[ Page 3201 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Abortion. Mrs. Boone –– 3201

Mr. Cashore

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Harcourt

Mr. Rose

Mr. Clark

Family Maintenance Enforcement Act (Bill 71). Second reading

Mr. Sihota –– 3203

Ms. Marzari –– 3211

Mr. Cashore –– 3212

Mr. Barnes –– 3215

Hon. B.R. Smith –– 3217

Guaranteed Available Income for Need Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 72). Second reading

Mr. Cashore –– 3218

Point of Privilege

Coquihalla Highway cost overruns. Mr. Speaker's ruling –– 3218

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Mr. Rose

Guaranteed Available Income for Need Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 72). Second reading

Mr. Cashore –– 3222

TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 1988

The House met at 2:13 p.m.

HON. MR. VEITCH: In the gallery this afternoon there were to be approximately 30 Japanese students, accompanied by Riva Nelson, who is the teacher from a Japanese language school in Burnaby; however, there is only one Japanese student — I understand that Miniature World won out over the Legislature, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the House if you would bid this person welcome.

HON. MR. ROGERS: My executive assistant has a brother and a sister, and the sister is here today with her family. Would the House please welcome Jill and Ken Byron from Saltspring Island and their children Nicola, Josh, Justin, Chelsea, Regan, and also Joe, who, I'm afraid, is a little small and is in my office listening to this on the squawk-box. Also here is her brother, who is the editor of the Gulf Islands Driftwood, Mr. Tony Richards, and a Rotary exchange student from Belgium, Veronique Bazaar. Would the House please make them all welcome.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like the House to join me in making welcome His Worship Mayor Bose from Surrey and his special assistant, Ms. Sue Hammell.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce today a great British Columbian. Mr. Jack Bell has been a very successful businessman. He's now putting some money back into the community for the less fortunate. He's truly a philanthropist, a friend of the hospitals and of low-cost housing. He has spent many dollars in that area. I would like to introduce Mr. Jack Bell.

[2:15]

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to have the members of the Legislature join me in greeting four of our legislative interns, seated back behind here, who are working with the New Democrat caucus for a while: Kelly Hoey, Ben Koning, Russ Brown and Deirdre Wilson, who have now gone through the initiation process. They are now full legislative interns instead of rookies. Would you welcome them.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We have a birthday in the House today, March 1. If March 1 is your birthday, the current cycle highlights popularity, movement, travel, sensitivity and items concerning wardrobe, appearance, weight, body image, and so on and so forth. A major domestic adjustment takes place this month, which in this member's case may not be all that welcome, but could include actual change of residence or marital status. And with that said, would the House join with me in wishing a very happy birthday to the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser).

MR. GUNO: I'd like the House to join me in welcoming a visitor from Atlin — New Aiyansh, to be precise — Mr. Brian Domney, who is the principal of the fine Nishga Elementary Secondary School. Will the House bid him welcome.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I would like to add my welcome to Mayor Bob Bose from Surrey, and also to ask the House to extend a very warm welcome to Alderman Carole Kerr who is also in the gallery. Carole is an alderman in Surrey as well.

HON. MR. REID: Not to be outdone by my other two colleagues representing Surrey, I also make a special welcome, because of the very high tourist nature of the municipality of Surrey, to His Worship the Mayor, and to the hardest-working heritage alderman in the province, Carole Kerr.

Oral Questions

ABORTION

MRS. BOONE: A question to the Premier: yesterday the Premier confirmed that abortions are readily available in our province for those prepared to pay. I quote: "The policy of the government is with respect to the payment of abortions." Will the Premier confirm that the present government abortion policy is based on a user-pay system?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The policy is, I repeat, that we only pay for abortions in life-threatening situations.

MRS. BOONE: A supplementary. Will the Premier not agree that under this policy those willing and able to pay will be able to avail themselves of the services of public hospitals, but those without sufficient funds will be denied them?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't know whether I can confirm anything other than what I think must be obvious: yes, it might be easier for some than for others to obtain them if in fact money is the question.

MRS. BOONE: A supplementary then. Clearly, one kind of health service is available to the affluent and another to the indigent, and yet yesterday the Premier denied that there was a two-tiered health care system in B.C. How can the Premier reconcile his statement of yesterday with the facts as he stated them today?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of health services or health-related services that are not covered through MSP.

MR. CASHORE: My question is to the Premier.

Yesterday the Minister of Social Services (Hon. Mr. Richmond) told this House that the superintendent of child welfare will continue to authorize abortions for children in care. Does the Premier agree with the Minister of Social Services?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I have never disagreed with the Minister of Social Services. He's a wonderful minister.

MR. CASHORE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Given that the Premier accepts that policy, can the Premier inform the House how these abortions for children in care are to be paid for?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That will be a decision for the parent, in this particular instance the superintendent of welfare.

[ Page 3202 ]

MR. CASHORE: A supplementary to the Premier. When a child in care has an abortion in a hospital in this province, who will pay for that abortion?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That will be a decision for the superintendent of child welfare.

MR. CASHORE: A supplementary. There is a grave situation of confusion in this province; where children are involved, the tragic consequences deepen. Does the Premier not agree that the superintendent of child welfare is in an impossible position?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, I do not agree, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, just on that matter, the Premier says, in reference to the second-to-last question asked by my friend, the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam, that the decision is the decision of the superintendent of child welfare. Will the superintendent of child welfare be using taxpayers' funds to pay for those abortions? Yes or no.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I really can't tell what source might be obtained by the superintendent of child welfare. If the superintendent of child welfare deems a particular service necessary for a child in care.... I can't answer that. The superintendent of child welfare works independently of government.

MR. SIHOTA: Supplementary to the Premier. Is it the Premier's position that the superintendent of child welfare will be using his own personal funds for the provision of these abortions?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It doesn't matter what the Premier's position is. That will be for the superintendent of child welfare.

MR. SIHOTA: Again to the Premier, is it not clear then that the only source of funds available to the superintendent of child welfare with respect to abortions procured — which you have already agreed he has an obligation to do and will be allowed to do — is taxpayers' funds?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: First of all, I didn't say that there was an obligation for the superintendent of child welfare to procure or seek an abortion for a child in care. That's a decision for the superintendent of child welfare, and that's not the only source of funds. The hon. member himself said that the superintendent might wish to dig into his own pocket. I don't see that happening, but I suppose there are any number of options. That will be up to the superintendent of child welfare.

MR. SIHOTA: Let me put it to the Premier that it's going to come from either his own pocket, which it ought not to, or from the pocket of the taxpayer. It's that simple.

Maybe we'll try it from a different angle to the Premier — on the same issue. Inmates of correctional facilities who are pregnant or who become pregnant are, by virtue of the provisions of the Correction Act and the Health Act, provided with abortions. Will the authorities in the corrections branch be allowed to fulfil their independent and lawful roles to provide and pay for those abortions? Or will they be required to be puppets of government policy?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'll defer the question to the Attorney-General.

HON. B.R. SMITH: It's happened in one case already, and the abortion was performed. The Corrections authorities took the inmate to a hospital and the abortion was performed in that hospital, and the hospital took care of the abortion with its own discretionary funds.

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the Attorney-General then. Were not taxpayers' funds used for the provision of those abortions?

HON. B.R. SMITH: They may well have been foundation or fund-raising funds for all I know. I don't know which they were. The fact is that in the correctional case of someone in care, in custody of the state, when a doctor said that that medical service should take place, the authorities took that inmate to a hospital and it was performed in a public hospital. So your fears are groundless in that case.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, both the Premier and the Attomey-General and his cohorts on that side know full well that taxpayer funds are being used for the provision of abortions. They're being used for abortions for children in care, for those who are pregnant while they are inmates, and for rape and incest victims. Taxpayer funds subsidize abortions for the rich. Does the Premier not agree that his chaotic and confusing abortion policy is riddled with those inconsistencies?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, I don't agree.

MR. HARCOURT: Yesterday the Premier told this House: "We certainly don't dictate to people what it is they do with the moneys we provide them for welfare or such other assistance." Mr. Speaker, last week through order-in-council his government restricted British Columbians on social assistance from paying for an abortion. Is the policy of the government the one that was adopted by order-in-council last week, or is it that which the Premier articulated yesterday?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Either he hasn't read the order, or he's taken this from some misquote in one of the newspapers, perhaps. I can't tell where he got the information, but that's certainly not what it was.

MR. HARCOURT: I don't misquote Hansard and I don't misquote orders-in-council. The order-in-council has been read, and I'm asking the Premier the question again: is the policy of the government that adopted by the order-in-council last week, or what you said yesterday in the House, which is: "We certainly don't dictate to people what it is they do with the moneys we provide them for welfare or such other assistance"?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, I think in fairness, Mr. Speaker, I should give the Leader of the Opposition a chance to read the order-in-council again so perhaps he can understand it.

[ Page 3203 ]

MR. HARCOURT: It has been read, Mr. Speaker, and the Premier will not answer the question. I'll ask a supplementary, then, if he won't answer that question.

Yesterday the pregnancy of a mildly disabled 13-year-old girl whose mother is on social assistance was brought to the attention of the Premier. Will the Premier tell this House where the mother of this girl gets the money for an abortion?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, I will not. I can't do that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HARCOURT: This is frustrating, because basically what the Premier will not say is that he's saying to this mother and the daughter that she has to carry that pregnancy to term and put the baby up for adoption. Now what is that mother to do?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, I certainly hope that we don't have to institute a means by which we start telling people what they must or should do or how they should do it. These are decisions people make for themselves.

MR. HARCOURT: Well, we're getting two different answers, one for rich women and one for poor, and that's unfortunate.

Another question to the Premier. The B.C. hospitals association has publicly stated that B.C. hospitals must obey the law, and in particular they have stated yesterday that section 4 of the Hospital Act, which ensures that no British Columbian, regardless of ability to pay, will be refused hospital care.... I'd like to quote — because I have read the orders-in-council, I have listened to the Premier yesterday, and I have confirmed that in Hansard, the question he won't answer. I'd like to read section 4 of the Hospital Act. It says: "No hospital shall refuse to admit a person on account of his indigent circumstances." I can pass this over to the Premier if he'd like to read it.

[2:30]

Last week the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) told this House that he will punish any hospital which obeys the Hospital Act. The question I have to the Premier is: will he inform this House if he supports punishment for those hospitals which obey the law?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: There's no question of punishment here.

MR. ROSE: I have a question for the Premier as well. I've been listening to the debate for the last couple of days in question period. It seems that the indigent, according to the Health Act, are guaranteed therapeutic abortion services. Prison inmates in B.C. correctional institutes are guaranteed publicly funded abortion services. Wards on child welfare, according to the Premier, are also guaranteed those services if the superintendent agrees and recommends this. We know that in public hospitals affluent women are entitled to these services if they desire them and have the ability to pay. So I wonder if the Premier will confirm that only those who are the working poor or on welfare are to be denied therapeutic abortion services by this government.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, that sounds like a political NDP conclusion.

MR. CLARK: I have a question to the Premier along the lines of my colleague's. The Premier has said — and is quite proud of the fact — that his decision not to fund abortions under medicare is a moral one. Could he tell the House how it is moral for the government to pay for abortion services for wards of the state and for inmates, yet it is not moral for the government to provide abortion funding under medicare?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I think it should be clear to the hon. member that the superintendent of child welfare is the parent of these children and is apart, at arm's length, from government. Therefore we don't interfere with that process. We would have to amend legislation, and there is no intention of this at all.

MR. CLARK: The Premier, however, can make this point endlessly and not give us a straight answer. Perhaps the Premier can give us some rationale, some moral judgment that he has placed here, for why there is this inconsistency in public funds being used for abortions in certain circumstances but not being used in other very narrow circumstances. Given the fact that he feels so strongly about this issue, given the fact of the speech he made yesterday in this House — a very emotional one — on this question, how can he justify public funds in certain circumstances but not in others?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It is the decision of this government that it will not fund abortion on demand, but it's also the decision of the government that we're not to interfere with the superintendent of child welfare, who is apart from government.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 71.

FAMILY MAINTENANCE ENFORCEMENT ACT
(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: Is the member the designated speaker?

MR. SIHOTA: Yes. If I wasn't before this, I am now, I guess.

Before we adjourned for lunch and before that very interesting question period, where we heard all sorts of answers from the Premier, which still don't clarify the issue.... In any event, I'd better get on to dealing with the matter of the legislation before us. Before we broke for lunch, I was talking about the matter of women who are recipients of maintenance orders and the need to make sure that it's absolutely vital that a proper, consistent, efficient and effective mechanism is established in this province to allow for women to receive maintenance orders and funds that are directed to be paid pursuant to orders of court.

I was trying to point out, through my own experiences as a lawyer, the number of cases that I had to deal with as a storefront community lawyer in Esquimalt, all sorts of women who were out of pocket because a husband had defaulted on a $100 or $200 maintenance order, and the type of financial stress that that created in the household and, more importantly, the type of emotional stress that it brought upon the woman and the child.

