[ Page 5495 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Seismic testing in Dixon Entrance-Hecate Strait. Mr. Guno –– 5495

Expo lands contamination. Ms. Smallwood –– 5496

Sale of forest nurseries. Mr. Lovick –– 5496

Environmental appeal charges. Ms. Smallwood –– 5497

Presenting Petitions –– 5497

Presenting Reports –– 5498

Tabling Documents –– 5498

Ministerial Statement

Resignation of Attorney-General. Hon. B.R. Smith –– 5498

Mr. Harcourt

Committee of Supply: Officer of the Premier estimates. (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

On vote 4: Premier's office –– 5499

Mr. Cashore

Ms. Marzari

Ms. Smallwood

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1988 (Bill 36). Committee stage.

(Hon. B.R. Smith) –– 5509

Mr. Lovick

Hon. Mr. Rogers

Third reading

Committee of Supply: Ombudsman estimates

On vote 3 –– 5510

Mr. Cashore

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Committee of Supply: Auditor-General estimates

On vote 2 –– 5512

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Ms. Marzari

Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Committee of Supply: Legislation estimates

Vote I –– 5515

Supply Act (No. 2), 1988 (Bill 59). Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Introduction and first reading –– 5515

Second reading

Committee stage

Third reading

Northwest Baptist Theological College Amendment Act,1988 (Bill PR406).

Second reading

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 5516

Northwest Baptist Theological College Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill PR406). Committee stage. (Mrs. Gr. 5516

Third reading

Mineral Tenure Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 58). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Davis) –– 5516

Mr. Blencoe

Third reading

Income Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1988 (Bill 62). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Couvelier) –– 5516

Third reading

Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 53). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Dueck) –– 5517

Ms. Marzari

Third reading

Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act (No. 2), 1988 (Bill 54).

Committee stage. (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) –– 5518

Mr. Blencoe

Third reading

Environment Management Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 50). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 5519

Securities Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 55). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 5520

Mr. Sihota –– 5520

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 5524

Securities Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 55). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) –– 5524

Mr. Sihota

Third reading

Environment Management Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 50). Second reading

Ms. Smallwood –– 5524

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 5525

Environment Management Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 50). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Strachan) –– 5526

Ms. Smallwood

Third reading

Law Reform Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 27). Report –– 5526

Third reading

Pension (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, 1988 (Bill 39). Report –– 5527

Third reading

Hydro and Power Authority Privatization Act (Bill 45). Report –– 5527

Third reading

Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 46). Report –– 5527

Third reading

Municipal Amendment Act (No. 2), 1988 (Bill 60). Hon. Mrs. Johnston

Introduction and first reading –– 5527

The House met at 2:09 p.m.

HON. MR. VEITCH: The candidate who came in a strong second in the riding of Coquitlam–Moody last election and will more than likely finish first in the next election, Darrell Anderson, is here in the gallery. I would ask the House to bid him welcome.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It gives me great pleasure to introduce in the House today Mr. Theo van den Muijsenberg, the distinguished consul–general of the Netherlands in British Columbia. Mr. van den Muijsenberg is at his last posting, as he will retire in July after a career spanning 38 years. After studies in the Netherlands in the field of business administration, Spanish language and civilization, he served in the Dutch foreign service from 1950 until the present. His diplomatic missions took him to Bogota, Quito, Caracas, London, Bombay, The Hague, Rio de Jamero, Montreal, New York, Washington and finally to beautiful Vancouver. He certainly has traveled and been to a great many places.

I would ask the House to join me in extending our very best wishes to Mr. van den Muijsenberg and his lovely wife for a long and happy retirement, and our warmest congratulations on a job well done.

HON. MR. PARKER: I'd like to introduce today Mayor Gordon Feyer of Masset and Mayor Gerry Johnson of Port Clements on the Queen Charlotte Islands. Would the House please make them welcome.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon are Kennith and Marion Villines of Victoria, and visitors from Arkansas, Shannon Thomas and her young son Andrew. Would hon. members make them welcome.

MS. A. HAGEN: In the gallery this afternoon are representatives from concerned citizens of British Columbia representing seniors' organizations and other groups within the province who have been working with them on a petition. Would the House join me in welcoming Jo Arland, Reg Gates, Russell Hunter, Ed Apps, Ed Jantz and Heather Leighton.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In the precincts today, and I believe in the gallery — if not at this moment, he will be shortly — is a gentleman who has served this government well for many years. He's been my deputy minister for the last year or so, and he has not only been a very faithful public servant but has become a good friend: Jim Carter. He leaves government service the day after tomorrow, taking retirement and going into another personal venture. I know the House will want to join me in wishing this distinguished public servant all the best.

MR. HARCOURT: I would like members of the House to welcome Gloria and Norm Tweedhope who are seated before us. Gloria worked for seven and a half years for the New Democrat caucus. She helped me when I was the new leader, set up my office and is now the legislative assistant for the members for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) and Surrey–Guildford–Whalley (Ms. Smallwood). They're going up Island for a well-deserved vacation after her retirement at the end of this session. These are the people who really make us work; we know that. They are the ones who keep our schedules in order and our constituents happy, and I think that we should pay a special tribute to all of the legislative assistants by giving a very warm round of applause to Gloria and Norm.

MR. PELTON: Hon. members, in the gallery today we have two very distinguished guests from Perth in Western Australia, Mr. and Mrs. Mat Stephens. Mr. Stephens is a Member of the Legislative Assembly and is also the deputy leader of the National Party in Western Australia. I would ask all members to make this very nice couple welcome.

[2:15]

MR. DE JONG: From time to time we celebrate birthdays, and today one of our journalists for that fine paper, the Province, is celebrating his birthday: Malcolm Turnbull. It's not only a birthday: it's his fiftieth birthday, and he's made a specific resolution that the Province is going to be an even better paper after today. I would ask the House to congratulate Malcolm Turnbull on his fiftieth birthday.

MR. CASHORE: I would like to join the Minister of Social Services and Housing in extending appreciation and congratulations to Jim Carter as he enters his retirement. He has been in the office during the time that I have been the critic of Social Services and Housing, and I have found him to be very cordial, open and responsive. I have appreciated the attitude that he has brought to his work, and I join in wishing him the best in his retirement.

HON. MR. VEITCH: It's come to my attention that another great British Columbian is in the gallery today, renowned educator Henry Justesen. I'd ask the House to bid him welcome.

Oral Questions

SEISMIC TESTING IN
DIXON ENTRANCE–HECATE STRAIT

MR. GUNO: My question is to the Minister of Environment and Parks. As the minister knows, yesterday the federal government began conducting seismic testing of the ocean floor in the Dixon Entrance–Hecate Strait area of the province. The minister will also be aware that these tests were originally scheduled for early June in order to avoid affecting the salmon runs in that area. Did the minister make any representation to the federal government about the possible effects of these tests on the marine life in that area?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm not aware of that issue. If you're concerned about the commercial fishery, the question might be better posed to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries.

MR. GUNO: The federal government began conducting seismic testing in the Hecate Strait–Dixon Entrance area. There has been some concern about the impact on the salmon run, and so the tests were originally set for early June. I'm wondering if the minister has any concern about that, and whether he has made representation to the federal government about that concern.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: As the hon. member should well realize, that is federal jurisdiction. I have, in fact, discussed it with the federal minister.

[ Page 5496 ]

MR. GUNO: This involves offshore gas exploration, but it is a matter that deals with the environment, and that's clearly within the jurisdiction of the province. I don't think that you can have a hands-off attitude with this issue.

Again, I'll pose this question to the Minister of Environment. In September 1987 the state of California put a moratorium on the renewal of seismic testing permits within their territorial waters because of the adverse effects of these tests on the state's fisheries industry and on marine life and the marine environment generally. Does the minister believe that the same tests that harm marine life in California will not harm marine life off the coast of British Columbia?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I appreciate the confidence you show in me, hon. member, by asking me about seismic testing. I wish I could answer that question for you, but I don't know what type of seismic testing they are attempting or purporting to do. It could involve high explosives, or it could involve just sound. There's a variety of seismic testing procedures. For the purposes of this question period, my colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries has indicated to you that he has discussed the matter with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans people, and I think that would suffice for this time. I guess both of us could take further questions on notice if more information is required.

MR. GUNO: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. There have actually been no studies done on the short- or long-term impact of seismic testing on salmon stock — the minister has confirmed that — either here or in any other area. A panel appointed through the federal and provincial Environment ministries said that they had concerns about the impact of these tests on marine life in the testing area. Will the minister end the uncertainty surrounding these tests and ensure the protection of the marine life off the coast of British Columbia by asking the federal government to call a halt to these tests, which started yesterday, and by ordering a complete public investigation, including a public hearing, to ensure that the tests on the marine environment off the coast of British Columbia are completely studied?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Again, I thank the member sincerely for the confidence he's placed in me for this awesome responsibility he assumes I have; but I don't. A provincial Minister of Environment is responsible for freshwater fisheries — very little marine life on the salt water. That question would be best posed to federal officials. Maybe your own Member of Parliament, Jim Fulton, might be better prepared to address that question for you.

EXPO LANDS CONTAMINATION

MS. SMALLWOOD: I have a new question for the Minister of Environment. I am disappointed at his answer, given the fact that the provincial and federal governments have been involved in the issue of offshore oil and gas for some time, and he certainly should have had notice. This government should be on top of this particular issue.

A new question, Mr. Speaker, to do with the Expo lands contamination. The chairman of the government's Special Waste Advisory Committee has now confirmed that there are severe toxic waste problems on the Expo site and that the cleanup will be costly. Will the Minister of Environment confirm that taxpayers will pick up the entire cost of cleanup and that Concord Pacific will pay nothing?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It wouldn't matter who owned it; the owner has to clean it up, Madam Member.

MS. SMALLWOOD: To clarify, is the minister saying that Concord Pacific will be held responsible for the total cleanup?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The previous owner will.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The minister is saying the previous owner. Will the government ensure that the previous owner is held responsible?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Sure.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I find the minister's statement quite outrageous. I understood the minister to indicate that the people who left the waste would be cleaning it up, but he is saying that the previous owner — the people of this province, the taxpayers — will be held responsible. Can the minister tell the House whether his ministry will be involved in an emergency team to deal with the cleanup, and can the minister indicate the timetable for that process?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We have a couple of questions there. Number one, the people who did the contaminating are long gone. It was done before the turn of the century and shortly after, with coal-gas plants and that type of nineteenth-century industrial activity, so it would be pretty hard to find the people responsible for that contamination.

In terms of cleanup, yes, the Ministry of Environment is the regulator. We are going to monitor that very closely and will be the agency responsible for ensuring that all lands, as they are turned over for public use or for the use of the new owner, are safe and within our standards. For that reason, the Enterprise Corporation had the foresight to ask Dr. David Boyes, chairman of our own special waste committee, to be its expert on this issue, and he is doing a remarkable job, as he always does. I can assure you and the people of British Columbia that when those sites are turned over, all soils will be decontaminated or treated properly.

