the people of Delta and the council of Delta as well. There is substantial benefit to Delta from this development. You talk about negotiations and make your point to your colleagues on city councils and to the GVRD and the Greater Vancouver Water District — make your presentation there. We see it as a benefit not only to people living in Point Roberts, but also to the citizens of Delta.

I can advise you at this time that I have no intention of postponing or setting aside this section, or the other three sections that deal with this.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I'm reluctant to.... I'm dealing with the member for Prince George South as the Minister of Environment and responsible for waterworks. I defer to his service to this House as House Leader for the government and the good works he has done in that regard. But I do think that it's incredibly tacky to have a note delivered to you that deals with the question of some vote in Delta municipal council that happens to include some New Democrats. That's not the issue at all. It's one thing for people at the municipal level to be looking at little local municipal problems. That's their job by and large. It isn't their job to look at questions of jurisdiction provincially and internationally, or the question of resource. I think it doesn't do you or your staff justice to have these little, tacky notes about New Democrats voting one way or another in some small municipality. I don't think it does any of you a service.

What I would hope is that you would have a staff that could do the complex analysis to give you the proper advice. It doesn't take an expert to clip the Delta Optimist, you know, which might have mentioned that one New Democratic alderman voted in favour of a reservoir. It's a nation of file keepers we've got here in the bureaucracy instead of competent, high-level people who understand what negotiations are about internationally and transprovincially and all the rest. My God! Clipping the Delta Optimist and giving powerful information to the minister. It's really tacky.

We implore you to reconsider. There is a new room being built just across the way here. It's called the committee room.

[ Page 2160 ]

You've spent a lot of money on it. You're putting all kinds of communications devices in there. There could be a reasonable handling of this at a committee meeting so that we could understand the benefits to the Americans and the likely future costs to us. Both numbers are big. I think the benefits for the Americans are big, and I think the costs for us are big as well. That's the reasonable kind of thing for committee review, and I urge it upon the minister. I urge the minister to take the attitude that the House Leader has so often taken in recent months.

MR. CLARK: I just want to review, because it seems to me that this is a logical one for committee study and it makes a lot of sense.

We have the minister now saying there has been no cost benefit analysis conducted. We have the minister saying that we don't know what the impact will be on land prices in Point Roberts. The minister said we don't know how much undeveloped land is in Point Roberts. He said we don't know what the alternative costs are for Point Roberts to get water from any other source. He doesn't know the estimated worth of the water in Point Roberts. He has said that he doesn't know what the increase in population will be as a result of increased water services. He has said that he doesn't know any other ramifications of increasing population in Point Roberts. He has said he doesn't know what impact that will have on our tax revenue in British Columbia as a result of more people, probably Canadians, living in Point Roberts. There is no hospital, as I understand it, in Point Roberts, so we don't know, if there is increased population in Point Roberts, how much impact that will have on hospital costs, which the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) talks about so greatly, even though they don't pay taxes here. We don't know what the impact will be on increased pollution in Point Roberts as a result of a significant increase in population. We don't know what other services in Delta will be needed as a result of population increase.

We have all of these unanswered questions, and the minister is saying he is still not prepared to stand down the legislation, that we still have to pass it, because that's up to the Greater Vancouver Water District.

Clearly these are unanswered questions, and it makes a lot of sense to go to a committee. It may well be that it makes sense for us to sell water to Point Roberts but at a significantly higher price. It may be that we shouldn't sell water there at all.

We have some other unanswered questions in terms of the impact of....

Interjections.

MR. CLARK: There is the federal question which I didn't address, either. There are about ten major questions unanswered in this House today, yet the minister is not prepared to stand this section, he is not prepared to put it to committee, and he wants us to pass it with some kind of faith in what the intent is.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There seems to be a gold-rush mentality here with respect to what I guess can be considered unjustified enrichment in Point Roberts. Point Roberts does have a community plan which limits what development can take place, and that's known to members. I know it's also based on greenbelt areas set aside and many other aspects that form a community plan. It's my information that the increase in population will be limited.

In terms of the IJC question, the IJC does not come into play unless a question is referred to the International Joint Commission by the American Congress and by the House of Commons. This issue was not....

MR. LOVICK: What do you think would happen if we cut off their supply?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: What would happen is that the agreement between the GVWD and the Point Roberts Water District No. 4 would have been broken, and I would imagine civil litigation would look after that. It's an agreement between two water districts.

MR. ROSE: I invite the minister, while he's flying home or flying to Vancouver, over the next three or four days, after he stands this clause, to fly over Tsawwassen and Point Roberts and compare the two. Tsawwassen is fully populated in terms of residential development; there is nothing but grid patterns and houses. It's overbuilt; it's complete. The only thing holding back similar development in Point Roberts.... The climate is salubrious; it's superb. It has nothing to do with the community plan, which my hon. friend said is really based on the availability of water and the way of disposing of sewage. The only critical thing holding back that development, to make Point Roberts another Tsawwassen, is the lack of proper water and sewage. Right now it's trees and a yacht basin, a few cabins and a beer parlour. That's it. The reason it's not more is that it is virtually a sand-dune. You fly over it and you see the difference.

[3:45]

That's what we have to concern ourselves with, the traffic patterns and what you do with the people and the shopping centres and the hospitals and everything else associated with that. It may be a good idea. Maybe that's where land should be developed, rather than in the farmland around Ladner or Delta. Maybe that's where it belongs. I don't argue that point. The point is, are we getting a decent return for it? Have we considered these things? That's what we need to study. It will suburbanize all right, because it's one of the nicest places to live in British Columbia if not the world. It will be very attractive once water is put on it.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to come at it from a different angle. I know what the minister said — I just wish I hadn't heard it; I'll pretend that I haven't — with respect to the consideration and postponement of this section. We've done that for other sections since this debate started.

I'll come back to why I'm saying that. It's too bad the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith) is not here, because it would be an interesting discussion; only he and I like to have these types of discussions. There really is a constitutional issue here in terms of the ability of the province to delegate this power, the power to sell a resource to a foreign jurisdiction. First of all, there's a question as to whether the province.... I think the question is resolved legally. The province can certainly engage in that. But whether or not it can delegate that to a third party, a lower body, one of its own bodies, in this case the water district, and whether that's constitutional, is totally another issue that has not been discussed.

[ Page 2161 ]

There are two cases. I took the liberty of quickly running to the library and pulling them both. There's the famous Nova Scotia interdelegation case, and the case known as the P.E.I. Potato Marketing Board case, none of which I'm sure the minister is aware of so I don't intend to get into debate on the applicability of those cases to this situation. As I say, it's too bad the A-G is not here.

Quite honestly, there is a question as to whether this move on the part of the provincial government can be deemed ultra vires. It seems to me to be well beyond — certainly a questionable delegation of its power. If someone's got an opinion on that, I'd like to hear it. The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) is not here. She is really the taskmaster on this thing. I want to implore the minister....

I don't want to repeat all the economic arguments and all that kind of stuff, because I can come down with some nice lines myself. But what's the rush? Why does this have to be passed today? Why can't we sit back and wait until we get some input from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and get some better understanding of the discussion? Why can't we postpone it and proceed with other provisions of this legislation, at least until the Minister of Municipal Affairs is here to defend her legislation? I know the minister is otherwise engaged, and that's why I'm still on my feet.

I could tell you a little about the Potato marketing case in Prince Edward Island and the Nova Scotia interdelegation case, if I can find those sections again. The P.E.I. potato marketing case is a famous one, I think, for those of us who have studied this type of law, which I hate to admit I did. It's a case involving the sale of potatoes from P.E.I. to the United States. That was struck down by the courts as being ultra vires. So my question to the minister is: what's the rush? Why can't we postpone this section, go through the other provisions of the act, and come back and take a look at this when the appropriate minister is in the House, with the view, I would say, of just pulling it all out until such time as we can deal with it in a different forum? Could the minister explain, through you, Mr. Chairman, why we have to deal with this matter now?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, we're dealing with it now because it's in the bill, and that's the way it's going to go.