[ Page 3204 ]

In addition to that, I was pointing out that there are all sorts of problems with the system we have in this province right now with respect to the enforcement of maintenance orders and the provision of funds to women and that the judicial system we have is not adequately designed to deal in an efficient way with the realities faced by women. These are women who need the money now, not two weeks from now, when the court docket will allow the matter to be heard; whose children need the funds today, not when the adjournment application is going to be heard because of an overcrowded court. We have to set up a system that reforms and remedies all the problems we have now in relation to enforcement of maintenance orders.

If I can simply go over some of the territory I covered prior to the break, to pick up from where I left off, I was saying that there are certain things we must demonstrate, fashion or carve out of legislation to remedy the problems of inadequate funds being secured through maintenance orders, that first of all there must be a system that is universal in its application so that the moment when the woman — we're generally dealing with women — secures the maintenance order, it is filed immediately with government authorities so that in the event of a conflict or a default of payment, it's the authorities who move to secure the payment. The onus then is upon the authorities and the delinquent spouse, not upon the recipient spouse.

Our system is contorted today, because it's the recipient spouse — the woman in most instances — who has to initiate the court action in order to secure payment from a delinquent husband. When you think about the barriers faced by women — the financial barrier of trying to pay for a lawyer when you know that it's a $100 or $200 maintenance order and you can't recover your fees, the barrier of knowing that your costs aren't going to be paid for, because you're dealing with a Provincial Court application or with a chambers application in County Court or Supreme Court....

In addition to that, there's the stress of going to court, and more importantly, the financial and emotional stress of not knowing whether the money is going to come in and having to rely on a judicial process in a province where legal-aid funding is not available to secure enforcement of maintenance orders. If you want to begin to change that system, which I say we must and which we are beginning to do in the legislation being debated in the House today, then you've got to ensure that the system is going to be universal in its application, so you don't have to come to the courts when you get that maintenance order, when the divorce order is filed or when a determination is made under the Family Relations Act — so that you can just have it filed immediately with the authorities, triggered, monitored and, in the event of default, acted upon.

Prior to the break, I was also pointing out that apart from the system being universal it must also be free. But being cognizant of costs.... It's very easy to say we've got to have a universal system, we've got to have a free system, and that's the way it should be set up. We also have to look at the cost end of it. As I was pointing out, the experience in other jurisdictions is that through a properly comprehensive, broad-based, provincewide, public-sector-driven system of collecting maintenance orders.... The experience in jurisdictions such as Manitoba has been that it is cost-effective; the money saved on the payment of welfare and social assistance benefits is greater than the money expended on maintaining the bureaucratic apparatus to run the system. I have the figures from Manitoba, if they are of interest to members of the Legislature. The cost of running the program was just under $600,000, and over $1,000,000 was saved in unnecessary welfare payments, for a net saving to the treasury of about $400,000. Certainly a similar program can be implemented in British Columbia.

As I was saying prior to the break, it must first of all be universal, it must second be free, and third, it must also limit association with spouses. One of the problems that we all see as practitioners in this field — as a lawyer and prior to that as a social worker — often the dropping off of the cheque at the house is an excuse for all sorts of other things and invites all sorts of unwarranted and unwanted conflicts. I don't think I have to get into the details, but usually they centre on matters of custody and access, what's going to happen when Christmas vacation is over and all that kind of stuff. Often this invites intervention of the courts or police. As counsel I have experienced the terror of women who have expressed to me their concerns about having a husband drop off some money. If you want to reform the system, there must be an intermediary, a depository which collects the money on behalf of the spouse and then transmits it to the recipient spouse so as to limit or evaporate the potential for conflict.

I was saying that the fourth attribute after the universality, the fact that it must be provided for free, and that it must limit association with spouses, is that it must also be a system which invites nominal legal involvement. I think that was the point that I left off on. You must have a system that does not lend itself to all sorts of opportunities for the delinquent spouse to abuse the rules. In other words....

HON. MR. VEITCH: What bill is this?

MR. SIHOTA: I fear that the Provincial Secretary is a little confused over which bill we are on. I guess he thinks we're still on Bill 28.

HON. MR. VEITCH: It's the same speech.

MR. SIHOTA: I'd like to think it was the same speech, but it's not. I wish the Provincial Secretary would listen; then he'd realize very quickly that it isn't the same speech. I'm sure the Provincial Secretary would take note of the fact that my delivery of this speech is a far cry from my delivery yesterday, with respect to that contemptuous piece of legislation known as Bill 28.

Be that as it may, I guess I have indirectly said that I have more confidence that the Attorney-General will take into account my meritorious comments with respect to this legislation than that the Provincial Secretary will agree to listen to what I had to say about Bill 28, making comments based upon my meritorious points.

[2:45]

In any event, the system must invite nominal legal involvement. In other words, you don't want a system that's going to lend itself to abuse by the delinquent spouse. You don't want a system where you can come in front of the courts and argue for another delay because you haven't got your financial statements ready, you don't have your T-4s with you; another adjournment because you have to see your doctor that day; and the poor woman is sitting there in the back of the courtroom wondering when she's going to get her money and be able to feed the kids. You've got to have a system which says that the buck stops here.

[ Page 3205 ]

Those are the points that I left with this morning. I want to move on to a whole series of additional points which I think are the attributes of a properly run and sensitive maintenance enforcement legislation. Then, of course, what I want to do is compare what we have before us in this House with those qualities that I'll be talking about this afternoon.

If you want to deal with the problems that arise, the system must be efficient. I think that's the other attribute that you're looking at. You've got to have a system that does not interrupt the cash flow. I want members of the House to picture themselves in the situation of a woman, because often that's the case — I don't want a stereotype but it's often the case — receiving, as I often saw, an income of about $1,100 a month, of which perhaps $200 or $300 comes in the form of maintenance payments. It's very tough for a woman with one child, for example, to raise a family on $1,100. It's a lot tougher on $800 or $900. And you never seem to know whether or not you're going to get that $200 or $300 maintenance cheque at the end of each month, particularly in cases where husbands have a record of falling into arrears.

So you get towards the end of the month or in that time period between pay cheques and you don't have the money, and you're waiting for that $200 or $300 cheque to come in. We've got to have a system in this province that limits the delay, that is efficient, that doesn't put the recipient spouse in the position of having to sit and wait, checking the mail every day to see whether or not the payment has come in; a system in which money can be attached or secured quickly, expeditiously, efficiently so as not to interrupt cash flow.

I have some strong opinions on this, in light of my own experiences. I see nothing wrong with the establishment of a provision to deduct the money at source; in other words, when the employer is making deductions from the husband's paycheque for income tax, pension, benefits and the same, a deduction for maintenance can also be made right then and there and transmitted by the employer to an authority. The authority then transmits the money to the wife. Better still, have the employer transmit it directly to the wife, although that does create some problems. It probably should just go straight to the authorities.

If you can set up a system that allows for the deduction of those moneys at source, I think you would solve a lot of the problems. In fact, we've seen in other jurisdictions that with the implementation of a properly funded universally accessible free system, as they have in Manitoba, the rate of delinquency changes. In the early eighties Manitoba had a system that was analogous to what is in place in this province today, and at that time about 15 to 25 percent of maintenance orders were being adhered to, much like this province today. Because of the implementation of a system which meets the attributes I'm talking about, their capture rate — those are my words — has gone up to about 85 percent.

So you can see, Mr. Speaker, that it's possible to implement a system that is efficient, cost-effective, universal, doesn't involve any type of legal involvement and allows for the capturing of about 85 percent of the maintenance orders that are issued. That's what we ought to be heading for in this province. It requires a sensitive, computerized program, and there are models. There's obviously a model in Manitoba; there's an outstanding model down in California, I believe in Sacramento, which through technology is able to monitor the movement of donor spouses to make sure that they pay their share of maintenance orders.

Another attribute which I think is important, I think because of my own personal, strong view — some will obviously take issue with my view that there ought to be deductions at source — is that there must be some provision for security, allowing for the spouse to put up some security to guarantee payment. If memory serves me correctly — and I want to flag this issue for the Attorney-General — I don't think the legislation that's before the House deals with the matter of security, or of putting into court an amount greater than that which is authorized under the court order. Other jurisdictions have ordered that there be security posted in instances of ongoing delinquency.

I think that's really important. Take again the instance of the woman who is waiting for that $200 or $300 maintenance cheque to drift in and the husband is delinquent and is not making the payment. If she knows there is held a security — $1,000, $1,500 or $500 or $2,000, or whatever is consistent with the ability-to-pay principle, which is determined at trial when the judge looks at the circumstances of each spouse.... I think there should be a provision for security, or an opportunity to be able to go to the courts and ask for the posting of security.

This would solve in part the problem of interruption of funds. It would solve in part the cash flow problem. If someone is delinquent, then you can rely on that reservoir of security to secure the payment. If they're not, then that security stays there, and perhaps it can be removed after a time defined. It's not a novel concept; it's not unique. Heck, we see it in situations involving even B.C. Hydro and B.C. Tel. B.C. Tel, if I understand their legislation correctly, will often say to people who have a record of delinquency on payments: "Look, you're going to have to give us an advance payment of $500 or $1,000 and we'll hold it. We'll put interest on it and we'll keep it there, and if you're good for a year we'll return it to you."

I see nothing wrong with the injection of that type of principle into maintenance legislation, which gives the court, the adjudicating authority, the opportunity, upon application, to require the posting of some type of security, leaving it up to the trier of fact, the court, to determine the quantum of that security. But it would deal with the question of interruption of cash flow. It would then allow for one to go after the delinquent spouse, at no expense to the recipient spouse in terms of interruption of cash flow. It would allow the authorities to haul the person in front of the court under this legislation and say,"Well, what's happening here? Why aren't you making the payments?", without causing financial stress, discomfort or irritation to the recipient spouse. I think that would be a positive move with respect to the laws relating to the enforcement of maintenance orders — a positive development.

There are going to be people who will object to it. There are going to be people who complain. But the purpose of this Legislature is to get tough on certain types of behaviour, and one type of behaviour that it ought not to be condoning is the delinquency usually of husbands but let's say delinquency of spouses who are not prepared to live up to their obligations under a court order of maintenance. That should be done. That provision should be provided, and that type of teeth, toughness, or whatever you want to call it, should be made available to those who are administering the legislation. Security ought to be a cornerstone of the legislation.

The next point I want to move on to in terms of the attributes is that the program must be well administered. It can't be run on a cavalier basis. It must be run with people

[ Page 3206 ]

who understand the system, who have a desire to make sure that it works.

I'm going to make these points in perhaps a little more depth later on, but to flag the issue at this stage, in my submission the program must be public-sector driven. I think that is the only way of ensuring that it's adequately administered. I don't think it makes any sense at all to have a system for the enforcement of maintenance orders which is administered by the private sector on a profit basis. Not this type of system; it just doesn't quite make sense, and we'll get to that in a minute.

It must also be — and I guess this is the next attribute that's important in my mind — accessible. It should be as easy for a woman living in Smithers or Atlin as it is for a woman in Victoria or Vancouver to have access to the system. It must be administered on a provincewide basis; it must be accessible to the user on a provincewide basis.

I don't think it's possible to set up an effective maintenance system based in Vancouver only. The person in need of assistance and in possession of a maintenance order must be able to get down to that system awfully quickly. My concern is that if you have a system that's based in Vancouver only, that's obviously not going to happen. It must be accessible.

Again, as I say, it means that it will involve a major expenditure of funds, but if we look at the Manitoba experience, which is administered on a provincewide basis and which runs, I believe, on a provincial court basis right across the province, and on a supreme and county court basis in Winnipeg, it can be done. It can be done with ease, but it must be accessible, so that when a woman in Smithers, for example, finds out that her husband has defaulted on a maintenance payment when there is no provision for security, it's a simple matter of getting down to the nearest government official who is responsible for this to get the thing handled.

I'm not saying that you've got to have a government official in every hamlet or village in British Columbia, but I'm saying that if that's one end of the spectrum, which is superior to the other end of the spectrum — one office in Vancouver — it has to be accessible on a reasonable level across the province.

[3:00]

In addition to the foregoing, in my submission, there must be a better system than we've got right now of tracking the incomes of husbands. To a large measure I think this legislation, through its administrative scheme, endeavours to achieve that, but too often I've seen the frustration of a wife seeking to enforce a maintenance order when a husband has received money under the table, knowing that he has all of these chattels and possessions that are not consistent with an income of $200 a month. He's got a car, a stereo and all sorts of other things. It's not consistent.

There must be a better system of tracking the income of husbands, which really involves, in part, cooperation at the federal level with the federal data banks on income tax, T-4s and just tracking down the system. One of the difficulties under the current system is that the onus is on the recipient spouse — in other words, the one who's not getting the money — to come in and demonstrate that the delinquent spouse has a better income than that which he is alleging.