SALE OF FOREST NURSERIES

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Forests and Lands. In a news release issued by the Minister of Forests on June 25, the sale of the Telkwa forest nursery was announced. The ministry also confirmed at that time that a decision regarding a sale of the other eight nurseries would probably be made by July. My question to the minister is just this: will he confirm for the House whether a condition of sale is that these lands will remain in the agricultural land reserve?

HON. MR. PARKER: I can't guarantee what the weather will be tomorrow, or anything else that will happen tomorrow. But if they're in the agricultural land reserve now, they're still in the ALR today. The forest nurseries in most instances are within the ALR, and the hope is that the private sector will continue to operate these forest nurseries in the years to come to help provide the planting stock for forest renewal.

MR. LOVICK: I wish I could take more reassurance from that answer than I find myself able to take. What we are

[ Page 5497 ]

asking the minister is simply for some reassurances that what we're talking about is not merely a great real estate flip in the name of privatization.

A supplementary question, if I might. Again, let me remind you of what the press release issued on June 25 stated: "Two of the nurseries are currently undergoing land use studies. Would the minister be kind enough to explain why?

HON. MR. PARKER: The two nurseries that the member alludes to are the Koksilah in Duncan and the Green Timbers Nursery in Surrey. Both nurseries are within the municipal boundaries, and we are working with the municipalities on the destiny of those two.

MR. LOVICK: Perhaps the minister has a hearing problem. I thought I was clear. I am asking: why that process — not about the fact that it's being conducted with the municipal authorities. Are we talking about rezoning? Is that on the agenda? Again, why are we conducting those studies?

HON. MR. PARKER: They are local issues. We are not looking for rezoning of those properties. We're looking for a solution with the two municipalities as to the destiny of those lands. It's appropriate that we work with those municipalities because the Green Timbers Nursery is a heritage property, and Surrey wants to retain it that way. We're quite prepared to work with them. Basically, we're having discussions with them. We're not looking for rezoning for a real estate transaction, if that's what the member is alluding to.

MR. LOVICK: I think we're finally getting somewhere. Will the minister assure this House that those properties, albeit they are privatized, will continue to perform the vital service they currently do for the forest industry?

HON. MR. PARKER: There are no guarantees in life.

MR. LOVICK: It's nice to encounter the philosopher-king on the other side.

Another short question, if I might. I wonder if the minister could tell us some more specific things: who is presently conducting these land use studies; what the terms of reference for those studies are; and when those studies will be completed.

HON. MR. PARKER: Discussions are taking place between officials in our ministry and representatives of the municipalities.

MR. LOVICK: It seems we must carry on this kind of pas de deux in which we avoid each other. My question was: will you tell us who is conducting the land use studies? You've done so in a vague kind of way. Will you also tell us what the terms of reference are? Will those terms of reference be made public? Will the results of those studies be made public?

HON. MR. PARKER: The matter is under discussion with various municipalities. That's just the state of affairs: it's under discussion. There are no set terms of reference; it's under discussion. We have an opportunity here for the municipalities to vent their concerns and deal with an issue that's within their mandate, and we're working with them for a common solution. You don't need terms of reference. You don't need any hard-and-fast rules to enter into discussion with municipal officials on the matter of lands within their municipalities. It's simply a matter of open discussion between our officials and theirs — no big secret. There's nothing dark and sinister about it. It's just open government.

[2:30]

ENVIRONMENTAL APPEAL CHARGES

MS. SMALLWOOD: A question to the Minister of Environment. In this House on June 21, you mentioned that an oral hearing before the Environmental Appeal Board could be arranged for the Islands Protection Society in Vancouver for $7,000. Is this the same fee that would be charged to other public interest groups. or is this a special penalty fee for the Islands Protection Society?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, it's a special protection fee for the people of British Columbia.

MS. SMALLWOOD: How does the minister reconcile charging exorbitant rates for these appeals with the ombudsman's recommendations that pesticide use appeals should be decided in hearings that are open and accessible to the public — hearings in their own community?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's reconciled. We've had seven hearings now, at a cost of about $100,000, to accommodate the Islands Protection Society. They have been unable at any time to introduce new evidence. So in order to not cause this tremendous expense to the Crown and to the taxpayer of British Columbia, we're insisting that this particular group — who really have not done a very good job in terms of trying to do what they want to do — pay a deposit. Anybody else could attend. But they have rather sullied their own record.

MR. SPEAKER: The first member for Victoria seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. G. HANSON: Would the House join us in welcoming 18 individuals representing the Inter–Cultural Association of Greater Victoria, which, as you probably know, is having its annual festival in the concourse and area around the Provincial Museum. It represents the multicultural flavour of Canada. Would you all join me in welcoming them and their good work.

Presenting Petitions

MS. A. HAGEN: I ask leave to present a petition to the assembly this afternoon. This petition comes from concerned citizens of British Columbia who represent many residents in care homes: the Old Age Pensioners' Organization; the Council of Senior Citizens' Organizations in B.C.; various organized groups, such as the B.C. Nurses' Union and the Hospital Employees' Union; and many citizens and organizations who have joined them in this petition. It reads:

"We, the undersigned concerned citizens of British Columbia do hereby petition the government of British Columbia to rescind the increase in fees and proposed means tests for patients in long-term-care facilities. Many of these patients are on minimum and fixed incomes. Increased fees will reduce the amount

[ Page 5498 ]

available to provide for their necessary personal and medical needs, while a means test will subject them to a demeaning and intrusive inquiry into their personal affairs."

Mr. Speaker, there are 41,171 names represented here.

Presenting Reports

Ms. Marzari, Chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, presented the first report from the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

MS. MARZARI: I move the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

MS. MARZARI: By leave, I move that the rules be suspended and the report adopted.

Leave granted.

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Speaker, this is the 113th report from a Public Accounts Committee to this House. I present this report with mixed feelings. As Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, I don't feel I am completely satisfied that the appropriate time and resource has been brought to this investigation of public accounts. I think that this is basically a brief canvass of some of the issues that the auditor general has brought before the House and has been delegated to the committee.

It has briefly canvassed the Coquihalla issue. It has briefly tried to canvass the B.C. Enterprise Corporation. But I believe that in the 11 hours that we have had, it is not really an accurate and fully canvassed statement of the state of public accounts in our province. I would like to say that strides have been made in this past year. That the report is before you is in itself something of significance. I would like to point to the excellent efforts of the staff of the ministries, the comptroller-general and the office of the auditor-general, and to the excellent work of our own Clerk of the committee. I hereby present. . . .

MR. G. HANSON: And the members.

MS. MARZARI: And the members, who, I should add, found it difficult to come in this morning for an early morning meeting after the debate lasted until 1:10 last evening. I present the report to the House as it stands.

MR. REE: Just a short correction. Debate lasted until 1:15 last night, and I didn't see the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee in the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Couvelier tabled the financial statements for the Educational Institutions Capital Financing Authority and the Housing and Employment Development Financing Authority for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1988.

Hon. Mr. Davis tabled the annual report of the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation for the fiscal year 1987-88.

Ministerial Statement

RESIGNATION OF ATTORNEY-GENERAL

HON. B.R. SMITH: I have a ministerial statement to make.

Mr. Speaker, for over five years I have had the honour to hold the post of Attorney-General. This is an office of great sensitivity and neutrality in the administration of justice. I now find that I can no longer carry out my duties, as I clearly do not have the support of the Premier and his office, who do not appreciate the unique independence that is the cornerstone of the Attorney-General's responsibilities in a free parliamentary democracy. Therefore I am submitting my resignation as Attorney-General and am stating that I do not wish at this time to be considered for another cabinet post in this administration.

In removing myself from this office now it is my hope that I may protect its unique independence. I believe that there is a strong danger that the Premier wishes to bring the conduct of the office of the Attorney-General under closer control by his office and so weaken the independence of the Attorney-General. I know this result, Mr. Speaker, can be accomplished in a number of ways, certainly in part by reorganizing this ministry into several weaker departments with divided responsibilities. I also know that this can be accomplished by shifting ministers and other senior personnel. I believe these plans have already been laid.

Only by stepping down, only by speaking out now, can I hope to prevent a course which will weaken the independence and erode the tradition of the office of the Attorney-General. I'm not a political renegade. I have loyally supported and campaigned across this province for the policies of this government. But during the past week, amid speculation of cabinet reorganization, I have had a chance to review some of the comments that have been made by the Premier and others concerning who might occupy the office of Attorney-General. Any fair-minded observer would find these comments an implied lack of confidence in myself, but even more so a diminished concept of the office of Attorney-General.

Clearly the Premier believes that this office can be well filled by someone who does not have legal training. This observation is hard to accept when there are four members of the government caucus who have legal training. I know from my experience that the Attorney-General requires considerable legal and constitutional sensibility in giving advice to government, or else the Attorney-General will simply be repeating, without understanding, the legal advice of others.

I also know that during my term of office I have tried to give sound advice. I have always striven to protect the honesty and integrity of the administration. I have also reached out to ordinary citizens who are frustrated and alienated from the justice system. Major law reform has been passed in the past few years, from controlling pornography to providing a fair expropriation procedure; from modernizing the law of commercial arbitration to creating a maintenance collection system to help single parents. I have battled for strong parole policies and sponsored our first law to support victims of crime.

I know that these policies have been widely acclaimed both by the public and by the party, and that my performance has nothing to do with the reasons why the Premier wishes to remove me from my post and weaken my ministry. The reason instead has to do with a fundamental misunderstanding as to why my office must remain independent and neutral. I can only conclude that the two occasions most mentioned do give the real indication of this misunderstanding.

Firstly, in March when the Chief Justice handed down his decision on abortion funding, it was my duty to uphold that

[ Page 5499 ]

decision, and in doing so I believe I strengthened the government. On the second occasion, in early April, it is a matter of record that I did have discussions with the Premier concerning Mr. Toigo. I did tell the Premier that I could not, as requested by him and announced by Mr. Toigo, confirm that no requests had been received for a criminal investigation. Indeed, I could neither confirm nor deny these types of allegations in this or in any other case.

For me to have acted differently and to have done what I was requested to do would not only have dishonoured my office but also would have placed in peril the office of the Premier. I explained my position on several occasions to the Premier when those events occurred. I fervently hoped that I had established and explained the importance of the neutrality and independence of my office to the Premier. I now believe that I have failed to make that impression.

I can only conclude that it is because of the way that I independently carried out my duties that I am slated to be removed from those duties. I also believe that it is planned to reorganize this ministry, separating the control of the police and prisons from the rest of the justice portfolio. But by speaking out now, and stepping down now, I may still deter these plans and save the integrity of the office of the Attorney-General.

I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that I am resigning as Attorney-General and removing myself from serving in a new cabinet at this time. But I am going to remain a member of this Legislature. I'm going to sit in my caucus and I'm going to serve and support my party. I'm going to continue to support government policies and to speak out when necessary, not just on justice issues but to fight for free trade and to promote positive privatization as well as supporting progressive social and environmental policies.