MR. LOVICK: Sir Edmund Hillary of the House.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's right: because it's there. Very good line.

I'm not going to entertain postponement of 42, 43, 44 or 45, but with respect to the constitutional question, I'll have an answer for you shortly. We have legal opinion of our own.

MR. SIHOTA: Is the minister willing to stand it down pending that?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, yes, we'll postpone 42 to 45 until we get that answer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sections 42 to 45 are postponed.

On section 46.

MR. CLARK: I wonder if the Minister of Health could explain this section.

HON. MR. DUECK: Yes, Mr. Chairman, in the past if a hospital wished to spend any money on capital expenditure, it could not exceed $500 material and labour, which was a very insignificant amount. And this has been on the books for a long, long time. We're now changing that. The minister may prescribe a larger amount, and we're thinking in terms of $2,000, $3,000, $4,000. When they have a smaller repair job, they won't have to come back to the minister to have it put in writing.

MR. CLARK: I don't want to belabour it, but I've have some difficulty with removing a specific dollar amount and letting the minister have the discretion. You remember there was a famous debate in this House some years ago — "not a dime without debate" — and there seems to be a trend in terms of giving ministerial discretion. Why did the minister not decide to simply increase the $500, rather than make it at your discretion? In other words, how high could you go? Could it be $100,000 or $50,000, or is it only nominal amounts you're talking about?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, it's not a matter of spending without debate. That money has to be paid by the provincial government in any event. What we're saying is that they do not have to come to the minister when they want to spend $500, which was a ridiculous amount, and I can assure you it will not be more than $5,000 at the outset, which is a lesser amount than $500 was years ago. It's just a convenience, because it was very inconvenient. For example, Vancouver General would come back and say: "We'd like to spend $500; will you give us that in writing?" It was a ridiculous amount.

MR. CLARK: It seems to me that substituting "an amount determined by the minister," is not a specific amount, and they still have to ask you anyway. Unless you're going to send a letter to all the hospitals saying,"The amount is now $3,000," they still have to ask you.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, that's exactly what we intend to do. It will be in the act that they can now spend a certain amount of money and do not have to come to me, and that I reply in writing.

MR. CLARK: Do they have to come to you?

HON. MR. DUECK: They will not come to me. At this time they cannot spend in excess of $500 without the written permission of the Minister of Health. That amount will now be.... We haven't decided yet, but it's going to be in the range of $3,000 to $5,000. If they don't exceed that, they will not come to me in writing. It seems reasonable.

MR. CLARK: I'm not arguing that it's unreasonable; believe me. "An amount determined by the minister." Previously they had to get permission from you if they wanted to spend more than $500, but unless the amount is specified, you have to tell them — not in the act, but at some predetermined point — that this year it is $3,000, or something like that. Will it be uniform throughout the province?

HON. MR. DUECK: That is correct. They will be advised. The amount will not be in the act, but we will advise them of the amount in writing. The reason it's not in the act is

[ Page 2162 ]

that it can be changed. When you put an amount in the act, you have to go through legislation, and that is what happened here.

Interjection.

HON. MR. DUECK: I really think you want information. If you knew the expenditures that these large hospitals have from time to time, it was an actual waste of paper and time. If a smaller hospital with 100 beds came to me and wanted to spend $500 at today's inflated prices.... It was ridiculous that we had it in there, but it hadn't been changed since it was put into writing. We feel this is the time it should be changed.

Section 46 approved.

On section 47.

MR. WILLIAMS: The next section involves the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), who has a long record of being away from this chamber.

AN HON. MEMBER: She's here.

MR. WILLIAMS: She was here a few minutes ago. At the very least, one would expect the courtesy of her attendance in requesting some $60 million. I raise for the attention of the House Leader that the Minister of Economic Development isn't in the House, and she was a few minutes ago.

In this section she-is requesting a mere $60 million, which is $60 million on top of the $50 million she was already granted for new industry — subsidies of various kinds to new industries and new technology in the province. I don't know if this minister reports to cabinet at all, but she sure doesn't report to the House very often. We have some trouble with saying "yes" to $60 million without having the honour of her presence. We may not get many questions answered — that seems to be the style of the minister — but we're willing to go through the exercise of trying to get her to explain how she could spend another $60 million when she has already spent $50 million, and she's busy selling land in Songhees, B.C. Place, Riverview, the Westwood Plateau, and I just don't know where else. Clearly she is very busy and does not report often.

The opposition cannot simply nod assent on this one, Mr. House Leader. We feel that the minister has a genuine obligation to report on how she handled the last $50 million and what on earth she sees in terms of spending the next $60 million. Will the House have the minister here? Can this be stood down until the minister is present?

HON. B.R. SMITH: All right, we'll stand it down.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Section 47 is postponed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call sections 42 to 45. I'm going back to Delta, to the water district.

On section 42.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I've been advised that extensive study was done on the whole issue of this pipeline to Point Roberts. I know now why Delta council.... By the way, the information on Delta council voting did not come from my staff but from an MLA in the House who is also a municipal politician and was able to tell me what took place in council.

The real benefit here.... The member talks about millions of dollars, and he's absolutely right. My information is that this will save Delta $13 million in waterworks infrastructure. The water district of Point Roberts is paying for the installation, so there's a remarkable saving to Delta, Mr. Member.

[4:00]

In terms of the constitution, the best advice we can get from our constitutional experts is that the province has the authority to delegate this authority. Although we're not allowed to seek nor advance legal opinion, I can advise the member that the advice we have is that the province does have this authority constitutionally.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

MR. WILLIAMS: We jumped from $40,000 a few minutes ago to some millions in capital, I presume. Was it just a matter of the minister not being aware previously that there was an additional capital expenditure?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Let me clarify that. Point Roberts Water District No. 4 pays for the capital expansion. They further pay GVWD $40,000 a year. They save Delta.... In other words, they do works in Delta to the cost of $13 million, so there is a saving to the municipality....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, they also service Delta. That also is infrastructure within Delta itself, and that cost is $13 million, saved by the municipality of Delta in infrastructure they'd have to put in place.

HON. B.R. SMITH: May I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

HON. B.R. SMITH: May I introduce in the gallery a former minister of the Crown, a former member for Prince George North, Mr. Jack Heinrich and his wife, Linda.

MR. WILLIAMS: Maybe we could, on the opposition side, welcome the former minister as well, and it's nice to see him looking so healthy without the burdens of that miserable Ministry of Forests and Ministry of Education during the restraint era.

At any rate, on this issue it's still not clear. Is there going to be a direct payment made by Point Roberts or their water district to the municipality of Delta or the water district?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: In the contractual agreement just recently, there was some discussion about the storage of water on the Point Roberts side of the border. An agreement has been drafted between Point Roberts and the OVWD that the storage facilities will all be in Delta. GVWD will control the gallonage that goes to Point Roberts. Point Roberts will pay for the infrastructure which will save Delta, in water delivery systems, some $13 million.

[ Page 2163 ]

MR. BLENCOE: First, as municipal affairs critic for the party I must put on the record that I assume there is a very good reason for the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) not being here today. Be that as it may, I'll let that go.

I'd just like to ask the minister one question, or perhaps the member for Delta: has the agreement been signed already or is there agreement in principle? Is this the reason why you're having some problems here this afternoon?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The GVWD, Point Roberts and Delta may not enter into an agreement until the amendment has gone through.

MR. CLARK: I'm not sure who to address these questions to. What is the total capital expenditure required to service Point Roberts?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I believe it's in excess of $38 million just for infrastructure on pipeline. I believe there is another $3.5 million or $4 million for the storage facilities. But it's all being paid for by Point Roberts.