That's fine in the case of a spouse who has a husband who is affluent and who is a bank manager or the head of a major corporation or a hockey player or whatever. It's a lot easier for her, because the quantum of her payment is sufficiently large to allow for a lawyer to look after that type of situation. But it's not easy for a woman who's dealing with a husband who's perhaps a labourer who goes from one construction job to another. In those types of situations, there has to be assistance available, and the onus ought not to be so heavily on her to demonstrate that his income is greater than that which he is suggesting. The balance, if there is one in this legislation, ought to be tilted in favour of the woman who is seeking to enforce the maintenance order. That's how it should operate.

The next attribute — as we try to draft legislation to deal with this issue — which I think is of paramount consideration is one that deals with the ability to vary maintenance orders. I will put this on the record: although I am sure it leaves me vulnerable for attack, it's my submission that the legislation ought to be open to variation, with a bias in favour of the spouse alleging a greater need for income.

I was saying earlier on this morning that my experience has been that maintenance payments are unrealistically low. In fact, I was reading a significant study on that whole point put out by the Manitoba Advisory Council on the Status of Women; it is a study that I would highly recommend. It's a study that just only recently came to my attention, and I don't know if it's ever been replicated in British Columbia. It looks at some of the court decisions.... In fact, it traced all of the court decisions on maintenance cases heard in the Manitoba courts between 1983 and 1984, and it allocated a percentage to each spouse after adjustment through maintenance awards — in other words, how much of the income was going to which spouse. It highlights the cases and it provides about eight or nine cases that it says are indicative of what's happening. In one case, 82 percent of the income was for the husband and 18 percent for the wife and two children after 19 years of marriage; in other case, 54 percent was for the husband and 46 percent for the wife and two children; in another case, 75 percent was for the husband and 25 percent for the wife after 27 years of marriage; in another case, 69 percent was for the husband and 31 percent for the wife and one child. These are cases that they've highlighted. I don't know if they represent the extreme or not.

What I'm getting at is that that in many ways does reflect my experience. I've certainly worked on both sides of the coin on this issue and I know the game. I think that there seems to be, as I said earlier today, a kind of inbred acceptance that households headed by females ought to have a standard of living that is lower than those units led by the husband, by a male. That's never reflected in any policy; it's never reflected in any statements of law. It's certainly not reflected in the provisions of the Family Relations Act, and it's not, from my own experience, a reflection of the biases of the courts or the judges. I certainly have done enough chambers work on this type of stuff in Victoria and Vancouver to know that the judges are very sensitive to these issues, and I think in many cases they should be commended for their approach. Yet the numbers I've just quoted reinforce the attitude which I've just articulated, and certainly this reflects my experience as well.

There must be a system of variation which is skewed in favour of the children and the recipient spouse. I don't think there necessarily has to be a material change in circumstances to warrant a variation in the maintenance order. In other words, I would be a little bit more liberal. It's my submission that there are simply too many husbands who are getting away with paying an inadequate amount of maintenance payments, which just causes all sorts of problems within their former family unit.

[ Page 3207 ]

Those are some of the attributes that I would consider as being important if one were to develop and draft legislation in this regard. Quickly just to review them: the system must be universal, it must be free, there must be nominal legal involvement, there must be limited association with spouses, the system must be efficient, it must be open to variation, there must be a provision for security, there must be a better system of tracking the income of husbands, it must be well administered, and it must be accessible.

I guess the other point is that I don't think that the system of maintenance ought to be linked to custody and access. I made that point earlier this morning. I think that maintenance, custody and access ought to be separate and distinct issues, reviewed in a separate and distinct fashion with separate and distinct considerations. Payment of maintenance ought not to be used as a lever to secure greater custodial or access rights on the part of the delinquent spouse.

The issue then, as I said, is how this legislation that's before the House matches up with those attributes that I've referred to. First of all, the system that's before the House today is not universal; it's by choice. We've had more than our share of debate in this chamber in the last week, particularly during question period and certainly yesterday in the statement the Leader of the Opposition made about choice.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

But this legislation is not universal. It does not automatically apply to all maintenance payments. It does undoubtedly give people the option of opting in, but it's not universal in its application, and I think it should be. I don't think that the recipient spouse should have to come to the system; I think the system should come to her — or him, as the case may be. I think the moment one of those orders is made, it ought to be filed. I think that to wait for there to be a default and a stressful situation is to invite at least one stressful situation that is not needed. I think it's presupposing that the people are going to be well informed about the system, will know how it works and will be able to get access to it right away. I don't think that's the case. I think they should be registered right off the bat. It's no problem if the spouse is making payments on a regular basis in any event; it's not really an administrative headache.

Secondly, I think that once a person is registered, that person should be given information on the system. If they're automatically registered, then it's very easy to send them information on the system, as opposed to the opposite, where they're not automatically registered, where they may not necessarily know about the system, where they only learn about the system once there's been a default. They get into this sort of exacerbated kind of stressful environment. They don't know what's going to happen, what they can do, who they go to, and then they learn about the system.

I think it ought to be a universal system. I think the information ought to be provided right then and there for the person. I don't think it's fair to assume that they'll know about the system. I don't think it's fair to assume that people often have legal sophistication. And I think, most importantly, a lot of people have a problem with bureaucracy. They may not have faith in the bureaucratic system, or more importantly, they just don't think it will work for them. So they don't utilize it. They're also worried about the implications of going there — the implication of going to a government authority to enforce a maintenance order, and what type of reaction that's going to invite from the spouse who pays, who's delinquent, when that spouse comes to pick up the kids; which is in many ways different from the situation when a delinquent spouse is acted upon automatically by way of an administrative scheme.

Often — and I'm telling you, this is the experience on the street — people are leery about going to a government authority, worried about the implications of doing that. Often they use that as a lever in their negotiations with the other spouse over custody and access, as a threat, saying: "Well, look, if you don't pay up. I'll go to the system." I don't think that's the way it should work. I think the system should be there to work immediately, forthwith, right from point one for the person. It's trying to set up a system which recognizes the human dimension of the problems.

You know, those problems are just as real, I found, for a woman who is in receipt of a large maintenance award as they are for a woman who is in receipt of a nominal maintenance award. But it makes more sense to have a system that just automatically clicks in. It's not a great expense to the state. Like I say, if the system works and the husband pays all of his maintenance orders, it's just a matter of a flick of a computer at the end of each month. If the system doesn't work, then there ought to be the apparatus that goes into play to protect that woman, as is often the case.

So why not make it universal? Why not just make the system work right off the bat? I think that there are all sorts of — and I can hear them already — esoteric, theoretical arguments as to why you want to give people the choice to opt into one of these programs. We could argue about those in academic terms in the confines of this Legislature. The reality of the experience that people meet when dealing with these types of matters is different. I think the reality of that experience invites a universal system. The legislation before us doesn't work that way. It encourages people to come to it. As much as that may not seem like a big deal for all of us in here, it is for a lot of people, and I just think we should automatically click it in. We already have staff in the courts who will go through the maintenance orders and sign them. It's a simple matter for them to be referred to the next person or for they themselves to punch the particulars into the computer. It doesn't take very long. Before you put the court stamp on it, just punch it into the computer, saying Mr. X will pay Y amount of dollars each month to Mrs. X, and the children get a different sum. It doesn't take a lot to put that in. Then it's tracked, and the bureaucracy works.

[3:15]

One of the arguments against that, I guess, would be to say that that invites, particularly in a private-sector-driven system, more work than we care to give them. But I just don't think that's good enough. That's the first problem with the system: it's not universal. I think it ought to be.

The second difficulty I have with the system is that it's not public sector driven. I gather that from statements accompanying the legislation, both from the Minister of Social Services (Hon. Mr. Richmond) and the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith), and, I think, some of the comments made after that — I won't bother looking for them — that it's not going to be a public-sector-driven program. I think there are a lot of problems with not having a public-sector-driven program, and I want to go through each one of them that I can identify.

First of all, there's a matter of information. By the way, I should say, before I go any further, that I understand the

[ Page 3208 ]

director of the program is a public servant, if I correctly understood the Attorney-General's comments this morning. It's not public sector driven, and that raises all sorts of problems. The first problem obviously is one of access to information. Under the system as envisioned here in the legislation before this House, the individuals who will be given the task of administering the program will have access to all sorts of information about the delinquent spouse.

Now think about that for a moment. A private group or private company, not responsible in typical civil servant fashion to the dictates of a minister, will have access to federal data banks, income tax information, social insurance information, unemployment insurance information, provincial data banks, pension information at the provincial level and wage rates at the provincial level, particularly for provincial government employees and others who work within the public sector. That's an enormous volume of information. There's a recognition on the part of all of us in this Legislature that there must be a way to sort of hold on to that information and not allow it to fall into the hands of third parties. It's a lot easier to control that in the public sector mechanism than it is in the private sector mechanism.

We know it's tough enough in the public sector. We just witnessed this week the discovery of all sorts of files in Ontario — Queen's Park — that related to the backgrounds of alleged sexual abusers. That information was left outside an elevator, as I understand it, in the Legislature in Ontario, and sat there until picked up by some fortunate researcher for the opposition party, who was able to make all sorts of headlines with it. I just regret it wasn't a New Democrat. In any event, all that information that was picked up could have been used in a very detrimental way against the individual.

What safeguards do we have if that information is going to be made available to private sector companies? It seems to me that that information is best left in the hands of public sector civil servants. It just makes far more sense to try to put limits on that information. But once it's in the hands of the private sector, I think the potential for abuse or loss of that information is greater.

If you think about it, I'm sure there are all sorts of private sector companies that would love to be able to have information as to the earnings of every husband whose wife is seeking maintenance orders — for marketing reasons.... There are all sorts of things that would be useful for, and we've seen that used in that fashion. That's one reason.

The second reason that we should have a public-sector-driven system is accessibility to the recipient. That's far more important, in my view. I don't know what mechanism the ministry intends to set up to administer the system, so I'm speaking a little bit here only on the basis of information that has been provided me by my researchers; and if it's incorrect, I'm sure the Attorney-General will correct it.

I understand that it's not going to be a provincewide system, that it's going to be administered essentially through a central office, probably in the lower mainland or on southern Vancouver Island. I have no problems with just the computer facility being located there and everyone else having access into the data base. But I have a lot of problems if accessibility to the system is such that you have to trigger activity in the Vancouver or Victoria area in order to have the apparatus of enforcement come into play. You're going to have a lot of problems with that. Or if it has to be filed down here, and then it's somebody else, an agent up in Smithers or someplace like that, who does the work? It's got to be a provincewide system.

As I understand the tendering process, the tendering process does not limit it to being set up in just one comer of the province. I think that's a mistake. Under the circumstances, that could in fact be the ultimate mistake in the program that the government is envisioning to set up here. Accessibility is important, particularly if you're not going to have a universal system. If you're going to have a system which says to people that they have to opt in, and if the system is going to be effectively administered from one corner of the province, then you're just creating another barrier in terms of them being able to have access to the system.

If the system is profit-driven, I can see exactly why one would want to have it all based in one place: you limit your overhead; you put all your apparatus in place there; you have agents who work up in the interior, for example, if there has to be enforcement of an order or a notice of attachment filed. But it doesn't make sense for the person we're supposedly trying to help under this system — the woman in most cases. So I think accessibility has to be on a provincewide basis, and the best way to ensure that is through a public-sector-driven program, not through a private-sector-driven program.

Because I don't get a chance to speak again on this matter later on, I'm looking forward to hearing from the Attorney-General his reasons as to why he believes it is advantageous and in the interests of the woman seeking the maintenance order to have the system run on a private sector basis. And what studies, what preliminary work, has the ministry done to date to demonstrate that it would be cheaper to the taxpayer to have the system through the private sector as opposed to the public sector? Another question that I would put to the Attorney-General is: what flexibility does it wish to ascribe to those wishing to enforce the order? I notice there's a provision in there which, as I read it, allows for social workers and lawyers to be hired to administer the program, but not necessarily to be paid for or to live up to some of their other professional responsibilities. What about that issue? Is it that we're looking simply to save dollars, and how do we know that by the saving of those dollars we'll run a system that's still cheaper than public-sector-driven programs?

The other reason I think it ought to remain within the public sector is that the whole system ought to be integrated. There must be some form of integration between what is necessary to further the provisions of the act: i.e., attachment and garnishment orders, filing against land, registering in various registries to assert the priority of the maintenance order. Apart from all of that, if somebody comes in who requires assistance under this legislation, they ought to have access to all sorts of other government services, like debt counselling, family planning, family counselling, that kind of stuff. Surely the private sector is not going to see it as part of its mandate to do that, but the public sector will.