Mr. Speaker, when I first entered local politics over 20 years ago, my father, who is now deceased, told me that in politics you have nothing if you do not have your integrity. When Richard McBride resigned on a point of principle in the Dunsmuir administration in 1901, his father said: "My boy, resign everything but your honour." I am resigning as an act of honour.

MR. HARCOURT: That is indeed a surprising announcement, and we are taken aback by the resignation of the Attorney-General. I may say that it was a courageous move from a man I have known for many years — as a matter of fact, as neighbours when we were youngsters growing up in Oak Bay.

The reasons that the Attorney-General has given for resigning from the cabinet are indeed substantial and important to the integrity of our parliamentary democracy. He outlined three instances, one being the decision of our court in British Columbia on abortion funding and the very strenuous advice that the Attorney-General gave at that time to the Premier — that the Premier must obey the rule of law — and the judgment of our courts under our constitution. Second was the integrity of the office not to confirm or deny that an investigation is taking place, which is a long-standing tradition. And third were the musings of the Premier and others about not needing a lawyer to do this job, that it could be done by lay people. That is true to a certain extent, but I think that the Attorney-General — now the member for Oak Bay — has outlined the unique status of the Attorney-General in our parliamentary system: an independent adviser, not just to the cabinet but to the Lieutenant-Governor, on behalf of Her Majesty and of the institutions of our great democracy. That integrity cannot be sullied, decentralized, decimated, cut up and pushed into the Premier's office for greater control to carry out the Premier's wishes. That integrity is absolutely inviolate, and the Attorney-General was right to make that the essence of his remarks to this Legislature today.

[2:45]

From our side of the Legislature. I would like to say to the member from Oak Bay that this was a difficult decision from one who has been involved in public service for many years as a mayor and a member of the Legislature, who has served in a number of cabinet positions and as Attorney-General for a number of years now. We admire this startling, sudden but courageous decision.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

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

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER
(continued)

On vote 4: Premier's office, $6,756,134.

MR. CASHORE: Prior to lunch I had an opportunity to say just a few sentences, and the point I was making was that the Premier's plan to strengthen the family, in my opinion, indicates a lack of trust in two major government ministries, Social Services and Health.

My reason for coming to that position is that this initiative was announced during the current session and prior to the budget having been approved, at a time when there was ample opportunity to have incorporated any reasonable long-range planning into the budget that the Premier presented through his Minister of Finance on budget day.

I say that, also recognizing that there appeared to be a philosophy during the time that the budget was presented that would move towards the consolidation of funds. Indeed we have had legislation before this House indicating that to be the process, except that in this one instance the Premier went against the grain of what was seemingly the process regarding consolidated funds and set up a special fund that came under the Ministry of Finance. But presumably the money out of this $85 million fund, this new initiatives fund, would be made available for the Initiatives for Strengthening the Family program.

There's an expression in theology, a Latin phrase, creatio ex nihilo, which means created from nothing. It would seem to me, given the events leading up to the Premier's program for strengthening the family, that the Premier indeed had invented the family from nothing. The Premier had invented an entity on which he then decided to focus his attentions — and I would say his political attentions — because of a political problem he was having at that time.

So the first question I would like to put to the Premier is: given the fact that the family has existed in this province for a long time, it leaves me very curious as to why the family was discovered following the events that resulted from a Supreme Court of Canada's decision on abortion. Why did the Premier choose to discover the family at that time, to go beyond and indeed to ignore the normal planning budgetary procedures

[ Page 5500 ]

and set up a special fund — some would call it a slush fund — outside the Ministry of Social Services and Housing and the Ministry of Health? I would also like to ask the Premier: would he have initiated this program if he had not found himself in difficulty over the decision to cease funding abortions?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The position that I've taken has been consistent. I never run from political problems. There are obviously those from time to time, and they offer us only further challenge. I guess the further challenge is what we saw following the controversy on abortion, but we said then that we would be introducing a program that would provide people with information that would identify alternatives to abortions.

We had similarly talked about providing opportunities for people to receive marriage counselling, especially those who might not identify themselves with a particular church. We had already had discussions many months prior with the Council for the Family.

We know that the Ministry of Social Services was extremely concerned and was seeking ways of bringing back home runaway kids who found themselves on the streets.

We faced all those problems. They didn't happen all of a sudden or one at a time, but we provided one program to attempt to address those concerns and others, called Strengthening the Family. We funded the program. I think it's a noble goal. I'm not suggesting that we'll alter or change all things or improve it just as all people would have it, but I believe we, as people in government, have to care. We have to do whatever we can, and if we can take a leadership role and bring about some good, or even if we can provide some people with alternatives to abortions or prevent abortions, help counsel the family through the Council for the Family and help them in their marriage, or bring home a few runaway kids. . . . I don't know what the price is, but I think it's well worth it, whatever the price, and it's certainly a program that I support wholeheartedly.

MR. CASHORE: I know the Premier is not able to hear all the debates that take place in the Legislature, but I want to assure the Premier that for two years now during the estimates of the Ministry of Social Services and Housing, we have canvassed the minister on some of the needs that the Premier says he has tried to respond to in that Initiatives for Strengthening the Family program.

We have pointed out in this House to his minister that programs for the family in British Columbia have been decimated since 1982-83 and that there is a very real need for responsible, incremental, evaluative planning. I'm talking about the planning that happens within a ministry which demonstrates trust of the people who work within the ministry and which enables them to have the resources they need to fulfil their mandate. The response we have received has been that it has not been possible to respond to these needs that we have pointed out to the Ministry of Social Services and Housing because there simply isn't enough money to go around. I'm sure the minister has expressed in this House and privately on several occasions that there was sufficient money to go around. The Premier has not responded to my question.

What happened after January 20 of this year that caused this Premier and, he would want us to believe, the members of his government to have a complete about face with regard to the need for spending funds on some of these social programs? We have been pointing out this need for many years. What happened after January 21 that caused this about face? The Premier has not addressed that question.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: There was no about face. We developed the program based on a number of things that have certainly been presented to us as problems, and I am very proud of every component of that program. I'm sure that you members of the opposition may have varying views on some of those problems we wish to see addressed in the Strengthening the Family program. You are entitled to your own views, but I think that we as a government are certainly determined to proceed with the program. We're very proud of the program. We didn't need a reason per se, but we certainly saw a number of problems that could be addressed in this approach.

MR. CASHORE: It is apparent that the Premier is embarrassed about this line of questioning and wants to not answer some very specific questions.

Interjections.

MR. CASHORE: I think it's also embarrassing that his members choose to laugh on cue. I understand that they're all under a great deal of stress right now and that there are a number of things bothering them. But if they would quiet down a bit, maybe the Premier would be able to hear my next question.

AN HON. MEMBER: Say something of value and we'll quiet down.

MR. CASHORE: I think we are talking about something of value when we're talking about the family; there's no question about that. I know that the Premier will agree with me that both sides of this House have talked about the family for years, so nobody is claiming ownership with regard to that. I think that will be agreed. But I think the Premier will also recognize that the question I have been asking is a difficult one, because it compares and contrasts the government initiative with regard to this issue to the whole tendency within government this year to want to consolidate funds and get away from having special pots of money here and there. Right in the middle of the budgeting process, this special pot of money, $85 million, was set up.

I would like to suggest that this fund is nothing more than a political pork-barrel. It's money that is put there so that the Premier, when he gets into political difficulty with regard to social policy on families, on children. . . . When the heat is on, he is then able to reach into it, control it, use it and spend it in a way that it is designed not primarily to deal with the issue it is said it is to deal with, but. . . . It's a pork-barrel to deal with the Premier's political problems.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. CASHORE: That was a very interesting groan, but I would point out that a few moments ago we heard from the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith), who used these words when he was referring to the Premier. He said there was "a fundamental misunderstanding with regard to the function of the Attorney-General." I would say that I would echo those words with regard to the fundamental understanding of the Ministries of Health and Social Services and Housing, inso-

[ Page 5501 ]

far as the $85 million slush fund was set up outside of their purview. Somehow they were able to flank our Premier at a press conference to try to get all of the possible hype out of that that one could possibly get, but for no other reason.

[3:00]

The people working in the Ministries of Health and Social Services and Housing in this province would give their eye teeth to have access to that fund so that they could apply it according to some of the incremental, careful, evaluative planning they have been trying to do. The Premier knows all too well that there has been a recent reorganization within that ministry, and in some ways that reorganization is failing because it lacks the resources that are needed. Yet Mr. Carter and others did their very best with the limited resources they had to try to serve the families of this province through that reorganization. They were not given the resources to do it. The Premier, because he is having political problems, takes the money and puts it into a special pork barrel so that he can deliver that money when he wants it, where he wants it and because he needs it.

This is a shameful thing that has been a hallmark of the nature of this legislative session with regard to the way the Premier of this province has functioned. I would like to ask the Premier if he can explain to this House in what way this program, this $85 million fund, does not indicate a fundamental misunderstanding with regard to the Ministries of Social Services and Housing and Health?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: There is no fundamental misunderstanding by the Premier or my office about any minister or ministry, or any program of any minister or ministry. I don't have any difficulty with that. I am very proud of our program — and it's certainly a very effective program as well — called Strengthening the Family. Despite the opposition from the NDP, because they are very narrow in their views on. . . . I am only disappointed the member didn't have the courage to make reference to those programs that he might have been referring to. I say again, I have no difficulty with assuring that, as part of the program entitled Strengthening the Family, we do provide information to those seeking abortions, to give them some knowledge about the alternatives. I make no apologies for that. I appreciate it's more than what perhaps the opposition would do, but you speak for yourself on that particular issue, and I guess you've already done so.

I can only say that we not only talk about strengthening the family; we do something about it. I repeat: I wish we could do much more, and I wish we could be 100 percent successful. I know we can't be just that, but we'll certainly give it every try. Everything we can do to help in that regard we will do.

MR. CASHORE: In 1982, under the Ministry of Social Services and Housing, $17,837,000 was spent for family support services in this province. That was in 1982. In 1986 — and let's remember that we need to make adjustments for inflation — the amount was $10,688,000.

I repeat my point: there are excellent people in the Ministry of Social Services and Housing who have been working extremely hard to try to deal with the burgeoning needs of families which the Premier has pointed out the minister has identified by going down into the downtown area. No question about that; I am sure he would identify them by going down there.

We have been telling the Premier ever since he became Premier that the previous administration's decimating of family programs was a process where you sow the wind and you reap the whirlwind. We have been telling you that, and we have been telling you that the way you address that issue is to address it through careful. incremental, evaluative planning within the ministry. That's how to address it.

It's obvious that the Premier isn't going to answer the question, but I would like to refer to a couple of points that he's made in saying why these extra pork-barrel funds were needed. He referred to the B.C. council for strengthening the family. I want to point out that the B.C. council for strengthening the family has had the support of this government, I believe most recently through the Ministry of Health. I also want the Premier to know that members on both sides of this House have stood in this House on statement days and spoken in very complimentary ways about the B.C. Council for the Family.