MR. CLARK: So what the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries is saying is that they're paying $38 million and of that, $13 million would have been required by Delta in any event to upgrade the services for Delta. That's $13 million out of the $38 million. Is that correct? That's correct.

MR. LOVICK: As I sit here and I watch the procedure unfolding before us, I become almost apoplectic. Look, we have learned more in the last three minutes than we did in another hour's debate, and we did that simply by the fortuitous circumstance of having a municipal politician from Delta enter the chamber. The obvious question, then, is that if we can learn that much in that short a time, surely if ever there were a case for something to be brought to committee, this is it.

We are not trying to get in the way of the project if indeed it benefits the citizens of Delta and the citizens of the province. We on this side will be among the first to leap up and say "Hooray." What we are saying, however, is that the more we learn, the more convinced we are that this House ought to have the opportunity to study this matter in detail. Certainly at the very least, we ought to have the Minister of Municipal Affairs in attendance.

I would therefore again urge the government House Leader to please consider that request and perhaps refer this matter to committee. We suggest that is the appropriate, sensible, rational approach — or postpone it.

HON. B.R. SMITH: The members know that when you do an omnibus bill, and you do so in the dying weeks of a session, sometimes ministers facilitate the administration of these bills who aren't the ministers responsible for the policy. So you'll have to bear with that.

I will say on behalf of the government that we will table in this place the agreements between the Greater Vancouver Water District and the Point Roberts Water District. From perusal of my briefing notes, this appears to have been a commitment made to the governor of the state of Washington late last year that this would be permitted. Delta and the water district have had fairly extensive negotiations in which this infrastructure will be paid for by Point Roberts, and it will include the reservoir in Delta as well. We would be pleased to lay that agreement before this House.

Normally, with contentious sections of a bill like this, I would just say that we'll stand them down — and we can certainly stand it down. But I think this section should go through in this session. It is in the interests of the province and Delta municipality and the water district that this commitment be carried out. It's also important that it be public record as to exactly what's happening. I quite agree with you. But I see nothing sinister in local government being charged with carrying out this responsibility, provided that this House and the public have full knowledge of what's going on. So I would certainly make that commitment on behalf of the government.

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the Attorney-General. Would the Attorney-General agree to table all the documents that pertain to this transaction and to assure this House that the transaction will not be concluded — no work will be done — until those documents have been tabled and reviewed in this House?

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: It seems to me that can be done in relatively short order.

HON. B. R. SMITH: I can't make the latter commitment, because the state of these negotiations may not be concluded. It certainly isn't formally concluded until there is the empowering that this section would give.

Certainly the documents should be made public following their completion. Some of the members opposite who are questioning ministers on these sections have also had local responsibility. If you were in these negotiations, you wouldn't table those bills in the provincial Legislature and have Big Brother looking over your shoulder before you'd done the job you were being asked to do. I think you'd take great offence to that. We do try to keep our hands off, to some degree, in local matters.

This has a provincial and an international ambit, and I think it's appropriate that the documents, when concluded, be tabled in this House, and the questions can be asked on them. Of course, the Legislature, remaining supreme, can pass the legislation or amend it.

MR. WILLIAMS: As this thing unravels, we start getting a taste of what the values are in terms of this facility for Point Roberts. You now say it's not $40,000 per annum, but there's a $13 million capital lump, or something like that.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a saving.

MR. WILLIAMS: A saving; not the same. Okay, I missed that. So it's a saving of $13 million. Those aren't real dollars, in a sense. I mean, those aren't cash on the barrelhead.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, okay. But at the same time, it's not the same thing as direct dollars. But you know, it's a taste of what it means for those landowners down there. If this is what they're willing to pay just in terms of infrastructure,

[ Page 2164 ]

that's a beginning of the taste of the huge increase in land values that is anticipated — and I think properly anticipated. There's a lot of increased value per acre. As our House Leader said, it's virtually a sand-dune. Without the water, it isn't worth a heck of a lot.

When I last checked the maps down there, the biggest single owner was George Hodgins. I don't think that has changed. He owns the big, undeveloped lump of land down there, and George has been around in Delta for some time. He came there before the tunnel and married into the establishment of Delta. That's a lot of money to be made, and the land George owns isn't worth much right now. It's not worth much at all. He has made a lot of money in Tsawwassen, and he owns the bulk of the undeveloped land in that section of Whatcom County — the last time I checked.

If you fly over that, you see that big, empty area in Point Roberts, and most of it in that northwest section is his. You see the border, you get all that development in Tsawwassen, and you get zip south of English Bluff Road, right down to the beer hall which burned down. There's barely anything there. So there's much to be gained, and much of it will be gained by one individual or one company.

There's no justification for rushing this through, absolutely none. It's reasonable that it should go to committee. It's clear that there are huge benefits to be made here, that there's a windfall capital gain to be achieved by primarily one corporation, which is all the more reason to look at it carefully and give it the scrutiny it deserves. The bulk of the analysis has been by engineers who are utilities managers; that's not the kind of analysis my colleague from Vancouver East refers to in terms of simple cost-benefit analysis, which has been around for decades — none of that's involved here — or some kind of analysis in terms of appreciation in land values. It's very substantial.

Again, it's not reasonable that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) should not be here for this debate; it's essentially her section of the statute.

So I think the opposition's requests have been reasonable. We are getting more facts as they unravel, but it is still far from satisfactory.

[4:15]

HON. MR. SAVAGE: There were a number of issues to be considered. The landowners are not a concern at all. The issue was, number one, traffic: how much traffic could be borne on 56th Street in Tsawwassen? That has been identified. The second key issue is that Blaine is quite willing to supply water to Point Roberts, no questions asked. But what we see in Delta.... And some of your colleagues, all friends, saw the value of the infrastructure that was proposed by the GVWD, Point Roberts and Delta. Delta would save $13 million in infrastructure direct costs to its taxpayers. But all issues were looked at, including traffic, which we saw as one of the key ones, identified and supported by all members of council.

MR. CLARK: I guess the problem — to the Minister of Agriculture — is that we've been going after this for a while and we were told that none of those studies were done. We haven't been privy to any of them, so we're being asked to vote on something that we really don't have the facts about. Now we find out that a traffic study was done — which is reasonable — and it would be nice if we saw that ahead of time or had been apprised of it when we first asked.

Maybe the Minister of Agriculture could tell the House whether there have been any other socio-economic impact analyses. For example, as I understand it, most of the people in Point Roberts use the hospital in Delta. How much increased population will result from increased serviceable land as a result of water? How much of that will impact on services in Delta? How much of that will impact on hospitals, for example, which are a provincial responsibility? We need those kinds of analyses so we can be assured that this project is justified.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The agreement calls for a maximum increase in population of 4,000. That is to be controlled by the contract between GVWD, Delta and Point Roberts.

MR. CLARK: So could you explain that? Is it 4,000 population or 4,000 serviceable lots?

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: Population. So what do you do, turn the water off when they hit 4,000? Is that how it works? You've made an agreement that will limit the population of Point Roberts. What percentage of increase in population is it that we're looking at?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I'm not precisely sure of the exact number, but that could be easily sought out.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I can get that without going to committee. I can report it back to the House if you want it.

MR. CLARK: I'm surprised at the agreement. It would be nice if we had the agreement here, but I'm surprised that there's a tentative agreement reached, presumably waiting for passage of this section.

The Greater Vancouver Water District has entered into an agreement that limits the population growth in Point Roberts. Or have they reached an agreement that says they will only provide enough water for a certain growth in population? It seems to me that you can't simply say: "You can't grow any more." Presumably the agreement is that the Greater Vancouver Water District will provide water for X number of residents, and if they grow beyond that, they have to get water elsewhere.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Madam Chairman, through many months of negotiations, the agreement called for so much water to be delivered per day to Point Roberts. If Blaine supplies the water, there is no limitation; there will be a total water service to Point Roberts. Now how do you control traffic?