The public sector will very definitely see that it's part of its mandate to try to refer a woman, for example, or a man with a couple of kids, who is having trouble managing their finances adequately, balancing the books, staying away from Kraft dinners. If someone is having difficulty doing that, then the thing to do is to refer them to someone who has got some skills in terms of budget planning. On the other side of the coin, if a spouse has been delinquent in payments and it's evident that the delinquency is a function, as often happens, of poor management, of large VISA accounts and large expense accounts and an onerous debt obligation for a car,

[ Page 3209 ]

and that kind of stuff, in order to skew the debt load so as to justify the payment of a nominal amount of maintenance.... In that instance, though, there would be debt counselling available to the person. And that happens. I've seen more than my share of cases of men who say that they are unable to make a maintenance payment to a woman but are, on the other hand, paying off their car over two years instead of four. That happens. It's partially a misreading of priorities, it's partially a matter of selfishness and it's partially a way to pay less in terms of maintenance.

[3:30]

I've already talked about the end of recipient and family counselling or budget counselling, but on the other side of the coin, when the public official notices that there is a debt-load problem with....

I notice that the three characters in the back of the room there are having a lot of fun listening to this. I just want to get in on the joke later, especially with the newest member of the bar, the member from Langley, who has all of these great legal skills that I had no knowledge of until a couple of days ago when he did a runaround on me, quoting a famous case — now famous in my mind, at least. And I must say that I've got one to get even with him on.

In any event, the debt counselling. It happens, when a spouse comes in and they've got a huge debt load and they use that as the reason why they can't make a maintenance order. It's not going to be in the interests of the private sector agent to waste time, when time is money, and do some debt counselling with this person, but it would be in the case of the public sector agent. It's a pretty compelling reason why, in my view, it ought to be public-sector-driven, because the nature of the obligation is not on the mean-spirited profit motive; it's on the basis of help. And I think help is needed in these types of instance. So from a debt counselling point of view, it would make a lot more sense to have the availability of counselling than to have it within the public sector domain.

There would be reference to other forms of counselling. Like I said, family planning is often an issue. To what extent will a private sector individual counselling under this program give advice to a husband who wishes to remarry on the implications of the budget as it relates to the new family and the old family? I don't think there's much of an obligation on the part of the private sector individual. There would be in terms of the public sector individual. If we were to believe all those crazy things the Premier has been saying lately about family planning and that kind of stuff — financial planning — it seems to me that they would be prepared to do this as well.

So I think that those are some of the reasons why, in my submission, there must be a public-sector-driven program in this instance.

The third problem that I see with this legislation is that it lacks security provisions. I've already talked about that and I won't go on in any further depth, but I really think there ought to be a provision for security here.

The fourth issue that is of concern to me — and where I think this legislation somewhat fails — is that in some instances it involves the courts too much in the process. There are some sections that we should take a look at. I'll make some further comments when we get to clause-by-clause reading, because I know that what I'm saying here now sort of impinges upon the clause-by-clause debate.

Section 14 is one that, when it deals with the failure to provide a statement of finances, is too lengthy in terms of the times that it provides. I think there's a 30-day provision in there which I think is just too long for a spouse to wait. A debtor should be forced to provide financial statements forthwith.

There's no reason why someone cannot provide financial statements quickly. It's not that difficult to come up with an income and expenses sheet. It's not that difficult to come up with a T-4. It's not that difficult to come up with your income tax statements for the last three years, or even for last year. It's not that difficult to tell people what your rent, hydro and electricity rates are for the month. It's not that difficult to try to come up with that information.

In my view, it's inexcusable that someone would be coming to court, fully informed and knowledgeable about the fact that the application to be heard by the court is an application for the payment of maintenance, and not have in his or her possession a financial statement providing particulars of income and expenses. If they don't, I don't think that we should be giving them a lot of time to come back with one. Section 14(3) talks about 30 days.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Sorry, it talks about a term of imprisonment not exceeding 30 days, so we got it a little wrong on that. But it seems to me that if someone has failed to provide a statement of finances. he must be back in front of the trier of fact within hours — I don't think you can put that in legislation; within a day or two — with that statement of finances. If they can't put it in there, then there should be some fairly heavy consequences.

Those consequences are provided for in the bill, but I think the time-frame should be shortened, because I just think there is nothing worse, from my experience.... Well, not nothing worse, but it certainly is often used as a delaying technique: "I don't have my financial statements." Well, darn it, you know what you're coming for; you should have them prepared.

I've seen people skirt their financial responsibilities; I've seen the stress that builds up in those who are seeking some type of funding. And this is at the front end of the system, where we haven't even got an order. There must be less court involvement in that section and a greater responsibility on the person, far more toughness in terms of providing financial statements.

By the way, I was going to deal with section 16, but before I do I noticed that here in section 15, with respect to the notice of attachment.... I think that's a good portion of the legislation. I think that should be applauded. Whoever drafted that.... I read through that, and I felt that it was well written. I thought it was sensitive to the realities of the situation.

We've got to get away from this crazy system that we have in this province — or that we used to have in this province, I guess, depending on what happens to this legislation — with respect to garnishment orders. You have to get them signed in the right spot, and if you don't have the initials in the right spot and you don't have the right paragraph crossed out in the right fashion, it's going to be tossed out on a technicality. Let me tell you, in my experience I never even liked witnessing garnishment statements because in the back of my mind I always thought I must be doing something wrong. The law on garnishment orders was becoming so convoluted and technical by the people who argued it that if all the i's weren't

[ Page 3210 ]

dotted and the t's weren't crossed twice, the garnishment order was null and void.

I think the concept of the notice of attachment is a good one. It's a very healthy one.

I just have some concerns about the next section, which talks about the termination of the attachment if the debtor enters into a voluntary payment arrangement that is satisfactory to the director. Maybe I'm reflecting my own strong personal biases on this again. I can understand why that provision was put into section 16(7). I see nothing wrong with hanging on to that notice as a lever that's operating in the back of the mind.

I guess maybe my attitude towards absconding debtors is to treat them a little bit like criminals in this instance. That's probably surprising coming from someone of my political persuasion, but I just think that we should be very tough with those people. If they enter into a voluntary payment arrangement, I don't think the notice should simply be terminated. It can be suspended, but in the event of a delinquency, particularly shortly thereafter, I don't think you should have to go back through the process. We've got the thing there and it's drafted; let's get on with it and secure the money.

What I'm saying is controversial, because I realize the counter argument to that as well. But I think that the overriding principle here has got to be not to interrupt the cash flow or the money that the woman is to receive.

Section 17(6) also causes me some difficulty, because I think it ties up the situation a little bit too much in court. I'm wary about being ruled out of order because I'm going through a couple of sections here, but I think that section we ought to take another look at. The whole section 17, and particularly 17(6), just involves too much. The whole section is, in my view, convoluted with opportunities for people like myself, when they want to, to expand out the system and to make the system a little bit more inefficient than is intended.

There are other provisions of the legislation which I'll have to applaud. I think that section 20, particularly section 20(1)(d), is again well written and deals with a situation that ought to be prevented. But we'll leave that stuff for debate.

I want to summarize my comments at this stage. I appreciate the indulgence.... I see some of the members opposite are delighted to know I'll be wrapping up here in a minute.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's that island air.

MR. SIHOTA: The government House Leader thinks it's that island air that encourages us to be so lengthy in our comments. Particularly for those members who come from the north, we're doing you a favour by having you come down here to enjoy the climate and see Victoria and smell the daffodils, and all that kind of stuff. I'm sure you would love to be here more often in the course of the year than up there in the cold climate of the frigid north in Prince George; but if not, I guess I'm wrong.

Anyhow, I am summarizing here. The legislation on the whole is good. I'm not going to take issue with a lot of the provisions within the legislation. As I say, the security provision I think we should take a look at. The legislation on the whole is good. It's reasonably well thought out, and I think we should give it an opportunity. I think we should allow it to be played out, to see how it works. If flaws come up through it, I think we can amend it and improve it. But as a legislative instrument, the act that's before us is good. I'm not going to go out of way to criticize it. It reminds me a bit of the debate we had on the Expropriation Act.

However, although the legislation is a Cadillac, it's got a Volkswagen engine in that the administrative scheme, the private-sector-driven engine of the apparatus, is wrong. I don't think this type of administrative scheme can be best driven by the private sector. There are other types that can, there's no doubt about it. But there are no models that are private-sector-driven that prove to be any better than the public-sector-driven model that we see in Manitoba. It's not my desire to add unnecessarily to the public sector, but in cases where it makes sense — and I think it does in this one — we ought to.

It's good legislation, with the flaw being in its administration and its application in that regard. That's where the government should be focusing in on in terms of changes. I'm convinced, quite frankly, that we can clean up some of the provisions that I talked about that are inadequate — the various sections and the security provision. I'm positive we can clean that up. But in terms of the....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Sorry, I didn't quite catch that, but I'm wrapping up here and I'm sure you don't want to hear any more from me — especially in Kelowna.

It's good legislation. The administration of it I think is going to be weak if it's private-sector-driven. That's the source of the debate and the source of the concern. I'm positive that we can clean up the provisions that I pointed to that caused me some concern and make them tougher. But I don't think the government is correct in moving it on a private sector basis.

I want to end by saying this. There is a legal and judicial affairs committee of the House, and that committee is empowered to look after these types of matters. There is also another committee that deals with social services. That committee is also empowered to look at this kind of stuff.

This legislation ought not to be legislation where there is a major political difference, a major political fight over. This is not the type of legislation that is like Bill 19 or Bill 28, the Election Act; it's administrative legislation. It's legislation that all of us have a keen desire to make sure works, because all of us have a heartfelt sensitivity to those caught in the cracks and forced to seek assistance from government, or refuge, or assistance for families, because of inadequate income.

[3:45]

We're all interested in improving the supply and flow of income, particularly to the women who are affected. It seems to me it makes a lot of sense that this legislation, in order to iron out some of the wrinkles and, secondly and more importantly, to adequately investigate and deal with the matter as to public-sector or private-sector-driven, which is the better model.... There should be more thought put into that.

Let's take a look and if a case can be made that it should be private-sector-driven, fine. But let's take a look at the arguments on both sides of the coin and then come up with the best engine, public or private sector, to drive this legislation. Let's not just make a decision on the basis of ideology, which appears to have happened here.

In order to research that data and in order to arrive at a well-founded decision on the matter of the engine that's going to drive this legislation, public or private sector, the best

[ Page 3211 ]

approach really would be to refer it to one of those two committees on that issue. We're doing it on all sorts of other matters, and I'm on two committees.

We're looking at builders' liens, of all things, at the judicial affairs committee, and there is no NDP policy or Socred policy on builders' liens. We know there is a problem there and we've got to clean it up in terms of good administrative, tough, sensitive legislation. The same attitude ought to apply in this instance as well.

It's my view that the matter ought to go to that committee, not for months but.... You know, this has been an exposure bill. We've sat through it during Christmas. There is a need, and I think it is a pressing need, to proceed with the legislation, but not so pressing as to deter the ability of a committee to assess whether or not it should be publicly or privately driven, within reasonable time parameters.

In fact, given the consequences if you make the wrong decision, which you are in this case in terms of private sector, the legislation will fail. If it fails, then it really is a disservice to those who are relying on this piece of legislation. I think that issue should be referred to the committee for some study so we can see what the models are elsewhere, so we can see what the advantages and disadvantages are elsewhere and so we can come with some type of consensual report back to this House in terms of whether it should be public-sector or private-sector-driven.

That decision should be based on fact, on merit and not on ideology on either side of the fence. So if there is another suggestion I would like to make, it is simply that: to take advantage of the provisions of those committees to look into the matter.

I want to thank the Provincial Secretary, most importantly, for his indulgence in hearing me out and his keen interest in this topic, his desire to be in the House when this matter is being debated, his willingness to help out, as much as I am, the women in his riding and the spouses in his riding who are in need of assistance — and, of course, the Attorney-General, which goes without saying.

I know that it's been a particularly difficult task for the Provincial Secretary to sit here and listen to all this. I want to thank the members for their indulgence, and I look forward to debate in this House later on. I should remind the Provincial Secretary that he should not be premature in his response, however. Let's get on with the job of improving what is essentially a good piece of legislation. Thank you very much.

MS. MARZARI: I see Bill 71 as basically a women's bill. It's a bill which has been written and developed to guarantee that women, heads of households, women on their own who have been left or who have gone through separation and divorce, are guaranteed that their monthly support payments will come in.

That is what it's for and until the day that women are the so-called primary breadwinners in a household and leave men with the children, this bill is primarily going to be a maintenance enforcement bill for women and their income.

My colleague for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew has pointed out very well and painted a picture of what it looks like from a woman's point of view to be left with children in a household when there is no guarantee of what will be coming through the door in the form of a cheque every month to pay the rent, to pay the utilities and to buy the food.

We know in this province that there are 35,000 women on welfare with children. We know that in this province there are about 35,000 maintenance orders. We know that in about 80 percent of the cases of a maintenance order being drafted, they are not followed. In other words, there is default. That means literally every month thousands and thousands of women are insecure about where the cheque is coming from that is going to pay the rent or the mortgage or the food bill.

The fact that this piece of legislation has come to the House at all is something to be commented on. I think that it's an important piece of legislation because it speaks to financial security of women in our province in a way that no other piece of legislation, to this point, has attempted.