I think the B.C. Council for the Family is in that fragile situation where, when we are not involved with it politically but supportively, it is able to do its best work. But where the politics, the large P politics, come into the issue, it compromises their ability to do their job well because it can become suspect. Such is the case in the Premier's constant reference to the B.C. Council for the Family's marriage preparation program, because the Premier knows full well that that program has been on the drawing-board for a long time. He knows full well that the conference that took place in March that reviewed the draft of the manual for those married counsellors who would have the benefit of that program was on its way for a long time prior to the plan to strengthen the family. He knows that that was in place; he knows it was underway, but he also knows that he decided to co-opt it when it became expedient to do so.

Mr. Chairman, this is why I find the words of the Attorney-General very helpful: "fundamental misunderstanding." Here we have a fundamental misunderstanding with regard to the appropriateness of the way in which such an issue should be addressed. It's a fundamental misunderstanding that doesn't only hurt the people from the B.C. Council for the Family. It doesn’t only hurt those people who might or might not — because of what has been going on — participate in that process. It is a fundamental misunderstanding that hurts the social fabric of British Columbia, because it calls into question the integrity of something that, before it was damaged by that poison touch, had been most worthwhile and should not have been interfered with.

I stand where I am today and tell the Premier that whether or not the so-called plan to strengthen the family had ever come into existence, the marriage preparation program of the B.C. Council for the Family would have happened: it would have gone ahead anyway. The Premier has simply decided to use that and take credit for it and incorporate that into some political hype.

The Premier has also referred to the abortion issue and the efforts that the so-called plan to strengthen the family have put forward with regard to dealing with this issue in our society. Again we have an issue here where the Premier has taken very vulnerable people in our society and decided that it is expedient to use them for his political purposes. What people who were dealing with such issues need is not dealing with that issue as a political football, but quiet, careful evaluative, comprehensive planning that is done properly within a line ministry.

[ Page 5502 ]

If the Premier is so concerned, I would like to ask him why an organization that is second to none and internationally recognized for its educational role in preventing unwanted pregnancy. . . . I would like to ask him why his government fails to support Planned Parenthood. That is a program that is appropriate across a wide spectrum of people in our society. It's a program that has a proven track record, and it is a way of dealing with an issue prior to it becoming the issue that it is when it becomes a debate around abortion. I feel that if the Premier was really intent on strengthening the family, he would be recognizing the validity of supporting that organization and he would also recognize that that organization has had support from this government in the past but, sadly, does not now.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a very specific question to the Premier. It was a question I put to the Minister of Finance during the estimates, when we were looking at the $85 million new initiatives fund. I'll just wait so that the Premier can hear me ask this question. The question is this: during the few days after the announcement of the plan to strengthen the family, the Premier was seen on television and in newspaper ads throughout the province. Often these ads are referred to as the "smoking-jacket" ads; these are the ads where the Premier was advertising the program and getting a great deal of public exposure. During the estimates, when we were talking about this $85 million fund, I asked the Minister of Finance if the $20 million that had been announced for the Initiatives for Strengthening the Family was the source for the advertising at that time. He said that it was. I then asked him how much of the money from that $20 million went into the advertising. He said that he would take the question on notice. So far I have not received a response. I would like to ask the Premier: how much of that $20 million went into paying for that advertising program in this province at this time when children are going hungry?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't have the exact amount, nor will we have it, I suppose, until it's finished; but this information will definitely be available through public accounts.

MR. CASHORE: I would like to turn now to something that the Premier said on the hungry school kids issue: "If there are children going to school hungry, that means that they are not being looked after by their parents. I don't know if it's really that difficult for people to get a lunch together for their children. They are not really caring as they should be if this is happening. Either they are using the money for things they shouldn't be using it for or they're sleeping in when they should be preparing lunches, letting their kids go off without it." I would like to ask the Premier if he still feels that way.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm afraid that this bit of research came from one of the newspapers and doesn't accurately reflect what was said with respect to the question about the school lunch program.

MR. CASHORE: How does the Premier feel then about that quote, which he states does not accurately reflect how he feels about it?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'll just try to repeat very quickly what I've said before on other occasions. There are probably many reasons why some youngsters arrive at school without breakfast or without a lunch. We won't know what all of the reasons are unless we can assess each situation separately, I suppose. In reference to the remarks made by the member, I might have listed examples of some of the things that could happen. Sometimes, I guess, it's because the money gets spent. Other times it's for other reasons which, as I said, we won't know until each situation is looked at.

[3:15]

This is why we've continually said if we could get school teachers, counsellors, as well as our people in the Social Services ministry working together to identify these situations, then our people could very caringly assist the family and provide not only for the youngster who comes to school without a breakfast or a lunch, but similarly ensure that there's a breakfast or a lunch during the Easter break, the summer holidays, the Christmas break and weekends, or that we are able to provide for the children at home who are likewise doing without breakfast or lunch.

To simply say we'll institute a breakfast program and a lunch program for all the schools throughout the province. . . . Obviously you wouldn't recommend, again, that it be a program for downtown Vancouver only. It must go beyond. If there are problems in Vancouver, there could well be problems elsewhere too. So the program would have to consider the whole of the province. But to simply say we'll institute a government lunch program and get the fridges, the freezers, the directors, the assistant directors, the trucks, and we'll build the kitchens and the bureaucracy. . . . That, I appreciate, may be the socialist approach, but I believe we should look at these people as individuals and attempt to address each situation on an individual basis. The results would be better not only for the child and the family, but also, as was mentioned, for the children at home.

MR. CASHORE: I'm sure the Premier realizes that there are some people, children included, who have to have food before they can start to benefit from some of the other things of life. It reminds me of the Premier's suggestion that mothers of some of these children might best turn to Jesus, and that would begin to resolve their problems. But Jesus said, in reference to a father, in the Bible. . . . He talked about a father being asked for bread and giving a stone. What has happened is that people, all of us, have need for counselling services and other kinds of services, but our primary needs are for food. If somebody is asking for bread, I think that's a pretty important request and one that must be taken seriously. When somebody asks for bread and is given a counsellor, I don't think that's really addressing a primary need in a way that is compassionate or understanding or in a way that is going to in any way strengthen the family.

I find, Mr. Chairman, if I can sum up, that the gist of what has been happening through the Premier in this province during this session has been what some people who are at the low end of the income scale have considered to be in some instances physical abuse, because of the problems they have had in trying to deal with their physical needs. Sometimes it has been received as verbal abuse, because of some of the kinds of things that have been said about turning to Jesus and whatever it was that was said exactly — things that have suggested that maybe it was because they were irresponsible. We hurt people when we say things like that.

In any segment of our society, yes, there are people who are irresponsible; we know that. That's a given. Politicians, ministers of the church, people in trust companies and also people of the low income scale — we know that's a given. But

[ Page 5503 ]

when we start to target those people and use language about them that tends to use a lowest-common-denominator philosophy, that's extremely hurtful, especially to those single mothers and fathers struggling to get by, some of them, after their shelter is paid for, on as low as $4.64 a day. That's extremely difficult, and no amount of counselling for a lot of those people is going to be able to put food on the table.

So it is a kind of abuse when people hear that this program is being put in place, when family support services were axed back in 1982-83. This new program is put in place that is outside the aegis of the ministry — it's not even ministry staff. It's not only that people are asking for bread and being given a stone, but they're asking for bread and they're being given a very, very difficult burden, a heavy rock. Mr. Chairman, I find this most inappropriate.

We hear the Premier going on from time to time about what he perceives as a positive economy within this province. But that type of thinking espouses the trickle-down theory that the low-income people will benefit when there's economic prosperity. We haven't seen that happening. We haven't seen the people at the low end of the income scale benefiting from what prosperity there is in this province. I think the Premier would do well to take a look at why that might be.

Certainly it's not going to strengthen the family or return principles of fairness when our Premier insists on setting up slush funds for his own political purposes, when he will take $50 from mothers on welfare with. . . . At one point, the plan was for mothers with babies 15 weeks old, forcing them out looking for work, but now it's with children 6 years old, requiring that there be a whole new dimension of latchkey children.

Mr. Chairman, the situation that we find families in in this province is absolutely deplorable. The initiatives to strengthen the family are simply not addressing that need. The infrastructure of this government is being undermined by the way in which the Premier has gone about this, as evidenced by the $85 million slush fund.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I've heard some rather irresponsible statements, I believe. When we hear it said that families in B.C. are in big trouble. . . . I appreciate that there are problems. There are families with problems, but to somehow label all things as being so chaotic and that families everywhere are having trouble. . . . There are many people working hard to get by and doing very well, and they're to be commended, because these are trying times. They are difficult times.

For you, hon. member, with your background, to suggest somehow that there aren't many people trying very hard and doing a commendable job, given the difficult circumstances as they exist out there — well, I'm a little bit surprised, to say the least. But then again, I appreciate perhaps that some of what's said is of a philosophical and political nature, and hopefully one day you'll find your way away from where you're at with that political party.

You talk about counselling instead of bread. We never said we'd give counselling instead of bread. In order to make the point, you quote from the Bible, and you give an example which you liken to counselling instead of bread. It's not counselling instead of bread, and to use the Bible in that way, I think, is to somewhat abuse the Bible, because we've never said that. You know that was never intended. It's been explained time and time again.

There are 83,000 children in a welfare situation in this province. I agree that's too many, and we're striving to see it otherwise. Out of the 83,000 children, you and your members have been talking about 600 to 700 children who you say might be identified in Vancouver.

We're saying that we want to assist those families if there's a problem with no breakfast or no lunch during school time, For that reason, you've repeated time and time again that you want some big government socialistic approach whereby we get into a big bureaucracy. I have yet to hear you or anyone from the other side answer what we do on weekends. Or do you care what happens during the Easter break or the summer holidays or the Christmas break?

Do you care that if a child comes to school who, for some reason or another — we don't know what the reason is — is being denied a breakfast or a lunch, there could be two or three other little children at home who don't have the benefit of this big government program that the NDP wants to see introduced. It's another welfare program costing millions of dollars and taking it away from people who would similarly need some help. I refer to your suggestion when you quote the Bible and liken the bread to the rock and the counselling to the bread, and I say again that it's nothing like that.

We want to work with those families to see how we help them, not only with one child, but with other children and not only when they are attending school but when they are not in school. That is a responsible approach, and we stand by it. I commend the Minister of Social Services and Housing for instituting the various initiatives that he has in order to see this done effectively.

You talk about verbal abuse. You say that when you go someplace and talk about Jesus Christ being the answer, that's verbal abuse or whatever you said, or however you said it, or however accurate. I believe you said it; you might have been quoted or words to that effect. It does make a difference whether you are accurately quoted or not. You said that because you know very well that it was a misquote, and that this was said when I was addressing a Christian businessmen's breakfast with the mayors of the Kootenays in attendance.