MR. ROSE: I think the information that the Minister of Agriculture, after a long, close association with the Delta council.... It's the kind of information this House should have had before we attempted to debate and embark on something that's far larger and far more complicated than we had anticipated. If we'd had this information a couple of hours ago, we might have completed this bill by now. I just think that when something as important as this, which has federal, if not international, implications.... This House

[ Page 2165 ]

just can't be confronted with this, in the state that it is in. It doesn't refer to anything except certain amendments, here, there and somewhere else, with another body, which is a creature of this House, dealing with it.

It's just a rotten way to run a railroad. I protest this as vehemently as I can, because I think it's an insult to the members of the House when we're asked to make decisions of this magnitude on such a skimpy bit of information, not even knowing what's in the thing. These bills are often called housekeeping measures. Well, there's a hell of a lot swept under the rug on these housekeeping measures. Whenever a housekeeping bill comes down, it's a red alert, as far as we're concerned. It's not good enough. It's just not good enough. I think it's an insult to the members of the House not to have adequate backup information when we're dealing with something.

This isn't just a huff and puff job on my behalf, although it may sound like it. If I sound like the former member for New Westminster, I'm sorry. But it is an insult to this House to have this, and we could have been by this thing an hour ago. I don't like it in the first place, but at least we could have been by it an hour ago.

MR. WILLIAMS: I think the question is: what's the dimension of the rat here? What's the size of the rat we're dealing with?

It is absolute nonsense to have the Minister of Agriculture lecturing this House on what this deal is supposed to be. It's simply not good enough. You're the minister of waterworks, Mr. Minister. You should know these details. That's not good enough. The Minister of Municipal Affairs brought this thing in — she's not here. That's not good enough either,

We're talking about turning out millionaires from these landowners. So the question is: who are the landowners? The Minister of Agriculture says: "I don't want to talk about the landowners." Well, I don't blame a person from Delta not wanting to talk about the landowners — because that's who benefits, and that's what we should be talking about here.

Why is the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (NU Mercier) so interested? Does he know landowners down there? Do you know landowners down there, ML Minister of Agriculture?

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, would you please address your comments through the Chair.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, Madam Chair. Through you, Madam Chairman, how many landowners down there are good solid Socred citizens? That's the question. Who are the owners of water frontage in the GVRD that sit on those committees? Who from Delta is the main player? We already said who the main player is: George Hodgins Realty, the long-time Socred man down there who supports what goes on in that community in terms of real estate wheeling and dealing.

This is incredible. We are talking about a great deal of money and a great deal of appreciation, and the question is: who are the winners? You can shake your head all you like, but this is the nature of how people get rich quick in a Socred society in British Columbia. By being the lucky, fortunate person that happens to own the land in the lottery. That's the lottery that always gets won. All the poor average working stiffs pay out tens of millions of dollars in this province for your damned lottery out of Kamloops, and it isn't worth anything in terms of a real opportunity to make a buck. They're the biggest suckers in the block.

But there are ones who always win the Socred lottery, and they're the key landowners. Through the years in this chamber we've gone through this merry-go-round in terms of Delta land-dealing — the Spetifore land deal, the ALR land deals; the same sort of whirl and game in terms of turning out millionaires on moose pasture or sand dunes, and that's what this game is all about. I can understand why you don't want to talk about who owns the land. You should be embarrassed by who owns the land, because they're the main beneficiaries. They all have strong Socred credentials, as did the wheelers and dealers in the Spetifore land deals as well. That's why we raise this. And to bring this up in the dying days of the session is not satisfactory at all. We were advised that these were minor matters. We do not perceive these to be minor matters at all.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Madam Chairman, we're going somewhat far afield — into the ALR, into lotteries and many other things — and I think you tend to see too much in a provision of this kind. I would suggest that we postpone 42 and endeavour to make progress on the other sections, and maybe some more light can be shed on 42 to 45. We did postpone it once, and all we've done is to renew the fury of the storm, which appears to be blowing over a much broader landscape than it was originally aimed at. So along with 47, which is postponed, I would suggest that we postpone 42 to 45.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Sections 42 to 45 are postponed.

Sections 48 to 51 inclusive approved.

On section 52.

MR. SIHOTA: I just want to say for the record that I think this is a much needed change, and I'm certainly glad to see it in there. As a lawyer I've had quite a few difficulties on this, and I was wondering when, if ever, it would come about. I'm glad to see that it's consistent with the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission. It's much overdue.

HON. B.R. SMITH: After 27 years there is still no agreement as to the total effect of a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Peter Kiewit Sons, and contractors who have completed disputed work over those years under protest have done so at some jeopardy. This will now eliminate that jeopardy and make it clear that you can perform and complete your work under protest, without prejudicing your claim. I think that was a good recommendation of the Law Reform Commission, and I really am pleased to see that the opposition support it.

Sections 52 to 54 inclusive approved.

On section 55.

MR. CASHORE: This is probably one of the few times in my experience, given my background, that I'll have the opportunity to comment from the depth of my professional experience. I think the second member for Cariboo (Mr. Vant) has conducted quite a few weddings in his career, but

[ Page 2166 ]

being much older than he is, I'm sure I've conducted many, many more.

I just didn't want this section 55 on the banns of marriage to go by without some comment. I certainly endorse this move. The reading of the banns of marriage is a very quaint custom within the church which goes back to an earlier day, but I think it harks back to a time when our community organization was much less complex. I note also that in those churches that wish to continue to publish the banns, this doesn't preclude them from doing so. However, it requires that everybody have a marriage licence. I certainly think that's appropriate and a step in the right direction, and I'm glad this change is being made.

Sections 55 and 56 approved.

On section 57.

MR. CASHORE: I notice in this section.... I do agree with the intent of it. It states that: "Books for the registration of marriages under this section ('marriage registers') shall be supplied free of charge...but remain the property of his office and shall be returned to him on demand or on the holder ceasing to be authorized to solemnize marriage."

I find that somewhat ambiguous, because the holder could in fact be a religious denomination, a congregation, or some other entity that has the authority to....

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE: Yes, but my understanding is that while only a minister or a commissioner for conducting marriages may perform marriages, the marriage register remains with the church and does not go with the minister when the minister leaves. It seems to me that this wording doesn't clarify that.

[4:30]

HON. MR. DUECK: Madam Chairman, I think the only thing that has changed from the old section 1s that instead of the director inspecting marriage registers, he may delegate that authority. That's the only change in that section.

MR.. CASHORE: I'm sorry, Madam Chairman. As I understand it, the minister's comment is related to section 57, which deals with section 21(3) of the Marriage Act. My comment was in reference to 21(2). The point I'm making is that the marriage register does not go with the minister when the minister leaves the church.

HON. MR. DUECK: Madam Chairman, I understand it's the same in the old act. So there's no change.

HON. B.R. SMITH: The reason for the repeal of those sections is to eliminate the mandatory requirement for the director to inspect marriage certificates. That is a task he would most invariably delegate. So it's to take away that obligation of the director to do the inspections.

MR. CASHORE: I'd like to move on to (3). As I understand this change, it means that instead of there being an annual inspection, it shall be as often as the director considers necessary.

I spoke to the executive director of a major denomination yesterday, and as is apparent in all professions, sometimes we have a situation where a person in a profession, vested with responsibilities, is going through a rough time — perhaps burnout; I don't know — where sometimes sloppiness occurs. I understand that in this one major denomination, about every year or two there is a situation that has to be looked into, where it's discovered — say, during a divorce proceeding — that the register wasn't properly entered and had not been properly attended to.

If this is a cost-saving measure, so that inspections wouldn't have to take place as often as once a year, I think it would be far more appropriate to put a time in there, rather than to leave it open-ended. In instances where people need the availability of those records and those registers, it's far too open-ended this way.