I want to commend this bill for producing procedures for garnishment that will simplify the system and make it easier for women to receive their moneys at month-end. The Crown is going to take some responsibility to ensure that monthly payments are made. I commend this bill's ability to enforce an order and force the filing of financial statements with the courts within 15 days of a statement of arrears being filed, meaning that once again the month-end cheque is going to arrive. It makes it easier, too, for a defaulting spouse to appear in court, and for a woman to enforce and guarantee that.

From a woman’s point of view, a woman, like many.... And there are many more than we even dare think of when we look at the numbers in this province. There are many more than we would want to admit there were. In fact, I would suggest that there is no normal family in our modern culture, as we would like to think of it. The vision of mother, father and two children living happily in a paid-off house simply doesn't exist for us. Insofar as we try to constantly measure what we do in the light of that picture, we really do fail to capture the fact that many, many families — one in three — do not live that way in our culture and society, particularly in urban areas.

Therefore, looking to a bill such as this to simplify the procedures for those women who are not economically independent but who are still in the position of having to raise children, we are looking at a major piece of legislation here. However, also looking at it from a woman's point of view, I should say that it's extremely important that we recognize that when a man does leave a family, there's a 70 percent chance that his income will go up, and that the woman's income will go down by 25 percent. There's an 80 percent chance that the maintenance order will be defaulted on, and there is a 60 percent chance that if you're below the poverty line, you're a woman in this country. So we are talking about women in poverty. We're not simply talking about middle-class wives being able to go to the court and have their maintenance enforced.

That's where I want to get into the problems around the bill. Poor women, women who have been left and have gone through the trauma of recent separation or divorce, with this bill are in a position of having to apply to have their maintenance order registered with this office. As my colleague has put forward, it is not a universal bill. It does not apply to every maintenance order that comes down. In other words, the woman has to go and ask. I'm not sure whether this will involve legal fees on her part. I'm not sure whether this will involve going through special legal aid procedures or having to go to a special office, if that office is available in Vancouver or elsewhere in the province. A special application has to be made here for the woman to register the maintenance order. You can well imagine, from that woman's point of view, as she fills out the form or goes through the process, what fears

[ Page 3212 ]

that she might have of what her husband might do when he sees that he is being registered by his ex-wife or by his separated spouse. It's enough to discourage many women from making this application. Threatening letters from a spouse, threatening visits, disapproval, especially where children are involved, or there may be a custody case going on.... A woman might not particularly want to further disrupt, disorient and antagonize her ex-spouse by going for a registration.

It would be my suggestion that we do everything we can to amend this bill to make it easier, simply by making every maintenance order universally enforceable and processing it through the machinery which we've established here — to go more than halfway, in other words, and not to put the onus on the woman to make that application.

From the point of view of the woman on welfare, this bill pretends to do a great deal. From the point of view of the 35,000 mothers who head households and are on GAIN, one would think they would be leaping with joy at the prospect of this bill. But we find when we connect this bill with the bill to come, Bill 72, that in fact mothers on welfare will find that the money that does come through this agency is whipped away at source. So just as their ex-spouse's income may be garnisheed, so will the welfare mother's lump sum payment, which is usually how these payments get made by recalcitrant husbands or ex-husbands.... She will find that that money is removed from her by Bill 72. So the welfare mother is not going to be much better off under this piece of legislation.

I would like to talk about what flows from that for a moment. As legislators, as a woman, I sit in this House and we find ourselves legislating for individuals on bits and pieces of people. We find ourselves taking a woman's financial security over here and measuring it against her role as a welfare mother, or measuring it against her role as a member of the labour force. Or we find ourselves measuring people in terms of their financial security or their legal access or their access to medical services. But very rarely do we as legislators take a look at the whole person and try to make connections between what we're doing with a piece of legislation such as 71 and how we're taking it to the whole family or the whole person. We sort of chop up our lives in piecemeal bits.

[4:00]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

In a situation like this.... I am taking the words of the Attorney-General as he introduced this bill and brought it forward for second reading today. The Attorney-General suggested in his opening comments that there is room here to be more interpretive; that this bill, as it addresses just one component of a woman's life — that is, her financial security at the end of the month — might be better connected with other aspects of what might be going on in that family's life as the woman is applying for maintenance.

When the Attorney-General was referring to fender-benders and arbitration and mediation and trying to perhaps remove from the courtroom antagonism some of the processes that go on in family breakdown, as families fight for financial maintenance and child custody.... There might be ways other than the courtroom dramas we've invented for ourselves to deal with these very traumatic moments in people's lives, that shape us all, that ultimately cost us all a great deal of money, whether in legal fees or in disruptions in our children's lives that have an impact on their school performance and their sense of self-worth and later have an impact on how they behave in the community. There are real costs here.

I think the Attorney-General was opening a door in his initial comments. He was beginning to talk about — I thought — possibilities for taking a piece of legislation such as this and making the connections, the connections that go beyond the financial maintenance in a woman's life, in talking about legal opportunities, cultural opportunities, other social services that we could plug families into, that could come to the aid of the family, so to speak, in a moment of crisis. And as he spoke it occurred to me that it was perhaps time to take another look at the unified family court, at the processes of arbitration as opposed to litigation, at processes that would assist families in times of grief and could make life easier, not just for the woman but for the man involved as well.

So I am looking to this bill not just as a piece of progressive legislation, which might help some women. I'm looking to this bill and the opening comments of the Attorney-General as perhaps a vehicle to start discussing all those other things that connect us as human beings as we face problems in our lives: debt counselling, family counselling, legal aid programs, special programs with alcohol, which is so often related to family breakdown, special programs for children in the community — and in the family, if necessary. I hope we can use this bill not just as newly invented machinery for providing some women with guaranteed maintenance at the end of the month, but also, in light of what the Attorney-General has said, to connect financial, legal and social services in a way that women would like them connected by this House, perhaps using a committee, as my colleague for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew suggested — either the Justice Committee or the Social Services Committee — to start looking first, at the hub, the unified family court, and then at ways in which we can integrate the services we as a community have to offer to help families, whether they be two parent or one-parent, sustain themselves and their children in our community.

I will leave the House with that comment, and over the next few days work with the Attorney-General and some colleagues to see whether or not an appropriate motion might be phrased so that we could use this bill as a stepping-off point to recreate a network of services that would advance and enhance the qualities that this bill wants to put forward. I would add to my colleague's list of things we would like to see in a bill. He suggested universal access, efficiency and effectiveness. I would like to add to the list he put forward for this House's consideration that attribute called connectedness, so that we can develop some network of services besides financial security for women in need.

MR. CASHORE: My colleague the second member for Point Grey began her remarks by stating that this bill is really a women's issue, and I agree. To add to that concept, I believe that all members of the House would agree that a women's issue is an issue that all of us must recognize as an issue we all share in order to achieve the kind of wholeness we seek within our society and the kind of opportunity we seek for children who might be living in homes where there has been the kind of difficulty that makes separation agreements necessary.

I certainly recognize the need for Bill 71, and also for the concomitant Bill 72. We certainly know that there has been a

[ Page 3213 ]

serious problem with delay. There's been a problem with the costs to the taxpayer through the GAIN program to provide income support. There's certainly been a problem for the working poor — women by and large — who have found themselves in an untenable position with regard to trying to deal with maintenance orders. There's been a high cost to the public, not only in direct ways, but also in the ways in which a system that does not function properly is a system that puts pressure on all people and makes quality of life more difficult to achieve. We know that social assistance costs, for instance, are pushed up by the thousands of single parents who end up on welfare when their spouses are in default. We know about the large amount of costly time in the courts, and we know about the legal expenses.

Perhaps some of the situations we don't know so much about are those that occur in the privacy of people's homes, where stress becomes a factor that adds to their lives. Therefore, as I said in December at the time that this legislation was introduced, I welcome the legislation. I am pleased to see it before us. I really do believe that it is being presented in a spirit of openness and of listening. As the Minister of Social Services and Housing was quoted following the introduction of the legislation, when a group of fathers had expressed their disagreement with the bill.... The minister said at that time: "We would welcome any input on the proposed law." We take that very seriously and in good faith, and we believe that the comments that we are making at this time as we become involved in this dialogue are going to be seriously considered.

I think that as we see this legislation coming forward, we should recognize that other jurisdictions have moved forward on this issue. Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario have programs in place, and I believe that the Manitoba program, with a centralized maintenance enforcement program that goes back to 1979, is a model program. It has had good results, and in my opinion there are some aspects of that program that are superior to the ones that I see before us in this proposed legislation.

We recognize that we have recently had provisions from the federal government allowing for the garnishing of federal moneys. This is due to be proclaimed in federal law sometime this year.

Because the Manitoba program is universal, it is my belief that it is also more accessible. For instance, in Manitoba all maintenance orders made in the provincial courts are automatically registered with the program. It's not a matter of opting in; this is automatic. We know that in the proposed legislation this would be automatic for people who are GAIN recipients, but I think that we have to recognize that the poor among us are not only the GAIN recipients. There are other people within our society, and in this case many women, whom we could consider to be the working poor and who would benefit from having a more inclusive and universal approach.

Also in Manitoba, orders under the federal divorce legislation are automatically registered; that is, they are automatically registered provided an enforcement clause is included at the time the agreement is made. Also in Manitoba, the program costs about $600,000 a year to operate, as this program seeks to do. It will result in financial saving in moneys that will come back into the provincial coffers, but that program involves 18 full-time staff and part-time regional court officers, who will have other duties but will have costs billed to that program. There are also other costs of infrastructure. I would say that indicates a very reasonable financial cost, given the program that is in place.

In the British Columbia program, as I mentioned, unless the person happens to be a GAIN recipient, it requires a process of opting in. Another resulting aspect of that would be that since it would require people to opt in, it would therefore require a very extensive program of education to be put on by the Attorney-General and by the Minister of Social Services and Housing to inform people of the availability of the program that is so being proposed. So much better if the support of the program was automatic.

Mr. Speaker, I think that whoever happens to be government at any given time, when educational programs are put on to introduce a government initiative, it's always suspect, because there's an element of government advertising at taxpayer expense that goes on through that process. So let's consider for a moment that there's a less costly way of doing this and a more inclusive way, a universal way, and a way that is therefore more fair in terms of the people who we would like to give access to this program.

I think we should realize that some defaulting spouses might view the requirement of a maintenance order as a hostile act. Again, if this was being handled in a universal way that would not be an unfortunate and unpleasant interference in that relationship, that should be unnecessary at that time. I would therefore submit, Mr. Speaker, that if fair treatment is one of the foundation principles of this legislation, it should be a universal program.

[4:15]

It would appear that a clear priority of the legislation is that there be savings on welfare payments. I'm not saying that that should not be a priority, but if that is the main priority and if it is the priority that outweighs all other priorities in the delivery of this program, then I submit that it is suspect. Clearly a government is being responsible in doing everything it can to recover taxpayers' dollars, but as we look at the program, we have to look further than that and ask if it is really delivering the kind of service that is going to make life more bearable for those people who perhaps are not on income assistance, or for those people who are fearing the possibility that their circumstances are going to result in them tumbling onto income assistance, and those people who would simply benefit by having this admittedly streamlined process streamlined that much more, so that it was more inclusive and more supportive of those women.

I would point out — and the Attorney-General may wish to correct me on this — that at the time of the introduction of Bill 71 in December, he gave figures for only the number of GAIN recipients in arrears at that time, and I think that had this been a program that was considered to be more universal in terms of its availability and accessibility to the working poor, he would have gone beyond that into statistical information that would indicate the need that exists out there for accessibility by people who are not at this time GAIN recipients.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make very clear in my remarks.... As I said, I will be making more comments about the actual ramifications of the amendment to the GAIN act, where I plan to make the point that while it is a benefit, it is not as much of a benefit to those women on GAIN as it appears to be at first look. I believe that the government is open to reason and logic with regard to what is being proposed here, and that those points will be taken very seriously

[ Page 3214 ]

when I and other of my colleagues draw them to your attention at that time.

I want to mention some of the things about the bill that I find positive and feel very good about. I believe that it streamlines existing enforcement procedures, and that it introduces new administrative remedies that will reduce the need to go to court and that that will be a real advantage. Another advantage is that procedures for garnisheeing wages will be simplified and that the ability to attach moneys without going to court will be better. It will be easier to get information on the whereabouts and financial status of defaulting spouses, and I believe that is worthwhile. It will be easier to compel a defaulting spouse to appear in court; I want to affirm that as well.