That's when the statement was made, and I don't make any apologies for the statement. It was accurate then; it is accurate now. It's only inaccurate when you use it and twist it and change it in order to make a political point, regardless of the expense or who you offend. There are just as many people, I would suggest, hon. member, who don't mind somebody mentioning the name of Jesus Christ as there are who might be offended by it. As a matter of fact, I would suggest many more don't mind it. Especially if you consider the context and where it was given, I would suggest it was the proper thing to say then, and it would be now. In all honesty, you would have to agree.

MS. MARZARI: The Premier has just suggested that something uttered at a businessmen's breakfast is legitimate anywhere, and it's perhaps more appropriate at a businessmen's breakfast than it is in the House. Businessmen's breakfast?

AN HON. MEMBER: A Christian businessmen's breakfast.

MS. MARZARI: Oh, a Christian businessmen's breakfast is the place to tell women to turn to Jesus. That's what the Premier is saying. It's appropriate in that situation, perhaps,

[ Page 5504 ]

Mr. Premier, but I don't think it's appropriate for the rest of the province. Perhaps you should have checked the press and their presence before you said it then, and you wouldn't be embarrassed in the House here. You can keep it as a secret.

I think that action speaks louder than words, and I think that budgets reflect action. My questions to the Premier have strictly to do with his budget. The Premier has total discretion over the budget, and this is very rare. Most ministers don't have complete discretion over a large budget. Most ministers have strings attached to their various budgets. Most ministers have to go through their votes and their ministries to look at their budgets and their programs. But the Premier this year has almost broken all records in terms of having a specific vote for innovation, for his innovative projects, or whatever it is called. Within that $85 million the Premier has, almost at his own discretion, as his own spending money, a $20 million discretionary fund which has been loosely labelled "family strengthening" — the family strengthening fund.

[3:30]

To this point there has been a lot of discussion around the family strengthening fund. There have even been page advertisements in the local newspapers about what it is going to be spent on, vaguely broken down between advertising, advertising, advertising and advertising. I would like the Premier, if he would, to break down very specifically for me what that $20 million looks like.

It is not good enough to say, "Go to the Public Accounts next year," because that won't do us any good right now. It's the Premier who has that $20 million, I would suggest, and that $20 million is being spent right now. I would appreciate it if the Premier would tell this House what categories that $20 million breaks down into. Where does the advertising stop? Where does the "buck up granny" program begin? Where does the "keep mom prolific" program begin? Where does the "eat a counsellor for lunch" program begin? If he would just break that down for me, then we can get into a decent discussion on what in fact that $20 million looks like.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Before I answer that question, could you tell me what these programs are again? "Eat a counsellor for lunch," "keep mom prolific," and what are the others? I can't comment on those programs. There are no such programs.

MS. MARZARI: Many comments have been made about that $20 million through the press over the last number of months, and many different reporters, Lynn Cockburn included, invented some of those names. I have added, with my own sense of innovation and imagination, a few others. I have still others which might not be appropriate for this House to hear, but if the Premier would explain to the House how the $20 million gets broken down, he can dispel some of the myths that have been built up around the family strengthening program.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We differ obviously in that I don't do my research from the press or the columnists, and I guess this is where you get the names and the figures. My total budget, if you will refer to vote 4 — I'll read it again. The total voted expenditure by group account classification is $6,756,134. With that being my total vote, how could I comment on a $20 million figure when that is $13 million above the amount of my total vote?

MS. MARZARI: Is the Premier saying he doesn't have a $20 million family strengthening program?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That's correct, Mr. Chairman. It's not a part of my budget and I would refer the member to vote 4 where she can see this for herself. It's better to do some homework by referring to these estimates and books rather than going to the newspaper for your research.

MS. MARZARI: Can I remind the Premier that this is his program and it was announced by the Premier himself in the "father knows best" ads he did on TV some months ago. The family strengthening program was very much a part of the Premier's own innovations budget, so I would very much like to know where the $20 million is going.

Is the Premier suggesting that the $20 million doesn't exist? Is the Premier suggesting that the $20 million has been absorbed into other ministry budgets? Is the Premier suggesting that that project and that program never existed in the first place? What is the Premier suggesting with these comments that this is not a part of his budget?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It is not a part of my budget, so I don't believe it should be canvassed under my vote. I am sure the opportunity was there under Health and Social Services and the Ministry of Finance; that's when it should have been raised. It is not a part of the Premier's vote. Nor was the announcement made by the Premier alone; present there was the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck), the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) and myself.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the chair might be helpful in this matter, hon. members, could I point out that vote 74, it appears, contains the $85 million which has been alluded to on a number of occasions, and part of this $85 million I believe is where we find the $20 million. Vote 74 was dealt with under the Ministry of Finance and was approved at that time.

MS. MARZARI: The innovations budget, then, that the Premier has been using to develop his family strengthening program has not been put into the Premier's budget itself. I must say that the Speech from the Throne certainly suggested that the innovations project and the budget were appended to the Premier's office itself. Perhaps that was a mistake in the Lieutenant-Governor's speech to the House at that point.

I would like to come back to some of the comments that have been discussed by my colleague from Maillardville–Coquitlam. During that discussion the Premier found it perfectly appropriate to discuss these issues, even though they came under a vote that wasn't appended to his own office. I would like to intervene in the debate that was held about whether children need bread, counselling or the Bible. I think what is important here — this has come back to us again and again, and certainly it has been raised in front of this government on a number of occasions — is that children comprise 40 percent of the total number of people on welfare. Eighty-three thousand children are living in poverty. There are probably more living in poverty than that, but that is the number of children on welfare.

I would like to ask the Premier if, using the family-strengthening budget, he has made any initiatives towards looking at the level of poverty in which these children are living. In other words, has the Premier done or commissioned any investigatory work on the rate of subsistence at which these children are living? Has he looked at children and poverty in this province in a research sense, in any reasonable way, with the funds at his disposal?

[ Page 5505 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The same member who is asking the questions accused me of taking too much into my office when we assumed intergovernmental relations, which is something that obviously belongs in the Premier's office because it's ongoing between us and Ottawa, particularly, on a regular basis. If we should all of a sudden assume the functions of the Ministry of Social Services, what would the outcry be? Where would the member be standing and what might she be saying then? No, that's for the ministries to decide.

MS. MARZARI: Were the advertisements by the government — the smoking-jacket adverts that appeared on television a few months ago — taken out of the Premier's office budget or the Social Services and Housing budget?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It wasn't out of the Premier's budget.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we continue, hon. members, I would like to make a couple of comments, if the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey would take her seat.

I appreciate the sincerity with which the debate is being put forward by the persons who are questioning the Premier, and I also appreciate the fact that the tenor of this debate that came forward at the very outset when it was stated that it would be wide-ranging, etc. . . . Most of these matters, it seems to me — and I would suggest to hon. members — have been fairly well canvassed up to this point. Perhaps we could bring our discussions more in line with vote 4 itself, which deals with the office of the Premier.

MS. MARZARI: I have a few more questions, Mr. Chairman, that have to do with the family planning film that was made and put into libraries throughout the province. The Premier has already referred to certain programs around family planning which I imagine are being done through the Health budget. Is the Premier aware that that the family planning film refers only once to the possibility of a woman seeking to terminate her pregnancy — to the possibility that she might be capable of doing so? Is the Premier aware that the family planning film reflects a family situation that isn't necessarily typical of women in this province?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Perhaps the hon. member would like to tell us what, in her opinion, a typical family is.

MS. MARZARI: I don't think I really want to take up too much time of this House, but it happens to be the case that more than one in four marriages does break up; that in my own neighbourhood there is a fifty-fifty chance that a child is not in a two-parent family. Either a child is in a one-parent family or a child has three or four parents and is living part of the time with the mother and stepfather or whatever particular combinations.

It is a truth of our society that one of the reasons for the dislocation and some of the alienation that people feel is that those in government have this notion that there is still such a thing as a mommy and a daddy who know best and 2.4 children in a family, living happily in a house with a small mortgage, and driving one or two cars. That is one of the problems that we're faced with in our community. Presenting that as some kind of ideal, or worse still, as some kind of norm, simply doesn't reflect the realities of our community.

The fact that 83,000 children in this province live in poverty and that 24,000 single mothers are on welfare should be an indication to this government that something is seriously wrong. I think that if the Premier were serious about strengthening the family, he would be doing some coordinative programs with all his departments, not perpetuating the myth of a family construct that doesn't exist any longer, except perhaps in 25 percent of the cases. He would be dealing effectively with some of the problems that exist because that family construct doesn't exist any longer. He'd be trying to deal with new ways of bolstering new kinds of family formations, such as the single mother, living in a family at 50 to 70 percent below the poverty line, as the SPARC report recently indicated, regaining dignity.

A mother with three or four children. . . . This is what Pat Chauncey and her group, the Child Poverty Action Committee, talked to us about a few weeks ago. A mother with two children, on welfare, in the city — and in the rest of the province as well, because there isn't that much of a variation — is living around 50 percent below what she needs to live with. She is actually getting cash through the door every month that's 50 percent below what she needs in order to have anything like a normal existence. She is making choices every day of the week, especially at the end of the month before the cheque comes, about whether her children will have lunch or she'll have lunch, and it's obvious that the children have lunch. She's making decisions every day of the week about whether she goes to the food bank or goes to friends. That is not a normal family existence, and yet it is an existence that we perpetuate for 24,000 single mothers in our community.

That's my definition. I think that if you're serious about strengthening the family, Mr. Premier, you do other things. You build a different type of program. You do a different kind of research. You don't perpetuate a myth at a Christian businessman's breakfast about what families are and how they live and how they should live. That doesn't reflect the reality of the women who are not at the breakfast, who are home trying to make ends meet. It just doesn't reflect. You can take your counselling and the rest of it, but you have to give them money. The poor need money.

[3:45]

I have two specific questions, and then I will end. These are questions from constituents. One constituent wanted to know if any provincial money will be going to the capital costs of building or operating a single women's home that will bring young girls' pregnancies to term. Will you be capitally or operationally investing in a new home for unwed mothers?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Where possible, we use homes already in existence. There may be circumstances where new homes could be considered; I suppose it would depend on the community. There could be communities where they don't have any such homes and where it may be too distant to find another home.

MS. MARZARI: Is the minister at all aware of a program which supposedly will be taken out of this $20 million that has already gone by in vote 74, which would subsidize grandmothers $267 a month for taking care of their grandchildren?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, I'm not aware of any such program, nor am I aware of any announcement of such a

[ Page 5506 ]

program, nor am I aware of anything having been said by anyone that sounds anything like the member has suggested it could be. I have heard reference to the fact that there could be a situation where if we could somehow keep the family providing for the child while the single mother finds employment, and if this could be done in a way whereby it wouldn't be abused but where instead we could keep the love of family available to the child and the child in surroundings familiar to the child, this would be a good approach and it might be considered. If that's interpreted to be as the member describes it, it shows, unfortunately, a lack of understanding.