HON. MR. DUECK: No, it does not require a time. It just says, whenever the director considers necessary. But it's not believed there will be any actual change in the actions taken by the director. If it's necessary, he will inspect or delegate that inspection. So I don't think your fears are really warranted.

MR. CASHORE: The point I was making is that under the legislation as it is now, there would be an annual inspection. I think that annual inspection, not being open-ended, made certain that those records were in proper shape; and if they weren't, somebody got them into shape by virtue of their being inspected annually. I can understand extending the term to, say, two years, but I worry, if it's just left to the discretion of the inspector, that given restraint and staff shortages and everything it could go on for years and years and years. There's nothing here to say that that would not be the case.

HON. MR. DUECK: You make the point that if people are irresponsible, you could have irresponsible people not doing their job and perhaps going on for a lengthy period of time. But I believe that if you have people who are irresponsible, they would no longer be in that position.

We felt that the yearly inspection was an onerous sort of thing. Sometimes it wasn't done. It just didn't make sense on an annual basis, so we left that out. But our policy has not changed.

Sections 57 to 63 inclusive approved.

On section 64.

MR. CASHORE: First of all, as the former chairman of the mental health review panel of B.C., I would like to say that I find these changes for the most part very worthwhile; there is an effort here to bring them in line with the developments that are taking place towards a uniform mental health act in Canada. I affirm that, and I congratulate the minister for moving in this direction. I think that's most appropriate.

I would like to ask the minister to explain, under section 66 — this will also be in reference to some other sections where this wording shows up — the reasoning behind striking out "application" and changing it to "request."

HON. MR. DUECK: Sections 64, 65 and 66 are consequential to 67; that is really the main body of the change. If

[ Page 2167 ]

I could just refer to that one, maybe the other sections will become clearer.

Sections 20(l) and 20(2) of the act are being amended to eliminate reference to the written application made when a person is involuntarily admitted to a provincial mental health facility. The only requirement for involuntary admission should be the certificates, in the prescribed form, completed separately by two physicians. The written application serves no real purpose, is not used in other provinces and was criticized in a recent court decision.

MR. CASHORE: I appreciate the explanation. For the record, I think it's important that that explanation is available for the record, and I agree with it.

Are we on section 67?

MADAM CHAIRMAN: We're on section 64.

MR. CASHORE: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought we'd moved along to section 67.

HON. MR. DUECK: I went to 67 because the others are consequential to 67. So really it should be 67 before we address 64, 65 and 66.

AN. HON. MEMBER: Should they be included together?

HON. MR. DUECK: Yes.

Sections 64 to 66 inclusive approved.

On section 67.

MR. CASHORE: With regard to the change in section 67, I think this is a very good thing. I can recall conducting hearings when patients had been transferred to Riverview Hospital from a particular emergency ward, and it was fairly apparent that the same person was filling out all the applications. In my opinion it was a redundant process.

However, I would not want to let this section pass without referring to a philosophy that I think shows up in the mental health review panel and does not show up in the admissions process. As mental health law develops, we will probably see a move in this direction. We're still taking the risk of decisions about detention being made in the ivory tower of the medical profession, and that is not in any way to downgrade the medical profession or the practice of psychiatry.

I believe very strongly that one of the points we must consider in addressing the issue of mental health is the community component. I think it would be equally problematic to say that the legalities of mental health loss should be a matter to be discussed between members of the legal profession and members of the medical profession.

I'm not suggesting we vote against this, but I do want to say for the record with regard to the issue of certification and the issue of continued detention that there should be a representative of the community involved in that process. After all, we do see that process injuries, and community standards are tremendously important in trying to deal with almost the mythology of defining how the medical definitions of mental illness relate to the current standards of community and the current expectations of community.

For the record, I want to take that opportunity to make this point at this time. I know we're in a hurry today, so I won't be repeating that point where it shows up in other contexts dealing with continued detention or the review panel itself. I'll just make that point at this time.

HON. MR. DUECK: I believe the member made some good points. As you know, the national uniform health legislation that's coming forward will probably address that and there may well be some changes in that direction.

Sections 67 to 69 inclusive approved.

On section 70.

MR. CASHORE: Again for the record, I just want to make the point that renewal is a kind of an invisible process for the patient. I think it's important that this be handled in such a way that the patient is very much aware that that process is taking place. What I mean by that is that it's not unusual for a patient's continued detention to be reviewed without the patient being aware of it.

I'm not sure that that's being addressed in this legislation, but I think it's an issue that we really do need to look at in terms of the civil rights of those patients.

HON. MR. DUECK: Again, the points are well made. Section 70 indicates the time involved — like from one year to one month — and then we go into section 71, which actually continues on that same thought. So if you take section 71 into consideration, then you know that we're dealing with the time-limit that someone is in an institution and when it will be reviewed. At one time they were put into the institution and they would go on for a length of time without any review. This is changing; in fact, a person in an institution may get a review and a review again at a much quicker time than they did in the old legislation.

Sections 70 to 72 inclusive approved.

On section 73.

MR. CASHORE: This is my last comment. I think it would be helpful — and, again, I'm not suggesting an amendment — in reviewing future changes to the Mental Health Act, or at least in the regulations, to assure that this process take place toward the end of the month. It's open-ended here, so that the review of the patient's condition could take place earlier in the month when sufficient time had not gone by for him to have a decision that was to his advantage.

[4:45]

HON. MR. DUECK: Obviously the member has an awful lot of experience in this area. It's a fair comment.

Sections 73 to 77 inclusive approved.

On section 78.

MR. MILLER: I don't think I have any major concerns, Madam Chairman. Maybe the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) might be able to.... Is the wording of the ...?

[ Page 2168 ]

MR. ROSE: The Attorney-General.

MR. MILLER: Oh, the Attorney-General is here, I see. Sorry, I didn't notice he was here.

Is the present wording of the act such that B.C. Steamships is able to borrow the aggregate of the amounts borrowed since the inception of the company? Is it a problem? Or is this just housekeeping?

HON. B.R. SMITH: It's just housekeeping. When the act was passed in 1975, it established that the B.C. Steamship Company could provide a government-operated ferry service between Victoria and Seattle. Administration of these sections has been assigned to the Ministry of the Attorney-General, so it would be with a member in the capital region. The amendment of section 64(2) simply clarifies that the amounts which may be borrowed by B.C. Steamships under this section are the amounts outstanding from time to time, and not the aggregate of total amounts borrowed since the inception of the company. The aggregate outstanding amount at any time is $10 million.

Section 78 approved.

On section 79.

MR. MILLER: I note that the wording in section 24(l) is: "On request of any person and payment of the prescribed fee...." Is it the feeling then that this has to be included in subsections (2) and (3) in order to give authority for the collection of those fees under those sections? Also — and I'll ask them all while I'm on my feet — would the Minister of Finance explain, if the fees are set by regulation, what we are looking at — what kinds of fees in order to obtain, in some cases, something as simple as a single document?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Madam Chairman, sections 79, 80 and 81 all are merely enabling amendments which legalize an existing practice. The fact of the matter is that fees have been charged for some time, but it develops that it's deemed prudent to make sure that there is specific express authority. As to the level of fees, I don't have a schedule with me, but they are minor and of no horrendous impact. As I say, they have been in place, and we have been collecting them now for some time.

Sections 79 to 93 inclusive approved.

On section 94.

MR. CLARK: Maybe the Attorney-General could explain to us this "Liabilities of Public Trustee" section.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Section 94 on the public trustee will authorize payments out of the consolidated revenue fund for judgments or claims against the public trustee when a litigant only names the public trustee in an action. The Crown Proceeding Act now prevents payment when the public trustee is named in his corporate sole capacity and special appropriations are required. But with the passage of this, the Crown is included as a party.