One aspect of Bill 71 that deeply concerns me, Mr. Speaker, is the intent that this will be a privatized collection service. It wasn't long after the bill was introduced that there was an editorial in the Vancouver Province dated December 21 entitled: "This Isn't a Job for 'Repo Man."' The analogy was made with a collection agency that would go around repossessing used cars where people had defaulted. We're not dealing here with a machine, an inanimate object; we're dealing here with human beings. Therefore it requires that through the best that our public service system has to offer we administer this program in such a manner that it is not left to the vagaries of the bottom line, as people check how their shares are doing in the pages of the stock market, but that this is a matter where the bottom line is an effective service. We know that there's a proven track record in Manitoba to indicate that it is cost-effective. I do not believe that the government has indicated anything that demonstrates, beyond their ideology about privatization.... I don't believe we've seen any data that supports an economy of scale, for instance, with regard to this process being privatized. As we consider the privatization of this service, the mind boggles to think of the government bureaucrats drafting up the process of advertising for this service — wondering what group in our society will be targeted.

This is a cause for a very sober second thought, and, unless the government can come forward with clear data indicating beyond a doubt that there will be an economic benefit, it should not be done in a privatized way. But even if they can come up with some data — and I don't believe they can — there would then also have to be some sort of representation that goes beyond ideology about privatization and that indicates the human value that would make it worthwhile, in view of the risks that are involved in putting into private hands something that is so delicate, so private, so intimate, so personal. I would submit that we simply cannot take the chance, when we're well along the road to bringing in some very good and effective legislation. To make that kind of mistake at that stage would seriously compromise this program.

I think we have to say that if the government says it will save money, our question is: how will it save money? Will it save money by having staff working within that private agency who are less well trained and lower paid? Will it save money by minimizing the services that might otherwise be provided? We would assume that if it was a private agency it would not have open access to government offices and government computers. We would have to assume an arm's length relationship in that process in matters of confidentiality. But if the government was somehow able to argue and reason that that was permissible — and I cannot fathom how they could argue that, but if they could — then I think the government would very clearly have to come forward with a watertight argument as to how the obvious problems with regard to confidentiality would be protected and how they would deal with the concern about a private organization being given sweeping access to information about individuals and powers involving attaching or seizing wages, bank accounts and personal property.

As my colleague from Esquimalt–Port Renfrew mentioned a few moments ago, we've seen an example recently in Ontario, in Queen's Park, of private documents going astray. We know it is the responsibility of government to protect those documents and that information as a sacred trust. That kind of accountability is a sacred accountability that is expected by the citizens of this province, and they have every right to expect it.

I want to comment just briefly on a matter I alluded to earlier, and that was where a group of fathers has been reported in the press as being opposed to this legislation. Apparently, since this act was being put forward at this time, they wanted the legislation to deal with the desire that the fathers in this group have to have more access, more visitation rights and that sort of thing. My response to that group — and I've had the opportunity to chat with them — is that I believe it is an issue worthy of raising. I am not sure that I myself have any clear thought as to what I would advise them to do.

I believe it's important that they see themselves as gathering together around this concern, and I would hope there would be some way that leadership might be provided to enable them to have their concern expressed, but realize that probably this legislation is not the context in which to do so. I want to go on record as saying that. If they do have a concern, I believe that the offices of the Attorney-General and the Minister of Social Services and Housing are available to them, as has been stated. But I want to recognize that that group has expressed its concern at this time, and I hope there will be future opportunities for them to make their point, as citizens and as members of our society.

I want to say that I think the points made by the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) with regard to the circumstances of low-income women are very well taken. I believe that this legislation is seeking to deal with an issue that is a blight and a cancer within our society, and that is the issue of poverty. We simply cannot take the approach that is sometimes taken that "the poor you will always have with you." That may be true, but we don't say that about the fight on cancer. When there is a cancer such as poverty in our society, we must do everything we can to address that issue.

A great many women, a majority of our citizens experiencing poverty being women.... We must realize that if we are able to come through this process with the best possible piece of legislation, given the kinds of dialogue that we are having the opportunity to participate in at this time, we will not only be addressing such issues as maintenance orders and income, but we'll be addressing such issues as the self esteem of the people who live in those households so affected; the process of independence and interdependence; the right to have and experience emotional strength; and the freedom to exercise self-determination. Fundamental in all of that is a recognition of the impact on children of separation, and of the very important need to make that process as reasonable and as whole a process as can possibly be established.

[ Page 3215 ]

[4:30]

I have indicated that I believe that there are many good points about this legislation. I have also indicated that there are some areas of it that cause me some very deep concern. I do believe that the Manitoba model is a better model because of the concerns about centralization and its being a universal, and therefore more accessible, program.

I do have some concern that I will be speaking about later regarding the targeting of GAIN recipients, it seeming that that is the main issue. While I do not think the government really wants it to be seen that way, I think it is becoming seen that way.

I believe it's important, in summary, to recognize that the working poor will still be in a bind once this present legislation is in place, that it will require a large, costly, public education program in order to work, and that there is not a sufficient buffer between the individual and the defaulting spouse in the process of registering maintenance orders. My main concern is that it is a privatized system and therefore not as adequate as it could be, leaving itself open to some real problems.

I want to conclude on this note, that while amendments are needed, it is a step in the right direction. It could be so much better. I thank the government for giving us the opportunity to be taking this step at this time.

MR. BARNES: I don't have a great deal to contribute in a technical sense to this debate, having listened to the previous speakers who have achieved a fairly high level of expertise, particularly our A-G critic, the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota), the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) and the speaker who just took his place as our critic.

I think issues such as this we should try to address from the standpoint of non-partisan concern. When you hear terms like enforcement of maintenance, in most cases I would imagine we are talking about doing something to patch up a tragedy of some sort — we'd like to think, at least — because two individuals were able to bring into the world offspring, but for whatever reason found themselves in differences which resulted in their separating and leaving someone at the mercy of third parties, etc., who have to intervene and try to ensure that that person has an opportunity to grow and develop to the fullest of their ability and capacity.

That's a tragedy. That's a reality that, I suppose, has been with us historically. It certainly cuts across party lines, cultural lines, just about every line. It's a human situation, but it's not one that we should give up on.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, in the last few days we've been touching on some issues that normally you don't debate in this House because of the nature of them and their subjectivity. We like to deal in dollars and cents, in things where we can bottom-line and be able to predict the result in most cases. But when it gets into the issue of trying to deal with the responsibilities of spouses and the handling of their duties with respect to their offspring, invariably we get into a multitude of complications.

I agree with the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, who suggested that the enforcement of maintenance payments to mothers — in most cases, mothers are the spouses who have custody — is in itself an issue and concern that we should address as separate from the other considerations, such as the fact that there are two parents, that both parents should in some sense at least be viewed as having equal responsibility, equal concern and emotional ties, etc. They are different, yet they are almost indistinguishable. I too have had lobbying. I've bad briefs and representations from fathers struggling to maintain their relationships with their offspring, with great difficulty because of the way the laws are presently in place. I'm not in a position to suggest what the outcome should be and how this is going to be dealt with, but I think we have to face that it is a difficult situation. It's a vexing problem that goes back, I'm sure, to all of our personal lives when we think of how we grew up in this culture.

Two years ago, during my experiences on the downtown east side trying to exist on the $350 that an individual receives under the social assistance program, I had occasion to visit with a group of teenage mothers who were left with the children that the putative fathers had given them. They were just on their own. At the time, I think there was a program at Churchill high school that had special classes and facilities for these young mothers. I interviewed them and had a great time discussing how they got into the situation they were in and what responsibilities their boyfriends or ex-husbands — or whatever the case may have been — were taking in looking after the children. Most of them just said: "Are you kidding? These guys have taken off. They don't seem to be responsible in any way, and there's very little we can do to have them assume their responsibilities."

I guess the thing I'm saying is that even though we take it for granted that it's the mother's responsibility, that they're the best ones to raise the child — all of those very valid and traditional and biological reasons for it — we should really consider what is causing these problems. What is wrong when young men cannot have any responsibilities? I'm not sure whether it's a good thing. I'm not sure how we go after this, but I don't like the thought of what I know is happening in many communities, where more and more young pregnant women are being left and the young men simply disappear with virtually no responsibility whatsoever. It's very difficult to get them to understand that this is a God-given opportunity to show their humanity and to be responsible.

So there is a tragic side to this that I don't think legislators can deal with exclusively. I don't think any legislation is necessarily going to change that social situation, that social problem which quite often exists with the attitude among young men and, to some extent I guess, the young women who may feel compelled to capitulate or to respond to the demands of these young men in order to have a relationship, in order to win their favour for whatever reason. It's an issue that we shouldn't avoid. We shouldn't be afraid to challenge students and young people and have them realize that if we want that better world we're talking about when we make these grand, eloquent, platitudinous statements about the future and a better world, it has to happen with our young people.

We're going to have to start changing a few things. I would like to see a more positive piece of legislation coming out somehow, whereby there wouldn't have to be this enforcement, this criminality attached to it, where someone has to be prosecuted, where we have to chase people around. In all the years I've been in this Legislature I've had to deal with problems of chasing errant fathers who refused to pay their fair share and take responsibility for their children, who were angry at their mothers or abused their children, and rather than be responsible, hid their accounts and did anything they could to undermine the process. It would cost thousands and thousands of tax dollars and public resources to try to get a

[ Page 3216 ]

few hundred dollars from someone. People would go from one job to the next, change their names, do anything. That's an unfortunate situation.

I commend the Attorney-General for bringing forward a piece of legislation that I think members on this side of the House generally agree is seriously attempting to streamline a very complex problem, to avoid the cumbersome methods that we've had to rely upon in the past to expedite the process, to do it as humanely as possible, and of course, as a result, to save tax dollars and cut down on the stress that families, the mothers and their children, have to experience.

We've got a long way to go with this thing, and I would hope that the Attorney-General would agree, in winding up this debate, that he would like an addition to the administration of justice with respect to maintenance enforcement, would like to get out in front and have good education programs in place in the schools, to begin to talk to the young people, have dialogue with them about how these problems develop and about the contract of marriage and procreation, bringing in new life. We have to face it: we're going to have to begin to have people realize their responsibilities, that it's not all just good times and fancy living and irresponsibility and living on a credit card. We can do a lot better in this society.

As some of us have said in this House, the bringing into the world of a life is probably one of the greatest experiences and opportunities that people can have. Unfortunately, many of these young people are misguided or, for whatever reason, do not understand what they've done. They've created a miracle, but they're not encouraged due to economic reasons, circumstances beyond their control, pressures and perhaps ignorance in some cases.... Whatever the reason, they abandon the opportunity on the fear or, as I say, lack of resources, lack of understanding of opportunity or lack or encouragement and support in a time of need and stress. What we end up with is the far from satisfactory situation of trying to rescue a child or a family that has had these problems compound as a result of human nature.

Aspirations, hopes, dreams, all these things are quite often lost when these breakups happen, and they are very complex. I think it was put best by the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota), who was talking about what happened when he was a lawyer attempting to discuss their problems with mothers trying to get maintenance support and participation from their spouses. There is a lot of trauma involved, there is a lot of heartbreak — things that legislators have a great deal of difficulty addressing but which are nonetheless there and have to be picked up by the system. I am sure the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) knows this very well, because he must have to shake his head just about every day, feeling almost handcuffed when it comes to dealing with real human problems.

[4:45]

I think we should ask how we enlighten our young people more. How do we get through to their psyches? How do we help them realize it's a positive thing that they have an opportunity to experience and grow and develop in, rather than a sense of desperation and wanting to flee from the responsibility of parenthood when it does happen; that they have a sense of encouragement and hope and some celebration? I think that kind of policy should be in place. Family life in a more comprehensive and more supportive way that relates to real human concerns would be a positive and good thing to have, because when we reach the stage where we're just chasing these spouses around trying to enforce their obligations in a dollars-and-cents way, without these other elements, that's almost fruitless, if not hopeless. The best system in the world isn't going to address the things that I'm attempting to address now.

I'm not suggesting that this is a partisan thing. I would say it's more a condition of society. If we as legislators want to get in front of the issue, we're going to have to begin to think of those elements that are influencing people's values, that are forcing people to think that it is beyond their ability to be responsible for acts that they've created themselves, and therefore they would use any excuse as legitimate to abandon their responsibilities.

That's something that has to begin to happen in our educational institutions. We've got to begin to have dialogue with the citizens of tomorrow, to ask them what responsibilities they should be learning in their formative years as they grow up and develop, to have them tell us how they view situations where families are breaking up, and why they are breaking up, and what kind of recommendations they would make to us as legislators.

What happens when these fathers who have begun to band together all over the country...? What are they really saying to us when they say: "Hey, what about us? We want to have an opportunity to be part of our children as they grow up. We don't mind paying, but we want to participate." Is that legitimate or not? What can we learn from this?

I think it's time that we evolved to a new level, at least began to realize that there has to be something better than, what we have been doing. I think we're undermining ourselves by failing to prepare people who are going to be taking on responsibility, and becoming functioning citizens in the workforce, and raising families and making decisions about what institutions will exist, how tax dollars will be spent and what kind of values will exist.