MS. MARZARI: Well, Mr. Premier, we haven't gotten very far with this questioning. I don't really sense that the Premier has an understanding of what could have been done with that $20 million for strengthening families.

When the Premier was first discussing women bringing pregnancies to term who otherwise might not choose to, what was he thinking of in terms of programs? He did suggest that homes would be set aside and that there would be particular incentives. At the same time, the inconsistency there was that the incentive was somewhat removed when the $50 was removed if one was on welfare.

Could the Premier talk in any depth at all about what services really do exist for women who choose to have their babies, aside from homes for unwed mothers and possibly a little money to their mothers to take care of the children while they are looking for work? After all is said and done, and all the dust is cleared on this $20 million, has the Premier got any idea of what services have in fact been coordinated? Does he have any idea of who's taking advantage of them?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: This is being worked on by Social Services and Health, and that information should be sought from the appropriate minister and ministry.

MS. MARZARI: One last intervention. It looks to me as if the Premier isn't completely aware of the consequences of the expenditure of that $20 million. It looks to me as if there hasn't been a lot of reporting back going on. The Premier isn't completely aware of what coordination has taken place. It seems to me that the $20 million under vote 74 has just been tossed to the wind, and I have ambivalent feelings about it. It may be just as well that the departments have been allowed to get on with their own agenda and their own plans, as my colleague for Maillardville–Coquitlam has suggested.

I would put to you, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier has not coordinated a program, that he does not have a family strengthening capacity, that his definition of family is grossly out of touch with the last half of the twentieth century, and that, in fact, we have a serious problem here: that of a Premier saying one thing, not following through, doing another and allowing the chips to fall where they may. In my opinion, that is a gross waste of taxpayers' dollars.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm afraid I'm not prepared to let the Premier off quite so easily. The Premier has avoided questions; he has been reluctant. He has dodged; he has talked about relevancy. The Premier has essentially turned this province upside down and then tried to use a bail-out of taxpayers' money to talk about a program that doesn't even relate to need. I'd like the Premier to tell this House why he had insisted on this program and named it "Strengthening the Family," when what we have seen very clearly is that it relates very little to the needs of families in this province.

I'd like to ask the Premier why he decided to initiate this program, rather than putting money where it's really needed: in the programs that already exist and in the organizations already doing good jobs. Why did the Premier choose not to give money to organizations like Planned Parenthood?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I think it's very interesting. I don't mind all of this discussion. It's becoming very clear where the opposition is coming from. We heard from the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey who is obviously under the impression that somehow families can't be strengthened. The only way is to give them more money — right — and that money will cure all things. You can give people money, and this will strengthen the family in every respect. Nothing else needs doing.

We've heard from the member for Surrey–Guildford–Whalley who says that Planned Parenthood has all the answers. Why don't we simply turn everything over to Planned Parenthood? We are, obviously — and this is nothing new; it's always been thus — very different from the NDP, who tend to be very pessimistic about all things, and who tend to take a lost or losing attitude to all of the things that we might do as government for those we represent. We are of another philosophy, and we are of a different spirit. We tend to view things more positively and in a more optimistic way.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

I believe that the program can accomplish a great deal, and that it will. It's being worked on presently by two ministries. There are many parts of the program which will assist different people in different ways. We are saying that we are not giving up on these families, and we don't believe that somehow 75 percent of all families in B.C. are as the member for Vancouver–Point Grey says them to be. That's her impression of a family. It is different, and it's not quite that way. It's not as though you have 25 percent out there that have one type, and 75 percent are somehow all different as she's described them; and therefore, the answer is more money. We don't believe that, and therefore we're approaching it differently. You don't agree with the approach we're using. You say more money; we say we don't believe that, and we're not prepared to change. So it will stay as it is.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I was certain that the Premier was interested in the questions being put to him, the discussion of the Premier's estimates, and we'll wait to proceed until the Premier can pay attention.

By initiating this program, the Premier has indicated that he does not have confidence in the work being done by his ministry. Would the Premier clarify that and tell the House whether or not the initiation of this program indicates a lack of confidence in the existing programs?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I had the privilege of being the minister of what was then called Human Resources — now Social Services — and I made it a point to travel all over the province and call in at every Human Resources office and meet with the people over the coffee table in the coffee room. I met a lot of wonderful, very dedicated people working under extremely difficult circumstances. But I still have faith in those people. I still believe there's much they can do to assist those families that you talk about, which you say can only be helped by the government establishing yet

[ Page 5507 ]

another branch called the breakfast and lunch branch, I guess. That's what you think the answer ought to be, and you're asking me if I have faith in the workers and the programs they administer. I'm the one that has faith. You're the one that lacks faith. You believe you know better and that these workers somehow can't address it.

MS. SMALLWOOD: By developing this program that you call Strengthening the Family, by having this pot of money available, you have developed that other arm, that other bureaucracy, that other level. Instead of dealing with the structures and the programs that exist, instead of supporting those people that you talk about, you developed another package, another program. In essence, it's a slap in the face for those people who are doing all that good work. Those people would dearly love to have the support, the recognition and the money available in this pot that you have initiated for whatever reasons. All the doublespeak in the world isn't going to change that reality. That's the reality you have created by developing this so-called program.

The question again, Mr. Premier, is: why did you choose to develop this separate program, this separate pot of money, this tiny little program that absolutely pales when compared to the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Social Services and Housing, the talent and resources that are there, the programs that exist in our community through volunteer organizations? Why did you decide to create this little pot instead of supporting the organizations and the talented people that you have on staff?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: This is an extra. This is a further assist. This is to recognize that there are things we can do and must initiate through the Ministry of Social Services to assist families, to bring about the sorts of supports that will strengthen families. How these NDP opposition members can be against strengthening the family all of the time and how they somehow consider all is lost and there's nothing we can do is beyond me. However, when I think it through, considering the source, I begin to develop an understanding.

[4:00]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before we proceed, I'd like to remind the member that we are discussing vote 4. Up until now the Chair has been very lenient with questions and answers. I am only a humble servant of this House, and I have the standing orders to follow, and I would like to do so, so I would ask the member to continue, but stay within the rules of the House.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Chairman, I would assure you that I will conduct myself in the debate in the same fashion as it has been conducted over the many hours already dealt with in the Premier's estimates. I thank you for that reminder.

I want to tell the Premier that the New Democrats here represent equity, justice and fair treatment. Your program, Mr. Premier. . . . You have very clearly chosen not to support all the hard-working people in the two very important ministries, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Social Services and Housing. Since you have decided instead to develop this small program that duplicates some of the work that has already been done in this province, some of the work that has been under attack by previous and existing Social Credit administrations. . . . What you have done, Mr. Premier, no matter how you put it, no matter how you try, by suggesting that it doesn't exist or trying to twist the words and suggest that by our concern, our demanding accountability for taxpayers' money and fair treatment for the families and the women of this province. . . .

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. member. I cautioned the member prior to her rising for the last time. I would ask her to speak to vote 4.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Chairman. I am referring to the Premier's office and I would ask for the same latitude as previous speakers. We are talking about the expenditures of the Premier, the Premier's policies and the Premier's conduct in the past year, and deciding. indeed, whether the taxpayers' money should be spent in supporting the Premier's actions in the years to come.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed, hon. member.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

What we are concerned with here is this government's policies and the Premier's leadership reflecting the spending of this government and reflecting the Premier's declared concern for the families of this province. I'd like to ask the Premier, seeing as the program we have been discussing in the last while — the Strengthening the Family program — is very clearly a program that deals with policies directed at women and at alternatives to abortion. and has nothing whatsoever to do with strengthening the family, and seeing as this program has to do with the Premier's policy on abortion, whether the Premier can indicate to this House that the government is tracking what is going on in this province to do with the accessibility of this important. . . .

I'm afraid it makes it very difficult to deal with the Premier's office when the Premier is constantly dealing with other business. This is the people's business. Mr. Premier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. member. We are dealing with the estimates of the Premier under vote 4. If you could address your remarks through the Chair, and keep your remarks to vote 4, it would be appreciated. Please proceed.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Thank you. Mr. Chairman. On the Premier's office, on vote 4, I would like to ask the Premier whether he has instructed — through his office, through the expenditure of the votes before us — his ministers to keep track of the accessibility of abortions in this province.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, the member for Surrey–Guildford–Whalley has been talking about a $20 million expenditure on a program worth $20 million, when all I have in my budget is $6.7 million. So it's fairly clear to me she's talking about another budget which might have been canvassed another time. If she didn't, then perhaps she didn't perform her responsibility as critic for that particular function. So I can't really comment on that. If you missed the boat, it's too late; you had your chance. We dealt with that, and I'm not going to sit here and talk about the Ministry of Social Services and how well that ministry is dealing with these programs and what a wonderful job they're doing, because that's within that ministry and they decide. So I can't comment on that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken, Mr. Premier. Hon. member, on vote 4.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I am under the impression that the Premier is the first minister of cabinet; that while we are

[ Page 5508 ]

dealing with the Premier's office, which now has support, resources, that are parallel to no other Premier's office, we are talking about the policies of the office, the policies of the Premier and the policies of this government. I will restate my question. Has the Premier instructed his government to keep track of the accessibility of that important medical service — abortions — in this province?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You said "important medical service." Would you explain what you were referring to'?

MS. SMALLWOOD: I made it very clear, Mr. Premier, that the request is for the government's policy and the policy of the Premier's office. Have you instructed the Ministry of Health to keep track of this important medical service — the service being abortions?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I don't need to instruct the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) or the Ministry of Health on a matter such as that. They obviously do that all of the time. They do their job and they do it effectively.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Chairman, again, this is a very important issue in which the Premier, the first minister of cabinet, the person responsible for this government, played a major role in the past year. Can the Premier tell this House whether or not the government has a policy to deal with . . . ? Can the Premier tell this House whether he has instructed his government to deal with the inaccessibility of this important medical service? This is not a laughing matter, Mr. Premier. This is a reality that many women in this province have to face: the lack of service. It's a very difficult decision and, Mr. Premier, your government is making it worse. Can the Premier tell this House whether or not this government is dealing with the issue of accessibility?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to second-guess what the member might be driving at. Obviously I've tried to answer the questions, even though many of them are outside of my office. She's again making reference to some program in Health. She calls it a health program, a medical program, abortion. I guess we could have a debate about that, but I don't want to get into it. What she's saying is: have we addressed the accessibility? I guess the point is — I wish she would say this if that's what's meant, and I could answer it specifically — whether the Ministry of Health or the government is prepared to open abortion clinics in every town, city, hamlet, village and crossing in the province. If that's what you're saying — are we prepared to do that? — then ask me that question. If you want us to say yea or nay to whether we are prepared to see abortion clinics opened in every city, town, village, hamlet and railway crossing, then tell us.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm very pleased to have the Premier put that question to the House. Let me tell you what New Democrats think. New Democrats believe that women and families deserve accessible, safe health care covered by the Medical Services Plan in all communities. Absolutely, without question — and that includes abortion services. What we believe is that those services, including the ones you have identified in your little program, which doesn't begin to deal with real needs, such as counselling, education, day care.... That's what we believe in. We believe that families in every community need real support and real services.