The amendment will not open the door to corporations since there are few corporate soles. The section also defines the trustee's liability to make it clear that a liability arising from any act or ommission by the public trustee in exercising his powers would be payable by him, but not out of an estate or trust property.

The provisions of section 3.1(2) to (8) are similar to the sections in the Crown Proceeding Act, 13 and 14, for payments of judgments and claims. That's the explanation.

Sections 94 and 95 approved.

On section 96.

MR. CLARK: Maybe the Minister of Finance could explain 96 to 104, in terms of the basic thrust of those amendments.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Basically, Madam Chairman, it's an effort to make sure that we do have the right to delegate. It's clear, given the expanding volume that's being done on the stock exchange and the increasing, growing amount of detail that they're having to deal with, that it's important that there be some delegation.

This amendment merely allows the superintendent to delegate some of his responsibilities to the director of filings, particularly with regard to the acceptance of prospectuses, and to the director of registration with regard to the registration of salesmen and investment houses, and to others as he sees fit. He won't be delegating big ticket items, such as the denial of registration or cease trade orders, etc., or any of those powers delegated to him by the commission.

So it's an administrative matter, hopefully designed to enable us to deal more expeditiously and knowledgeably with the intricacies of the daily transactions.

Section 96 approved.

On section 97.

MR. CLARK: Well, the minister explained section 96, and I was really looking at the thrust of these amendments to the Securities Act. But maybe we should briefly go through them seriatim, because I'm not quite clear on the distinction on what section 97 does

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Madam Chairman, subsection 58(l)(c) gives authority for the Vancouver Stock Exchange and the superintendent of brokers to accept a statement of material facts for filing. This new subsection provides remedies to the purchaser under section 66 for nondelivery of the statement of, material facts, and under section 114 where there is, a misrepresentation in the statement of material facts.

At the moment these matters are dealt with in the regulations — regulation 115. We're advised by, legislative counsel that, in their judgment, these matters are matters of substantive issue, and therefore should be in the act itself. So here again, it's a housekeeping matter.

Sections 97 to 110 inclusive approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Madam Chairman, I call postponed sections 42 to 45, and.... Pardon me. We postponed 47?

Madam Chairman, I call postponed section 47.

[ Page 2169 ]

On section 47.

MR. WILLIAMS: Section 47, Madam Chair, as I understood it, was stood down pending the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) being here.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I was going to give you an explanation as best I could for that amendment. That is required under that act to increase the funding from $50 million to $110 million, and the amendment is required to accommodate the province's commitment to Cominco to acquire $55 million of its preferred shares, number one; and number two, to provide an additional $5 million to meet the province's negotiated commitment under the industrial development agreement, a subsidiary agreement under the economic and regional development agreement over the five-year period from 1985 to 1990. That may give you the explanation you need.

MR. WILLIAMS: I appreciate the diligence of the Attorney. However, you know, it is simply unacceptable the way you people manage things over there. That Minister of Economic Development is not to be seen hide nor hair of around this place. Day in, day out, that lady is not here to answer questions. She's asking for $60 million. I appreciate the Attorney advising us that the bulk of the funds are for Cominco.

The way Crown corporations operate in British Columbia is in the Stone Age. There is no reporting by Crowns. These are huge enterprises, and they go unreported; they do not get scrutinized by this Legislature. The major economic activities of this province go unscrutinized day in and day out. That goes for B.C. Hydro and B.C. Development Corporation, and on it goes. And BCDC, which that minister is responsible for, has been in a mountain of red ink. She has never levelled with this House about the mess she is sitting on top of in terms of BCDC. God knows if she has ever levelled with the cabinet on all this nonsense she's involved in in this province. We simply demand some reporting from the member from Little Mountain. It isn't good enough to have her high and mighty Shaughnessy Heights attitude prevailing in the people's Legislature. It simply will not do, and it's not accepted by us over here.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, the member from Shaughnessy Heights. You may snicker. Mr. Minister of Finance, you have to wrestle with all the bills she sends in. You don't know half the bills she's creating out there. Your Treasury Board doesn't review everything she does. Your Premier isn't aware of everything she's up to. We sure are not up to having all of that information in the opposition either. It's very clear, however, that you have the loosest cannon on deck in the member from Little Mountain. It's very clear. She is not here for reporting; she's not here for question period; she's out there in her new silver bubble called the Enterprise Corporation, which hasn't even been given an honest beginning. The corporation doesn't even exist, and she's making deals, cutting deals, signing leases — you name it.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, could you please address yourself to the section.

MR. WILLIAMS: Sure. Because this minister's asking for another $60 million, and she doesn't report to this House and I don't think she reports to anybody. It's like the Cabots and the Lodges in Boston: they only talk to each other. Well, in this case, it's probably just Ray who hears, nobody else. It simply isn't good enough.

[5:00]

Okay, the bulk of it is for Cominco. But that's a complex deal in itself, and that should be filed in the House. In any other Legislature in this country, including Newfoundland, it would have happened. We should have that documentation. We should have it here. It's a $55 million deal with Cominco, and we don't have it. What kind of assurances do we have about Cominco and its future in British Columbia, Madam Chair? That company has been taken over by a major German multinational company with Teck Corp. as a partial rider. But the major player is Gemulteschaft from Germany.

MR. CLARK: Metalgesellschaft.

MR. WILLIAMS: Metalgesellschaft, all right. There it is. They're the major player now in this industry in this province.

Pine Point is being phased out. Pine Point is the main supply for the zinc smelter at Trail, and the future of all those jobs depends on raw materials going to Trail. They don't have any material other than Pine Point, and they have to open up the Red Dog mine, which I believe is in Alaska, one of the great finds in the world. But the question of when Red Dog opens, versus the stockpile that exists at Pine Point, is the critical question in terms of Cominco continuing operation and employing people in British Columbia. That stockpile is of substantial value. If one were wrestling with one's debt problems — as Cominco is; that's why the CPR got out of its ownership of Cominco — then one might start looking at that stockpile at Pine Point.

So the question of jobs in Trail depends on a continuing raw material supply for Cominco. That's an obvious point. But is there anybody in the cabinet ranks over there who understands that? Is there anybody, with this shopkeeper mentality of yours, who is on top of the actual issues involved in this $55 million deal with Cominco?

MR. LOENEN: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, the second member for Richmond has a handle on it all. I'm more than willing to defer, Madam Chairman, to the second member for Richmond.

Oh, he doesn't. Oh dear! He doesn't really have the data after all. Well, you know, we had to rely on a former alderman from Delta as our information person on the part of this bill dealing with Point Roberts. I wouldn't be surprised if we had to deal with the second member for Richmond on the question of Cominco. Nothing would surprise me, in terms of the way this ship of state is steered, or not steered, or is on automatic pilot — or whatever it is today.

These are serious matters. The whole nature of the deal with Cominco should be spelled out more clearly, the documentation should be provided to the House; and the question of continued employment in Trail and at Cominco has to be the trade-off. Isn't it obvious that continued, non-stop employment — now that efficiencies have been established at the Cominco smelter...? Isn't that the obvious trade-off for $55 million? I mean, how much a job are you putting on

[ Page 2170 ]

the line here? It may be that we really don't even have the jobs. What assurances can any minister on the government benches give this House that there will be continued employment in the city of Trail at current levels as a result of this agreement?

I would like Hansard to know that I took my seat and waited for an answer from the government benches. There is no answer, Madam Chairman

I would like to calm down and urge the hon. House Leader or the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith) to withhold this section and stand it down, pending reasonable information for this House. This is a department swimming in red ink, swimming in new commitments that are more red ink down the pipe. This is the department that made the deal with Louisiana-Pacific. Let's remember that a year ago they made a deal with Louisiana-Pacific for a loan of $25 million.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I move the committee on Bill 31 rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

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

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mrs. Gran in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE
AND CORPORATE RELATIONS
(continued)

On vote 31: minister's office, $283,435.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Madam Chairman, there were some comments made last evening which I found troublesome in the extreme, and I want to correct the record so that there is no longer any confusion about some of these comments made by members from the opposition bench.