All of these things are at risk if we leave people in ignorance and only tell them that the thing that matters most in their lives is just to get a job and become consumers. They have to have a sense of understanding about the delicate nature of society and how it functions. We're talking about the democratic system. Again, we have to tell them what it really means and how it works. That's a learning experience. That requires participation, patience, diligence and handling in a way that's.... It's a two-way thing. I think that sometimes it is missing, and if it's not missing, it's too happenstance. It's not happening in a consistent, methodical, strategic, planned, committed way.

I would just conclude by saying that I support the initiatives of the government with respect to this aspect of the issue, but I would encourage that the other side of the issue be addressed as well. Because I think that all of us agree that it is a frustrating, vexing, time-consuming, difficult situation that we have all had to live with for far too long. We're going to have to begin to talk about the future in a positive way. I think the best way to do that is to encourage people who create these miracles of life that that's a good thing. Let's give them the kind of network they need in society and the environment to be optimistic about tomorrow rather than to see it as the end of an opportunity to their own fulfilment as parents.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would advise all hon. members that pursuant to standing order 42, the Attorney-General will close debate.

[ Page 3217 ]

HON. B.R. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes), the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore), the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) and the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) for making constructive comments about the legislation and also for making a number of other suggestions that are very helpful. I can assure them that we will review all the speeches and that I will be bringing in some amendments in committee. I hope those amendments will in some ways, anyway, reflect some of the suggestions that have been made.

I just want to clear up a few misconceptions. The first misconception that I sense from some of the speakers is that this somehow will not be a good system or a workable system because it will probably be operated out of the lower mainland, at least primarily if not entirely. That, of course, is not so. The information systems, the data base, the toll-free lines and all those things will flow into a central office, and it can operate very well. The victim services does that. But it is going to be important to have some resources in the various courts around this province where ultimately the people who are pursued under this legislation will end up — both the pursuer and the pursuee. Therefore, we will have to have those resources, and we certainly will have to have information for women. We're primarily dealing with women, but not entirely. Primarily the kind of person who will benefit from this legislation is a woman on her own with children, a woman who probably can't afford legal services and has difficulty qualifying for legal aid. She may or may not be on social assistance, but her life is close to the line in terms of financial matters.

There's a misconception, I think, that universality is somehow heaven; that unless everybody is automatically plugged into a program — whether they want to be or not — the program can't succeed because people will then have to access the program and that will somehow be a major step, a large bureaucratic nightmare, or a degrading step. It will be none of those things because of the very simple fact that filling out a form will access you into this system. We have a number of maintenance orders pronounced by courts in this province which are obeyed, surprisingly enough. You would think, when we discuss this in any forum, that nobody obeys them, that everybody has to be smartened up. But the majority of these orders are obeyed. To automatically feed them into the system so that spouses have to opt out of the system, which is really what they would have to do under a Manitoba or an Alberta-type scheme, simply provides more paperwork and more fuss, and problems for people who have no need of this system.

So we are going to start a little differently from these other provinces, and we also hope that we are going to learn from their experience. There also seems to be a belief around here in some quarters that not only is universality heaven, but Manitoba is heaven. It is not the last word on social service perfection. It's done a very good job in pioneering this legislation; it's been in effect there since 1979. But they've had some problems there with their program.

Certainly I don't think their program has had anything like the financial return success that the figures that the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew was given would illustrate. He said that an operating cost of $600,000 had achieved revenues of $1 million. That indicates, I think, that it's a fairly small program compared to the one that we're going to run. We're going to have considerably more costs and considerably more revenue. But those figures, from what we can tell, do not take into account anything other than the central office and do not take into account the additional court costs, bailiff's costs and so on. If you run a collection system in-house, it's very expensive.

I think the third myth — if I can put it that way — is that if the private sector does it, it's bad; it's somehow going to be insensitive, inhuman, motivated by profit and greed; people with funny-coloured jackets and repossession mottoes are going to swoop in and scourge the landscape and pick up the motor scooters, bicycles and other things of recalcitrant fathers. You can certainly conjure up, I guess, a nice speech on all of that. But the fact is, there really isn't any magic in this service being done inside of government or outside of government. The real question is, where can it be done the fastest, the most efficiently and the most effectively. We think that to get our program going quickly — which we want to do — our best approach is the one that we followed, which is to call for tenders for some person, company or agency to run a provincewide service; so we'll not be broken up into various regions, but one contractor takes on the service to prepare a very careful contract with the successful bidder to ensure the various things that have been raised here — quite properly — as to confidentiality of data, access to information and the other queries that have been raised, all very legitimate, as to what this collecting agency should or shouldn't do.

I should make it very clear that we do not intend to turn over permanent data banks of this information to any contractor. None of the confidential information accessed from federal sources or our own is going to be turned over directly; it's going to be turned over indirectly through public servants.

Our program is going to be administered by a director of enforcement who will be a public servant and who will have a monitoring staff. That will always be the way. The director of enforcement will be the person who will issue the notices and orders and authorize them, and they will be done under that person's authority. We do think that a private agency will be able to start operations much faster than a government-run program would be able to do. The flexibility for a private organization or agency will be greater. Facilities will be able to be underway quickly. We think there's an obvious advantage to having an agency step right in and do this. We think that it can be done very well.

We contract out a number of services in my ministry now, from food services in institutions to all sorts of other correctional programs. Probation supervision and all sorts of other things are done on private contracts. The essence of it really is that the service is only as good as the person who delivers it, the qualifications of that person, the contract that you write, and the enforcement of that contract and the ability that you have to monitor it. I believe that the very correct concerns that people have expressed in this chamber can be met by a properly monitored contract for enforcement.

I also believe that enforcement is not a particularly pleasant job. In my experience in practice, enforcement and collection of debts is one of the least attractive means of employment. Any of us who have built law practices, such as the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, know that this is the least desirable of any of the work that we do. So to have some incentive to do that kind of work, to have that profit motive, is a very good spur to getting results.

We're going to go with this model, and we're going to go with the opt-in model, too, but that doesn't mean to say that

[ Page 3218 ]

any of those models are written in stone. We think that the privatized model will get us a faster startup, with more incentive for tough returns. We think that the opt-in instead of the universal will be a better model because we will not be fixing things that aren't broken. We also think that the central office in Vancouver, with a data bank and computers, will do the job very nicely. With toll-free lines, and with application forms being readily available in every region of the province, in every courthouse and in every government agent's office, women will know about this and will have access to it. With a good education program to support it, it will be well received.

I would thank all the members for their constructive comments. We will make some amendments, I promise you, in committee. With that, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

[5:00]

Motion approved.

Bill 71, Family Maintenance Enforcement Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 72, Mr. Speaker. The opposition Whip adjourned debate on behalf of the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam.

GUARANTEED AVAILABLE INCOME FOR NEED
AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

(continued)

MR. CASHORE: I had a chat with the government Whip, and since that time I realized that there are other speakers who wish to speak on this after I have spoken. In view of that, I should make a very brief remark at this time, and then I will move to adjourn.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I just wanted to say that I do appreciate the way this was handled on Friday, in view of my not being able to be in the House at that time. If I may have the indulgence of the House, I just want to say that the reason I was not here had to do with a recent health program that I have experienced. I have often heard the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) refer to the issue that we have been discussing as a women's problem, and my doctor tells me that when it comes to gall bladders, nine women for every one male have that operation. So I find myself in august company. The last thing I would say about that is that any man who has his gall bladder removed makes it possible to say on his epitaph: "Truly he was a man in whom there was no bile."

With regard to Bill 72 I have been asked by the government House Leader to go on for a few moments until he is able to return, if I understand that correctly, so perhaps somebody could signal me when I should make the appropriate motion.

As we have indicated, Bill 72 is a bill that is in tandem with Bill 71 and deals with the amendment to the GAIN act. I have been reading the comments of the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) that were made on Friday on the three points that describe the intent of this bill, and I would affirm that intent. I believe the intent of this bill is one that all of us can ascribe to; it is when we get into some of the detail with regard to how this intent is going to be achieved that there are some problems.

Again, as I said before, it would seem that one of the major planks of this legislation is to recover tax dollars that go out through income assistance payments, by and large because men have defaulted on court-ordered payments. But having said that, I think we have to really try to get our thinking around the issue of poverty as it relates to those people who are being targeted for help within this legislation.

As we look at that issue I think we realize there are a number of ways that we have to come at this. We cannot only come at this through the process of enforcing maintenance orders, but we have to come at this through a holistic process, a process that looks at all of those situations which low-income people in our society — and in particular low-income mothers who are caring for children — have to confront, which is very often an uncaring, cold and hostile environment in terms of being able to try to fulfil their goals.

I recognize that these two bills are seeking to deal with that, but one of the points I am going to want to draw out in this regard is to recognize that while a lot of the publicity that has surrounded this bill has indicated that it is going to improve the lot of these women who are experiencing poverty, in actual fact that is a very limited hope.

Yes, it should have some very positive results for taxpayers in view of the recovery of tax dollars that go out in welfare, but really, is it fulfilling its opportunity to improve the lot in life of those low-income families that we say we are trying to help in this legislation? I would suggest that it falls short.

I would note that on Friday, December 18.... I think at this point, since the point I was about to make was one that I don't want the Minister of Social Services and Housing to have time to think about overnight, and in order to facilitate the comments of the Speaker, I would like to move adjournment of debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Point of Privilege

COQUIHALLA HIGHWAY COST OVERRUNS

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I have concluded my considerations of the submission by the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) that a breach of privilege or, more accurately, acts of contempt of the House, have been perpetrated by two former Ministers of Transportation and Highways, namely the hon. first member for Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser) and the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael); a former Minister of Finance, Mr. Hugh A. Curtis; the present Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations (Hon. Mr. Couvelier), the first member for Saanich and the Islands; a former Premier, the Hon. W.R. Bennett; and the hon. Premier.

Notice of the matter was appropriately given on November 24, 1987, but was deferred until February 23, 1988, pending the outcome of the commission of inquiry established by the hon. Premier on July 31, 1987, to be conducted by Mr. Douglas L. MacKay, an eminent professional engineer in this province.

[ Page 3219 ]

In the course of his submission, the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew tabled the following documents and papers, which I have examined:

1. The report of the Commissioner of Inquiry into the Coquihalla and Related Highway Projects by Mr. MacKay. I will note here for future reference that the commissioner's report, among other things:

(a) established that the costs of the Coquihalla Highway and related projects grossly exceeded the estimate of costs, both as announced to the public and reasserted in the House;

(b) expressed an opinion, based on the commissioner's and his consultant's understanding of the parliamentary process, involving statements made and documents tabled in the House, that the House was misled and that "the financial reporting of the Coquihalla Highway project" was "tainted with an atmosphere of deceit and prevarication both by the politicians and public servants."

It should be noted here, for reasons that later go to the crux of the Chair's ruling, that this critical finding by the commissioner, at page 71 of his report, was underpinned by the immediately following statement: "The financial statements, the ministry brief and the auditor-general's report did not reveal the transfer of costs from vote 74 to vote 69."

I continue with the commissioner's findings:

(c) that neither the Ministry of Transportation and Highways nor Treasury Board had an adequate system for auditing, controlling and reporting the Coquihalla project;

(d) that while the published information presented to the Legislature would have allowed anyone interested to have deduced that the final costs would exceed the ministry's published estimates, staff within the ministry knew the amount of work yet to be done and the costs of the upcoming construction season.

I continue with the documents tabled:

2. A copy of the Public Accounts for the fiscal year 1985-86;

3. A copy of the Financial and Economic Review, forty-sixth edition, August 1986;

4. A copy of the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986;

5. A copy of MacKay commission exhibit No. 3.

The hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew also referred the Chair to the transcript of proceedings before the MacKay commission.

As a result of the Chair advising the House that representations would be heard from any member of the House wishing to bring to his attention anything which would assist a ruling in the matter, the Chair heard from the government House Leader, the opposition House Leader, the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. Minister of Finance, the hon. Attorney-General, and further representations from the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew.

In addition, the Chair received from the office of the Premier, on behalf of the Premier, who was then out of the province, a copy of a letter dated January 22, 1988, from Mr. R.G. Hayward, then acting auditor-general, to an hon. member of the House, and copied to the hon. Premier, the hon. second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Marzari), chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, and the hon. present Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Rogers).

I wish to thank all hon. members for the valuable submissions, which were of great assistance to me in this matter, in determining prima facie not whether the House was in fact misled but whether or not it was deliberately misled by documents tabled and statements made in the House.

In considering first the facts upon which the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew relied to establish his case against the Hon. W.R. Bennett, Mr. Hugh Curtis, the hon. Minister of Finance and the hon. Premier, the essence or thread of the allegations largely, if not totally, has the same origins, namely the commissioner's report. The hon. member's case relies heavily upon opinions expressed by the commissioner. Those opinions in turn, in the relevant area of alleged deliberate deception of the House, are based on Mr. MacKay's perception of the evidence then before him, of the obligations and responsibilities in the parliamentary sphere that the estimates and public accounts, special warrants and surrounding legislation impose upon Ministers of Finance in the House. The hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew appears to have adopted for the purposes of his argument these perceptions of the commissioner, or the hon. member may have an identical perception of the statutory obligations of Ministers of Finance in relation to estimates and public accounts insofar as they relate to the matter under consideration.