My question is whether or not you are prepared to show some leadership in this province by providing that service in every community. It is our view — the view of the New Democratic Party — that community clinics are the best way to go; that community clinics that deliver a broad base of services are both the most practical and the most efficient way of delivering services.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are discussing the Premier's estimates, not the policy of the NDP. Can we direct the question to the Premier on vote 4.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm just answering the Premier's question. The Premier wanted to know our point of view, and I gave it to him.

I'd now like the Premier to tell us whether or not he is prepared to show leadership in this issue and make the service accessible.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I suppose there are a number of things that might be considered before such a question would be decided upon. The views of individuals could enter into that debate, as I'm sure would the consideration of cost and such other things. What I hear you saying is that you're prepared to cancel other health programs in order to see these abortion clinics established.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, you gave me a big thing about what the NDP would do. I imagine you would have these clinics in all the cities, villages, towns, hamlets and everywhere. Would we support that? No.

[4:15]

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'll just wait until the Premier has finished his discussion to continue the debate. My mother always told me it's rude to talk to the back of somebody's head.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You can speak through the Chair. The Chair is listening.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and emphasize that what we're doing here is the people's business. We're dealing with taxpayers' dollars and the Premier's office.

The Premier has said — and very clearly — that one of the very few major initiatives from this government in the last while has been the strengthening of the family. We have told the Premier that there are real needs, and that those needs are economic needs in support of the parents of those children. Since he did get involved with this debate and direct the government along the lines of the strengthening the family program, is the Premier prepared to enter the discussion and encourage his ministers to look at programs like affirmative action, pay equity and job training for women so that they can support their families?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member has talked about this being important public business, and no one in this House would deny that in theory, at least, that's what we're supposed to be

[ Page 5509 ]

doing here. I've heard you repeatedly ask the hon. member to deal with the point before the House, which is vote 4, as I understand it, and not vote 74. If the public well-being is truly on the hon. member's mind, Mr. Chairman, I would ask you to remind her that the issue at hand is vote 4; it has nothing to do with vote 74. That issue was dealt with at length by this House previously. If we have a genuine desire to do the people's business in a responsible way, it does seem to me we should at least stick to the subject.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is very well taken, Mr. Minister. Would the member please continue with her remarks.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I would like to advise you that this is the last time I will rise on the Premier's estimates, and I do so to put on the record a very grave concern. What we have seen here during the debate around the Premier's estimates and around the debate on the Premier's office has been a wide-ranging, extensive debate around many of the government's policies, the policies of different ministries — no more diffuse and no more direct as it relates to the minister's budget than the debate we have undertaken in the last 15 to 20 minutes. What we have seen by the repeated interruption and points of order by members from the opposite side and by the Premier's inability or refusal to answer these very serious concerns is a decision that the Premier has made: that while it is important to talk about Peter Toigo, while it is important to talk about ethanol, while it is important to talk about several other issues, it is not important to talk about families and women.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Well, Mr. Premier, that's not acceptable. I will, along with the other members of the opposition, continue to rise to give voice to those concerns. The Premier can laugh and carry on and conduct other business, and the Chair can continue to call to order, but we will continue to raise those issues.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you have just committed an almost unforgivable sin in chastising the Chair.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I would withdraw and apologize to the Chair.

Vote 4 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 34

NAYS — 15

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 36.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 1), 1988
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 36; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members will recall that we had two sections left to deal with in this bill: section 22, which was held over; and section 35.

On section 22.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, as you point out, we have indeed already postponed this particular section. I am sure by this time the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Rogers) has been made aware of the concerns and the questions we on this side raised. Therefore it seems to me appropriate that I should begin by deferring to the minister, and he may want to answer.

HON. MR. ROGERS: This actually comes out of some of the recommendations of the MacKay report in that when we go to contract, we have in this ministry been dealing with the most historic contracts in government, and therefore have always done it in a specific way. On many occasions, contractors have said to us: "If you would show some degree of flexibility in your drafting, we could have provided a similar material at a reduced cost," or "We could have designed it in steel, concrete or lumber or in some other form." It has given us a degree of inflexibility in dealing with contractors.

It meets with the approval — as I am sure the member spoke yesterday — of the Road Builders' Association, although some members of the contractors' association, I think, are misreading the purpose of this particular section. It allows us the flexibility to be able to look at different design processes and different options for the same project where you have a specific project and you want to look at an alternate way of doing it.

MR. LOVICK: My understanding was that neither the BCCA nor the Road Builders' Association had formally requested this or apparently had much consultation about this measure. Certainly if the minister wants to clarify that I'd appreciate it.

[ Page 5510 ]

HON. MR. ROGERS: This largely deals with road builders rather than contractors. The road builders, I am informed, have recommended this because they have been faced with the frustration on many occasions. For example, we'd specify a particular piece of equipment. It may be the best piece of equipment, but something relatively similar located much closer to the job site might be there, and of course we've never had that flexibility. The taxpayers were not well served, neither was my ministry or the general public when we would specify the wrong piece of equipment.

[4:30]

In some cases, you know, we say you have to have a D8 and they've only got a D9 or D7. The job can be done. If the cost of moving the equipment is exorbitant, why not allow us that degree of flexibility? That's really what it's about.

MR. LOVICK: I thank the minister for that answer, and certainly that goes a considerable way to dealing with the concerns that we on this side have been expressing. I would point out, though, that I have some difficulty with the way the amendment is written with the new section in the act. It seems to provide a kind of carte blanche. This, you will recall, is the third area which provides the minister with an opportunity not to go to tender. The others are emergencies and the possibility of getting the work done by ministry staff.

We have a third one that apparently doesn't have any restriction imposed, except the latitude and the discretion of the minister. I am sure he can agree with me that that does appear to give him a tremendous amount of latitude, and I am wondering if this is typical or whether this is aberrant and a bit unusual in terms of discretionary power given.

HON. MR. ROGERS: In fact, this reflects the kind of power that most other ministries have and this ministry has not had. One of the examples given to me by my staff was that on occasion you get a project which involves a piece of work that was not specifically put down on the contract — the placement of a utility pole or some other kind of services — where we again have to go out to contract. We've already got a contractor working on the job site. Two contractors are going to run into each other; they're not going to coordinate the equipment.

This kind of flexibility exists in all the other ministries except this ministry. I said I'd take the heat for it during debate in the bill and get us that flexibility in terms of the work we do.

Section 22 approved.

Section 35 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 36, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1988, reported complete with amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: With leave now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 36, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1988, read a third time and passed.

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

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

ESTIMATES: OMBUDSMAN

On vote 3: ombudsman's office, $2,711,589.

MR. CASHORE: I think that when we come to the ombudsman's estimates, it's a time when members on both sides of the House can recognize that we have an office that is functioning well on behalf of the people of British Columbia. I would like to say that I believe I speak for all of us in recognizing the excellent work that is done in that office. I would like the House to know that I have heard people who are interested in issues with regard to ombudsmen in other provinces speak very positively about our ombudsman and about the innovative public reports that he has made available as a result of his investigations.

I would agree that the presence of an ombudsman's office that is functioning and functioning well is not in itself an indication of problems but an indication that there is health within democracy. I want to make that point very clear. I think that the principles of fairness and effectiveness of the delivery of the public service system are extremely important, and those principles are capably monitored by this office.

It seems to me that when we consider the ombudsman, we are considering a system which is there to serve the people and to uphold those principles of fairness and effectiveness of public service delivery, and one aspect of that system that we as a Legislature need to be able to think about and engage in dialogue about is such issues as how that system works with regard to its accessibility. I think that when it comes to a discussion of the ombudsman's estimates, we are looking at such issues as the accessibility of that system, of those principles and of that office, and we are also looking at the process of follow-up to the reports and recommendations that come forward.

I would like to think that we all address this together as something that we are building on, that it's something that we cherish, and that's it's a good system that we want to make better. It's in this spirit that I make some of the points I wish to make now, and I'll try to be brief.

The first is that in his most recent report the ombudsman has again pointed out that various members of our society have called for the proclamation of the unproclaimed sections of the act. In doing so he has pointed out that there were 12,712 individual concerns brought to the ombudsman, a 15 percent increase over the previous year.

So we can see that there is an increasing need for the availability of the ombudsman's services, and we can also see with this increasing need that there is a definite need to proclaim the unproclaimed sections. I would hope that within the near future it would be the wisdom of this assembly to make that available. I would just point out that organizations

[ Page 5511 ]

that have contacted the ombudsman and the government to say that those sections should be proclaimed include the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, the Social Credit Party, the Vancouver Elementary School Administrators' Association and the B.C. Association of Social Workers. I also know that a great many others have echoed that concern.

Having made the point that those sections need to be proclaimed, I would also like to state that I believe that the present staff and infrastructure are actually capable of handling those additional sections. They are working very hard now and have a great deal to do, but I do not think that it would require an incredible increase in staff or infrastructure for them to be able to do that.

I assume that it's the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) who will be responding to any questions, and I'll make all my points in one statement here. I would just like the minister to respond to that, that if the unproclaimed sections were to be proclaimed, it would not involve an extremely expensive increase to the infrastructure of that office.

Moving on from the area of proclaiming the unproclaimed sections, I'd like to get on to the method of reporting. The process we have now is such that we need to take a look at the adequacy of the means of reporting to this Legislature, The various reports are tabled in the Legislature and are made available, but there's no real forum in which to discuss them and to talk about the government's responsibility or its response to the various recommendations made within those reports. Those very valuable, innovative reports do not gain the benefit of public scrutiny, dialogue and, indeed, debate that would be worthwhile following that process.

Perhaps we should be considering — and I'd like the minister to comment on this — an independent committee of the Legislature that would be responsible for the ombudsman's office. One possibility would be the Board of Internal Economy; the responsibility for that might be added to that group. Until something like that is put in place, the legislative connection for the ombudsman is weak.

Also, I think that when it comes to the budget for the ombudsman, there needs to be a forum whereby the needs of that budget can be explored and discussed, and that is another issue that I think such a committee could deal with.

I have one more point that I wanted to make. One of the points that I wanted to read into the record that the minister made in his report had to do with privatization. He stated that there was a concern about whether the ombudsman would have the power to investigate concerns that might be brought forward by people working in privatized jobs. On page 16, it says:

"Where public services are delivered privately, government will want to ensure that private sector firms are equally accountable to individual members of the public for quality. While private delivery contracts must be monitored and enforced by government through general cost and quality controls, methods must also be in place to resolve individual complaints. While the ombudsman's office can operate effectively with large public institutions to ensure fair practices, it will be more difficult to deal with large numbers of small private deliverers of public services. Nevertheless, private contracts negotiated with government must provide for access to the office by individual users in order to ensure quality control over the public services delivered."

I would hope that that concern would be followed up and fulfilled appropriately.