For example, it was suggested by statements from the opposition side that a certain gentleman representing the stock exchange of Hong Kong had made some derogatory comments regarding the operation of the Vancouver Stock Exchange. It's clear from the examination of the facts that those comments made and delivered in the House were taken out of context.

In fact, Chairman Li of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange was inviting his colleagues to consider the Vancouver Stock Exchange as a place which is quite capable of and willing to fulfil their investment needs. Rather than being one of criticism, it was a statement of support for the stock exchange. Furthermore, I think it should be recognized by the House — and I'd like it in the official record — that the Vancouver Stock Exchange is one of the largest in North America in terms of its numbers of listings.

The number of listings on the Vancouver Stock Exchange at the end of 1986 was nearly 2,000, which is no insignificant amount. In fact, there were 1,924. It was suggested also during the questioning by members of the opposition that some of the monitoring efforts were less than adequate. I think it should be noted that the delistings that occurred during 1986 by the Vancouver Stock Exchange reached 91 in number. Clearly, Madam Chairman, they are diligently investigating complaints and acting upon them when there is sufficient proof to do so.

The record should also show that the number of halt tradings initiated during 1986 totalled 575, and the number of suspensions initiated during 1986 were 275. It was also suggested by comments from the opposition that foreign investors were wary of Vancouver and reluctant to put any faith in dealings on that exchange. The fact of the matter is, and I think it's important to be on the record, that 25 percent of the private placement financings during last year came from Europe.

That is no small number and certainly does not indicate lack of confidence or lack of faith in the exchange. For the record, 9.2 percent came from the United States. In fact, only 34 percent came from B.C. itself. So 66 percent of the private placement financings on the Vancouver Stock Exchange in 1986 came from out of the province. Yet if you listen to some of the rantings that we heard last evening from members of the opposition, they would lead you to think that foreigners view us with suspicion. Clearly that's not the case.

Last year the superintendent of brokers had a number of active investigations as at the end of May. There were 251 active investigations ongoing with the superintendent of brokers' office. They opened 77 new files in the month of May alone. Clearly they are doing the job of monitoring.

The Securities Commission is clearly performing their monitoring function. There were 476 cease-trade orders last year from the superintendent's office, in addition to the hearings that occur on almost a weekly basis. I have a complete listing in front of me of the various actions that have taken place.

Furthermore, for the record, I'd like to deal with some of the specifics. There were some specific stocks named. I don't intend to deal with them all, because they are not worthy of comment, but one of the stocks traded or mentioned was one called Axiom. Together with the others, I asked staff to investigate, and I'm quoting from a staff report which I've just received this morning on Axiom:

"A review of our files has failed to disclose any signs of questionable activity by Axiom. No investigation file has ever been opened, indicating no complaints or inquiries have been received as related to the company's activities. No cease-trade orders have been issued, indicating timely filing of all financial data, and insider filings appear to be up to date."

Unless evidence of wrongdoing is presented, Madam Chairman, we have no cause or reason to become involved with that company. In a similar sense, the Vancouver Stock Exchange officials advise they have no detrimental information. Furthermore, Madam Chairman, comments were made last evening dealing with a firm called Technigen Corp., and there have been points raised during question period with the same firm. As I mentioned at the time, there are ongoing investigations, so I have some limitations about what information I might share with the House, because I can't expose the government to the risk of having abused a constitutional privilege of the individuals involved. The investigations are ongoing to ensure that propriety has been followed here.

It's interesting that Technigen Corp. has issued their own news release, and if I may quote from it: "Statements have been made that are false and have been made with a reckless

[ Page 2171 ]

disregard of the truth." As a consequence of those statements, this press release says that the firm and the individuals are apparently commencing proceedings for damages for defamation against a member of this House, who evidently has made — and I know has made — some public comments dealing with that firm; all of them negative, as you might imagine.

Let me tell you a little about the background of the president of this firm. I think it's important to have it on the record. The president, Mr. Nesis, is a barrister. He received his degree from Columbia University in the United States in 1961. He was ordained as a rabbi and was the rabbi of the Rockwood Park Jewish Center in Queens, New York, and also was the rabbi between 1968 and 1975 at the Shaarey Zedek Synagogue in Winnipeg, Manitoba. While I make no comment about Mr. Nesis's ability on the stock exchange or as a proprietor of firms trading there, I do make the comment that he evidently has been so overwrought about the allegations made that he is taking legal action.

Furthermore, I note that he appears to have suitable credentials to at least have justified the belief that he could capably perform the duties for which he was purporting to raise money. So I thought it was important to get those comments on the record, Madam Chairman.

[5:15]

Some of the other firms mentioned in specific terms are the subject of ongoing investigations, and upon discussing the matter with counsel and with staff, I really can't make any further comment, other than the fact that they're under review, as the hon. member knows full well. I take some comfort from the fact that the court system will deal with some of what I believe to be abuses during comments made in this House and in the corridors outside.

MR. SIHOTA: Madam Chairman, it's interesting to know that the minister was finally able to do some research overnight and get access to some information that he ought to have known about all along, with respect to the numbers that he cited. I could have cited those numbers to him last night, as well as some of the ones he chose not to cite.

The one in particular that triggered the question was my question to him as to how many directors had their trading privileges lifted, and the minister still hasn't answered the question. The answer to that question — much like the other questions I asked — was zero. We'll get back to the significance of those statistics in a minute.

I want to talk about a very important principle in my mind, which I want the minister and the House to understand. I will not make a comment in this House that I can't make outside. In other words, I only make it inside here if I can make it outside. I'm telling the minister that in light of hi's comments with respect to Technigen, because if the minister had bothered to take one extra step, make one further inquiry, make just one further investigation, he would have realized very quickly — in fact if he just looked at this morning's Globe and Mail — that statements attributed to me were indeed not made by me. It was indeed acknowledged by the reporter and the publication that they were not made by me. That puts an end, in my mind — and clearly pursuant to my discussion with solicitors for Technigen — to the matter of a legal suit.

Technigen still has its options open, but believe you me, the one statement that was attributed to me — on the record and in this House — was not made by me. That has been confirmed now, if one takes a look at what appeared in the Globe and Mail this morning. I will again confirm the fact that one of the companies Mr. Nesis had an interest in was delisted from the Vancouver Stock Exchange in 1985. This gentleman seems to have some difficulty accepting that, but I'll make that statement both inside and outside the House. There are documents to prove it. I'll make the allegation again, just for the comfort of the minister. I'll make the same allegation that I made the other day, because we have nothing to hide. It's all in documentation, Mr. Minister. So don't rely on that press release, because it's somewhat dated. Just rely on the information that appeared this morning, and consult just one bit, and ask just one question, and you'll realize very quickly that.... I've said it before and I'll say it again: I won't make a statement inside this House that I can't make outside. That was clearly what happened with Technigen, and it's through no fault of my own....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: To this date, there has been no action commenced.

The other point is that I'm well aware of the background of this individual, as the superintendent of brokers and the Vancouver Stock Exchange ought to be. I'm well aware of his background. There were no comments made by this individual with respect to any linkages with a criminal record with respect to that individual. I'm well aware that he was a rabbi. I'm well aware of the fact that he was honoured by Judy LaMarsh as one of the more significant Canadians during 1967. I'm also well aware of the operations of the company.

Perhaps the minister could explain to me why the Vancouver Stock Exchange refused in that case to reveal to the public that one of the companies involved in the distribution was a Swiss company with linkages to a Panamanian corporation, which was run by an individual who has a criminal record going back from '62 to '85. That also is in the public record, because if I can get that information through public research, surely the VSE can. Surely the VSE must be asking itself some questions.