Reference to the Hansard Blues of February 23, 1988, at pages 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, will disclose the great exterit to which the hon. member either relies upon or adopts the perceptions and conclusions of the commissioner to establish the very foundation of his case of deliberate or wilful deception of the House by Mr. Hugh A. Curtis, Hon. W.R. Bennett, the hon. Minister of Finance and the hon. Premier.

[5:15]

At this point, the Chair is directing attention to the alleged misconduct of those individuals in particular. At page 8, the hon. member states: "One of Mr. MacKay's conclusions, and in my view the most important, was: 'The Legislature was misled by the documents presented to it. The true costs were not reported in a forthright way."' On the same page, Mr. Hooper of the commissioner's staff is quoted as saying that certain "changes were concealed by the transfer of costs, relating to a number of projects, from vote 74 to vote 69, and the non-disclosure of these transfers in the annual Public Accounts."

At page 9, the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew says: "What is truly significant with respect to the case against the Premier is that his Review represents the first time that the misleading allocation of votes 69 and 74 appears in a document of record.... The Review referred to is the forty-sixth edition of the Financial and Economic Review of August 1986, issued by the hon. Premier.

At page 10, the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew says: "It has to go to the establishment of a prima facie case, and the issue there, in terms of meeting that test, is demonstrating that the documents, the forty-sixth Review and the Public Accounts that the Minister of Finance put forward, do not correct the deception."

In addition, in his submission the hon. member puts forward a proposition that each of the hon. ministers knew or ought to have known certain salient and undisputed facts and that non-disclosure of those facts in the estimates, the Public Accounts and the Economic Review should lead the Chair to a prima facie conclusion of a deliberate and wilful deception of the House.

[ Page 3220 ]

The law of parliament imposes on the Chair the task of determining whether the matter has been raised at the earliest opportunity, and if so, of determining whether a prima facie case of deliberate and wilful deception has in fact been established. In this regard, the onus upon the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew in a matter of such gravity is clearly a heavy one. To be satisfied, that onus must go beyond establishing, a prima facie, that not only was the House misled but also, prima facie, that one or more of the hon. members, ministers or former ministers deliberately misled the House.

At this point, I will observe that all speakers must take great care, as I have done, not to decide matters which are the sole prerogative of the House or a committee of the House. However, the Chair must of necessity consider and take into account all the evidence presented, without, of course, deciding those matters of substance which are for the House alone. Particularly, the Chair must closely examine the fundamental basis for the conclusions, opinions and inferences which have led the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew to make this complaint.

The extent to which the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew has relied upon the commissioner's report, and the evidence publicly given prior to November 24, 1987, before the commissioner, is abundantly clear upon examination of the hon. member's submission. Throughout the hon. member's submission there exists, with few exceptions — to which the Chair will later turn — this heavy if not total reliance upon the conclusions and opinions of the commissioner, predicated on the commissioner's understanding of (1) statutory requirements and (2) his perceptions of the parliamentary process, each of which imposes obligations on ministers and, in particular, Ministers of Finance.

I have examined and now turn to the letter of the acting auditor-general, referred to above and which the Chair will table, which states in part at page 6:

"In his report the commissioner contends that highway construction costs that were part of the cost of the Coquihalla Highway were transferred from vote 74, where they should have been recorded. He concludes that this transfer was made without proper authority and that the costs are therefore recorded in an inappropriate vote. If I agreed with the commissioner's analysis and was unable to convince the government to change their financial statements before they were issued, my audit report would have contained a reservation of opinion. However, my view of the situation differs from that of the commissioner, and accordingly my opinion on the statements is expressed without reservation. We will be commenting on this matter in our next annual report."

It is clear from an examination of the commissioner's report that the contention of the commissioner that costs of the Coquihalla Highway were improperly transferred from vote 74 — which contention, as the acting auditor-general's letter shows, is unequivocally rejected by the acting auditor-general — led the commissioner and/or Mr. Hooper of the inquiry staff to additional conclusions based on an incorrect perception of the parliamentary process. The cumulative effect of these additional conclusions based on an incorrect premise must have led to the conclusions that the parliamentary conduct under review was tainted with deception.

As the Chair has previously observed, the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, in making his allegations against Mr. Hugh A. Curtis, the Hon. W.R. Bennett, the hon. Minister of Finance and the hon. Premier, either bases the foundation of his case on the conclusions of the commissioner's report or has adopted the same misconception illuminated by the acting auditor-general.

In fairness to the commission, it should be noted that the commissioner's counsel, according to the list of witnesses called by the inquiry to give evidence, as shown in the inquiry report, did not elect to call upon the acting auditor-general, the comptroller-general of the province, nor any witness with expertise in the parliamentary process.

Nothing, however, that the Chair has observed with respect to the inquiry report or Mr. MacKay's conclusions in the realm of parliamentary procedure or parliamentary conduct is in any way intended to be by way of criticism or adverse reflection upon the commissioner. Nor, of course, are the commissioner's findings of large overruns of expenditure and patent inadequacies within the Ministry of Transportation and Highways in any way questioned by the Chair.

Public accounts for 1985-86 tabled by the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew as part of his submission disclose that, as is customary, they are submitted by the comptroller-general of the province to the Minister of Finance, whose statutory duty is then to present the accounts to the House in the form received from the comptroller-general.

The acting auditor-general was an officer of this House, obligated by statute to fairly report upon the financial transactions of the government, and in particular to report on any case where the auditor-general has observed (1) that accounts have not been faithfully and properly kept, (2) public money has not been fully accounted for, or (3) that public money has been expended for purposes other than for which it was appropriated by the Legislature.

The acting auditor-general, in his letter of January 22, 1988, says very clearly that if he had "agreed with the commissioner's analysis and was unable to convince the government to change their financial statements before they were issued, my audit report would have contained a reservation of opinion," and then goes on to say: "My opinion on the statements is expressed without reservation." He further states: "During our audit, we ensure that expenditures are charged to the proper vote and that the total expenditures in any vote do not exceed the funds appropriated for that purpose by the Legislature."

To look again at the Financial and Economic Review of 1986 which forms part of the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew's submission, the hon. member says that what is truly significant with respect to the case against the Premier is that part which relates to the alleged misleading allocation of votes 69 and 74. This allegation, again based on the misconceptions surrounding votes 69 and 74, is totally rejected by the acting auditor-general and falls within the erroneous perceptions surrounding the nature and content of estimates and public accounts, and the obligations upon the Minister of Finance relating thereto.

The Chair has earlier observed that it is not the function of the Speaker to decide any matters which are clearly the prerogative of the House or a committee thereof to decide. I have examined the material before me, and I have carefully considered all submissions. The hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew's submission was some hour and 20 minutes in length. If the Chair has not specifically commented on each and every observation or reference of the hon. member, I have, nevertheless, considered all aspects of the matter to

[ Page 3221 ]

determine if the hon. member has made out, prima facie, a case that the House was deliberately misled.

The statements of the acting auditor-general speak for themselves, and there has been no evidence presented to the Chair which casts any shadow of a doubt upon these statements. As the letter of the acting auditor-general was not copied to the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, the Chair cannot say whether the hon. member, had he received the letter, would have founded his allegations of deliberately misleading the House in the same manner or would have extended the scope of his allegations to the degree that is before the Chair.

In the result, the motion which the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew indicated he wishes to place before the House cannot, in the absence of a prima facie case being established of deliberate intent to mislead the House, refer to the Hon. W.R. Bennett, Mr. Hugh Curtis, the hon. Minister of Finance, and the hon. Premier.

With reference to the allegation against the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael), there are two specific complaints appearing on page 9 of the Hansard Blues of February 23, 1988: first, that he was Minister of Transportation and Highways when the ministry brief "failed to reveal the transfer of funding from vote 74 to vote 69." This ground of complaint must fail for the reasons already given in relation to these votes.

The second complaint is that the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke attributed the admitted overrun of the Great Bear snowshed to the seasonal nature of the work, whereas an official of his ministry had testified before the commission that the lack of site availability was the "main" cause for the overrun. Ministers, in the course of debate on the estimates, are asked many questions over a wide range and often in great detail, all ordinarily without notice. If ministers are uncertain on any fact, they should defer any answer until they may be fully informed. The witness referred to testified that the main cause was site unavailability, and the minister said the cause was the seasonal nature of the work. These different opinions by no stretch of the imagination can lead to a conclusion that the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke deliberately misled the House.

I cannot find any ground for concluding that the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke deliberately misled the House. Therefore the motion proposed to be put to the House cannot include the name of the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke.

There remains the allegation against the hon. first member for Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser). These allegations appear on pages 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Hansard Blues of February 23, 1988, in the submission of the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. The allegations are based upon submissions that the hon. member for Cariboo's repeated assertions, in spite of all available information allegedly being to the contrary and in spite of the expenditure for phase 1 and phase 2 of the Coquihalla Highway, already made and recorded, would make it an impossibility the Coquihalla Highway would be completed within the original estimate of $375 million.

Reference is made on page 4 of the same Hansard Blues to a finding by Mr. MacKay that some nine days after the answer in question was made by the hon. first member for Cariboo in the House, the expenditures had already reached a total of $415 million for the Coquihalla and related projects. Additional allegations are made that while the facts were otherwise, the hon. first member for Cariboo, during debate on the schedule to Supply Act (No. 1), 1986, denied that any of the moneys — namely $118.8 million — referred to in the schedule had been spent on the Coquihalla Highway.

It is further alleged that a certain list of projects tabled in the House by the hon. first member for Cariboo, according to the testimony before the MacKay commission by Mr. Price of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, was "out of context with reality," and the member alleges that "what was being told to the members of the House was a world apart from what was being concocted by members of the previous administration...." This, in effect, says the hon. first member for Cariboo tabled in the House a document, the content of which was false.

The Chair should observe here, with regard to the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew's several assertions to the effect that if an hon. member knew or ought to have known certain facts, non-disclosure thereof would constitute a deliberate deception of the House, that such a proposition involves a quantum leap which is untenable, in the opinion of the Chair.

In any event, the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew raises, in relation to this series of statements and answers and documents tabled in the House by the hon. first member for Cariboo, allegations which are separate and distinct and are not encompassed or addressed within the statements of the acting auditor-general in relation to votes 69 and 74.

[5:30]

On the basis of the additional complaints against the hon. first member for Cariboo with respect to statements made in the course of debate and documents tabled in the House, I have concluded that with respect to these matters a prima facie case exists.

In so doing, I cannot express too strongly that in finding a prima facie case, the honour and integrity of the hon. first member for Cariboo is in no way to be impugned or brought into question. A prima facie finding places no onus upon an hon. member. The correct and only meaning of such a finding is that there is a question which ought to be decided by the House. In expressing this opinion, I am fortified that the Mother of Parliaments in the United Kingdom has long been concerned with the negative connotation attached to the term "prima facie case," by reason of its association with the process of the criminal law. In fact, the term "prima facie" has now been abandoned in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom and will not be found, I am informed, in the twentieth edition of Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice.

The hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew will be allowed to make an appropriate motion. In accordance with the usual practice, the hon. member will be given adequate time to consult and perfect his motion. I suggest that the leaders in the House might then arrange between them when the matter may be again brought forward.

In matters pertaining to the law of parliament and in particular relating to matters of privilege or contempt and the duty of the Chair with respect thereto, the Chair has relied upon the sixteenth edition of Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, chapter 8, commencing at page 109.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Thank you ever so much, Mr. Speaker. I take note of your closing comments with respect to your long presentation and the ruling, and advise you that on behalf of the government I will be more than pleased to consult with my colleague opposite and decide how a motion

[ Page 3222 ]

may be put. I understand that it's your opinion, sir, that the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, if he does wish a motion, may want to take some time in doing that. That is certainly agreeable to the government. So I will give my undertaking that we will hear a motion, but perhaps at a later time. My colleague from Coquitlam-Moody and I will discuss that later this evening.

MR. ROSE: That would be agreeable to us. Recalling the fact that a privilege motion takes precedence over all over business, I'm sure we can come to a satisfactory arrangement that we will have the debate on the motion at the most convenient early time.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: If it's agreeable to the critic — it is agreeable to the minister — I call adjourned debate on Bill 72.

GUARANTEED AVAILABLE INCOME FOR NEED
AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

(continued)

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I believe the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam still has some time if he wishes to continue.

MR. CASHORE: In response to the question of the government House Leader, as I said earlier, I had an opportunity to consult with some of my colleagues, and they have indicated that they would like to speak on this matter. Not all of them are in the House at this time, so I would suggest therefore that we proceed to another order of business at this time.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, given the circumstances of this afternoon, I think it's appropriate to move adjournment of this debate on behalf of any member of the Legislative Assembly until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:35 p.m.