If the minister cares to read about press releases, perhaps he can take a little bit of time and ask himself what the difference was between the press release issued by that corporation on April 1, 1986, and the one issued on April 22. Perhaps he should be asking the VSE and the superintendent of brokers for an explanation of that case. When on April 14 they were told that certain information in that April 1 press release was not accurate, why did the VSE never investigate it?

The minister is not listening. The minister wasn't listening yesterday when I talked about Axiom. If he had listened he would have learned and realized very quickly what I said to him at that time, and I'm going back over my notes. There was an individual involved in that company as well as others, and I mentioned them: Altar Gold, Vault Explorations. We all know about that great King Solomon mine episode. The minister must know about that, because it's one of the more famous cases on the VSE. There was an individual charge of embezzlement involved in those companies. I didn't say that Axiom had been involved in any type of fraudulent activity, and I encourage the minister to go back and read the Blues — unless of course he prefers not to, prefers just to rely on innuendo.

[ Page 2172 ]

I want the minister to understand that there has not yet been an issue or a fact that I've raised in this House in relation to these companies which can't be backed up by documentation. I appreciate that there are indeed powerful interests out there with a vested interest in making sure that the type of criticism being levelled at the VSE by myself is not being articulated over and over again. The minister should also understand that it's not going to stop until we see some affirmative steps from this minister with respect to improving particularly the enforcement of operators on the VSE.

The minister said last night that the exchanges in New York and London have their problems, and therefore it's not surprising that the exchange in Vancouver has problems as well. We on this side of the House aren't arguing that the stock exchange should be error-proof; that we want a system that will make sure there's no problems. We appreciate that there will be problems. But the track record of the Vancouver Stock Exchange, whether the minister wants to admit it or not, is terrible. It's terrible because of the revolving door involving the people at the top dealing with the VSE, and it's terrible in the same way that the people from London and Hong Kong mentioned yesterday.

If the minister is interested in making sure that investment does not go to the junior exchange in Toronto, which I know he has a vested interest in, then he would take immediate steps to clean up the operations of the Vancouver Stock Exchange. It's all well and good for the minister to get up and walk from his seat if he doesn't want to hear the truth. The truth is that people in the investment community have some real concerns about the operations of the Vancouver Stock Exchange, and it ought to be incumbent upon the Minister of Finance, who has a full plate in any event — and it's somewhat strange that he has inherited this portion in his portfolio — to begin to clean up that image.

I appreciate that it takes some time to hire appropriate enforcement personnel, and I don't deny that. But the minister and I had that discussion six weeks ago, and I'd like to know what steps have been taken in the intervening period to hire additional staff. How many people have been hired in that time period? It would be interesting for those of us on this side of the House to begin to hear a reply to that.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: If the member over there wants to get into a debate on the Vancouver Stock Exchange, I'm more than happy to get involved with him on matters of the exchange. I haven't heard that member speak once on the Vancouver Stock Exchange, and it would be interesting to see what he's got to say with respect to enforcement provisions on the exchange. I'm glad to sit down and hear what he has to say.

MR. REE: I listened to the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew and his comments with respect to the Vancouver Stock Exchange. I doubt if that member has ever purchased a share certificate in his life or knows how it trades on the Vancouver Stock Exchange. I doubt if that member, when he is criticizing the exchange with respect to other exchanges in this country, knows the difference between the Vancouver Stock Exchange and the others and the methods of trading and how primary shares can be traded on the Vancouver Stock Exchange as opposed to other stock exchanges.

That is one of the primary reasons the Vancouver Stock Exchange has the success it has. Never in the history of the exchange or in our B.C. securities industry has there been a stock promotion that could be found as a result of disclosures in documents filed with the Securities Commission or the Vancouver Stock Exchange. Any stock promotion is done other than through the disclosure documents. It would be impossible for the Securities Commission to discover it, and the same with the Vancouver Stock Exchange.

The idealism of the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew thinks that you can pick individuals out of a cloud and say,"He's a good guy; he's a bad guy," and so on. It's not that easy in the stock business, in the securities business.

The Vancouver Stock Exchange and the B.C. Securities Commission do one tremendous job in the enforcement of regulations and trading and what not in this province. Until that member has any experience in the market.... I know where I'm talking from, Mr. Member, because I spent six years as the staff solicitor of the Vancouver Stock Exchange, and I know the difference between it and others. I was interested in having the Vancouver Stock Exchange have a good record, and it did during those years. Mr. Member, until you get that kind of experience, you're not qualified to even talk about the Vancouver Stock Exchange.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Would the members please remember to address their comments to the Chair and not to one another?

MR. REE: My apologies, Madam Chairman.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: It's all too easy for cheap shots to be shot from the hip by publicity seekers for the purpose of personal aggrandizement, but I think the fact of the matter is that we've not heard any comments from the other side dealing with wrongdoing before investigations have been undertaken, either by the VSE themselves or by the Securities Commission.

All that he's talking about is after the fact. He's talking at great length about his sources, and it's obvious that his sources aren't very good at predicting in advance where  there might be problems. But he seems to have some sort of pipeline, admittedly, to past history. In all of the cases mentioned here, the stock exchange and the Securities Commission are themselves actively pursuing investigations.

I challenge the member to provide evidence of proof before the fact to this House, to see whether we will deal with them responsibly; and I challenge the member to provide proof of any favouritism that might have been extended to any players on the Vancouver Stock Exchange that has not been dealt with responsibly by either the Vancouver Stock Exchange or the Securities Commission. If you cannot provide the substantiation outside, where you have to be accountable, then I challenge you to provide it inside, where maybe you can slip and slide around some of these statements you make.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, I'll take the minister head on on that. It's unfortunate, because I didn't realize this debate was going to be going on when I left here at 5:15; otherwise I would have brought in my stack of files. If the minister wants that, we'll go through my stack of files — that's why they've been sitting on the end of my desk for the last two days of this debate — and I will bring to your attention, Mr. Minister, cases of concern to me right now that are not being investigated. I'd be more than happy to do that. The minister said yesterday he didn't want to get into specifics, but if he does

[ Page 2173 ]

—  it's too bad we're running out of time; as I understand it we're supposed to adjourn at 5:30 — I'm quite prepared to go downstairs and pull out my files, and we can do it, Mr. Minister.

It also seems to me that this minister ought to be on top of activities on the Vancouver Stock Exchange. His people — all the staff he's got in the superintendent of brokers' office, all the enforcement people — ought to be on top of various stocks as well. Has he asked the same question to his staff? Can they pinpoint cases that they've got concerns about right now? And will they name names? Will they do that?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Don't be absurd. This fellow claims to be a solicitor. He should know better than anybody that anything under an active examination certainly isn’t going to be lauded in front of the press gallery and the world, prior to any actions being taken by the investigative authority. My goodness! You would at least know that much, if you weren't so interested in grandstanding and trying to make a point and a reputation for yourself, rather than dealing with facts. It might have a little more credibility, when you make these kinds of absurd statements in the House.

You provide any evidence that there has been any favouritism extended to anybody as a consequence of friendships or affiliations with organizations, and then watch and see if we react to it, and then make your judgments about our ability and our seriousness in terms of monitoring that exchange. But until you do, Mr. Member, you must at least have the dignity and the decency to admit that what you're dealing with, in all instances you've mentioned, are instances that are presently under investigation or that have been under investigation and the matters closed. The reason they would have been closed, Madam Chairman, is because there was not sufficient evidence in a legal sense to proceed further, As I say, I understand that this member has been admitted to the bar, and one would expect that he would know that.

[5:30]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As they say in labour circles, probably an interim cooling-off period would be appropriate. Therefore I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I have two motions this evening. First, I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until Monday next at 2 p.m.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I hope we all have a nice cooling-off period. Mr. Speaker, I move the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:31 p.m.