[4:45]

I have done some checking on the means of reporting in other jurisdictions, and I just want to state some of that for the record. In Alberta and Ontario, there's a select standing committee that deals with matters concerning the offices of the Legislature, including the ombudsman, the auditor-general and the chief electoral officer. It is an all-party committee and thus allows for greater impartiality

Many jurisdictions — Quebec. Manitoba and New Brunswick, for example — try to establish an element of independence. It's an arm's-length distance in the offices of the House by having the Speaker's office or the Board of Internal Economy deal with the ombudsman's budget. The select standing committees in Alberta and Ontario also examine any reports, etc., that the ombudsman tables in the House. With that I'll conclude, and I think it would be an appropriate thing to do within the appropriate select standing committees.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: At the outset, there's no question in my mind that Stephen Owen is a remarkable young man. I had the good fortune of being on the selection committee and on the subcommittee of the selection committee, which by the way was chaired by your predecessor, John Parks. We had the good fortune of having Eileen Dailly with us as well on the subcommittee. I think we made an excellent choice; there's no question about that. Stephen Owen has brought to the office a genuine yet realistic concern for the citizens of British Columbia. He's brought remarkable expertise to the office. He's brought to the office a remarkable background in dealing with people and with the affairs of people. I think we're very fortunate to have him in that office.

In terms of proclaiming sections 3 to 11 — I have the schedule of the act in front of me here — I know that's a position that Stephen Owen has taken and that he would like to see those sections proclaimed. I find curious. . . . I don't doubt at all, Mr. Member, your comment from the UBCM and the BCSTA, but I have heard contrary opinion from some mayors and aldermen. As a former school trustee, I think I would be of the opinion, unless convinced otherwise, that maybe it would be best to leave these sections unproclaimed. I'm willing to accept argument contrary to my position.

I feel, particularly at the local level, that municipal councils and school boards that have public meetings on a weekly or bi-weekly basis in the community with open public attendance, a full opportunity for a fair and adequate hearing to all citizens who may feel aggrieved about something the board of school trustees has done — or that the municipal council, the regional district or any of the local authorities have done — are certainly an appropriate avenue for people who feel aggrieved about that type of authority and wish to make representation to that authority.

I guess your comments about proclaiming the further sections are also contradicted by your own argument when you say how busy the ombudsman is now. This would, of course, just add considerably and measurably to his workload.

MR. BLENCOE: Increase the budget.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You would increase the budget. I guess that's the answer to everything. But I will accept what you say and indicate that the government does from time

[ Page 5512 ]

to time look at that schedule; but it is not our position now to do that.

I'm quite familiar with the Alberta system, because one of the things that John Parks, Eileen Dailly and I did. . . . Actually, Eileen didn't come, but John and I went to Alberta. We interviewed the former ombudsman and the current ombudsman, and we also had the good fortune to meet with the Alberta legislative committee. I forget what their committee was called. As you indicated earlier, Mr. Member, it was the committee that really handled the affairs of the chief electoral officer, the ombudsman, the auditor-general and other offices like that. The reporting line was to the Legislative Assembly, and it went through this committee. The committee indicated to us that it was a good process. They commended that process to us. I think there's some wisdom there. The Board of Internal Economy would be the appropriate avenue, but that's a decision the board would have to make. Of course, government would have to go along with that.

In terms of special reports and reporting to the public, Mr. Member, you weren't here in the heady days of Karl Friedmann, but I can tell you that Dr. Friedmann had no hesitation whatsoever about filing special reports. At the end of his career he did them almost daily. The public was well aware of what Dr. Friedmann was thinking of on a regular basis — as I say, almost a daily basis — and there was no lack of dialogue or input from Dr. Friedmann.

The legislation does allow, in section 30, that "the Ombudsman, where he considers it to be in the public interest or in the interest of a person of authority, may make a special report to the Legislative Assembly. . . ." So there is adequate opportunity, really on any basis that the ombudsman wishes, for him to comment publicly respecting a matter relating generally to the exercise of his duties under this act or to a particular case investigated by him.

The opportunity for the ombudsman to act, to make his feelings known publicly and to have fair and adequate hearing by the Legislative Assembly, and subsequently by the public, is there. It's enshrined in the legislation. I think all the safeguards are there. I think our legislation is very good. It has worked well for the ten or 11 years that we've had an ombudsman. As the member indicates, there's always need for a further smoothing out or maybe some other considerations, and we'll consider that now.

Let me close my part of the debate on this vote by saying that I accept the good and fair comments of the member for Maillardville–Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore). I commend to all the remarkably astute incumbent we have in that position, Stephen Owen, who is a real benefit to the office and to all the people of British Columbia.

MR. CASHORE: I have just two final comments. I don't know if the minister heard me earlier when I said that I felt that the incumbent — but I didn't name him — Mr. Owen, was doing an excellent job. I also would not like to let this moment pass without acknowledging the appointment of an ombudsman for children. The deputy ombudsman, Mr. Brent Parfitt, was made the ombudsman for children. I think that was a very worthwhile and significant move.

Vote 3 approved.

ESTIMATES: AUDITOR-GENERAL

On vote 2: auditor-general's office, $5,183,490.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I wish I could be so glowing about the current incumbent. All I know at this point is that he is an excellent squash player. He is one of Canada's best squash players. I am one of British Columbia's poorest squash players, and I would like to take some lessons from the current auditor-general. That's my participation in this debate, but I am sure that other members have more to say on the office of the auditor-general.

MS. MARZARI: I will resist the temptation to say that the auditor-general is at the moment feeling squashed by the budgetary pressures of this government.

The auditor-general is a major link in the accountability chain of public accounts and of how we run our financial systems. The comptroller-general and the Public Accounts Committee are the two other partners in this system of checks and balances that we have developed for ourselves to ensure that the province is receiving good analysis and good assessment of how moneys are being spent. Scarce tax dollars have to be spent on the things that the Legislature has intended them to be spent on, and the auditor-general is crucial to that exercise.

The auditor-general, at this point in time — and this is why I am bringing it up during the estimates debate — is facing two major problems. They are both interconnected and are both worth mentioning here, because his estimates are the appropriate place to do it and because it is within his estimates that the profits are to be found.

In 11 years, the auditor-general's office has established a very favourable reputation as a pivotal office in making sure that we do well. However, the auditor-general's budget has been reduced. In 1982-83, the Legislature authorized sufficient funds for 40 work-years in that office, and the estimates last year provided for just 32 work-years. That is a 25 percent reduction in the basic function of auditing the financial statements in a period when the provincial budget grew by 36 percent.

Mrs. Morrison, Mr. Hayward and now Mr. Morfitt have been able to offset some of these cuts by finding efficiencies in staff utilization and adopting some advanced computer and audit techniques. But we have to remember that the budget for the auditor-general's office is less than a nickel in every $100 of expenditures in our provincial budget. By any measure, it is an outstanding bargain for the taxpayer. In the reduction of the auditor-general's budget, then, we are basically looking at a reduction in the auditor-general's effectiveness — the effectiveness of his office and what it can do.

For the year that I have chaired the Public Accounts Committee, the auditors-general — first Mr. Hayward and now Mr. Morfitt — have brought to the attention of the Public Accounts Committee the functions that the auditor-general would like to do. There are basically four pillars and objectives of the office, and one is basically the audit work that goes on daily on the financial statements themselves. The second is the study of the internal control systems in the various government ministries. The third is an evaluation of the way government spends the public's money from the perspectives of economy, efficiency and public accountability. These are more intensive exercises in the auditor general’s audit every year, and this past year the auditor general has taken a close look at the education system and Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, and how we collect our revenues. The fourth pillar — as the auditor-general has

[ Page 5513 ]

put to the committee — is special projects; that is, special projects that the auditor-general may take up to develop ideas and concepts of doing audits for the benefit of the government, for the benefit of the Legislature, to draw attention to or help explain and audit projects of government or ministries of government.

By cutting back, what has basically happened is that the auditor-general is telling the Public Accounts Committee — and through the Public Accounts Committee the House — that these four basic functions are not going to be able to be fulfilled in the way the office would like to do them. I'm sure that every ministry has its list of druthers, things that it would like to do, but when the auditor-general says with all caution and serious thinking that in fact the job of auditing the public accounts will not be properly done unless there is a full complement in the auditing office, then I think we have reason to be concerned.

Five staff turns financially into about half a million dollars, but functionally it means that the auditor-general has to cut standards. Right now each ministry is capable of being looked at once every six years on a rotation cycle, as the auditor-general moves through each of the various ministries. But the cutback this year has particular ramifications for the auditor-general's department; that is, the auditor-general is ready to look at special projects. That's certainly one of the reasons Mr. Morfitt is here — not only physically, but as our auditor-general.

The auditor-general has announced that he wants to conduct an audit of the government's privatization program. The auditor-general is our public watchdog, and the government is engaged in some rather radical financial programming. It would appear that the government, if it really wants to do a job, would want the auditor-general in the position of looking at the privatization program as it unfolds — and it seems to be growing like Topsy. I would think that to do a decent job, the government would want the auditor-general to take a look at that as a special project.

[5:00]

The cutbacks, the five staff, are basically forcing the auditor-general to make some pretty strong decisions in his office about whether or not he has to cut back on the standards of service he offers on a day-to-day basis, on the standards of the report he presents to the House, and on whether he can get on with this special project. I would suggest that that is a very political decision to put the auditor in. It's a very difficult position. It's a very thin line that the auditor-general and the ombudsman have to tread.

Let's connect that for a moment, then, with his second problem, which has been put on the table at the Public Accounts Committee on numerous occasions and which the Public Accounts Committee has not really been able to resolve adequately although there have been many hours of debate on the subject: the problem of the budgetary authority for the auditor-general. My colleague from Maillardville–Coquitlam has just spoken at length to the difficulty the ombudsman has in finding budgetary mandate and authority. At the present time, both the ombudsman and the auditor general come to a committee of the cabinet — probably the Treasury Board, I would guess — to get their budget. Now you can see the thin line here. To go to a group of ministers whose activities you are responsible and required to comment on is not necessarily a comfortable position; in fact, it's a very uncomfortable position.

The auditor-general has put it to our committee, as the ombudsman has put it to this House, that what we should be doing is looking for a bipartisan committee — a committee of the Legislature perhaps — to approve the preliminary and final budgets of the ombudsman, the auditor-general and perhaps the registrar of voters.

We heard during the ombudsman debate that Alberta, Ontario and Quebec have committees of the House that are independent of cabinet. We have discussed in the Public Accounts Committee the prospect of having the Board of Internal Economy deal with the auditor-general's budget. This was defeated in the committee. But I do not take that to mean that another type of committee other than the Board of Internal Economy might not be established to deal with the auditor-general's initial budget and finalize the budget.

So I would ask the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) — if he is the appropriate agent to approach here — what the ministry's position and his personal opinions might be on establishing such a committee, through which the ombudsman, the auditor-general and the registrar of voters might approach; through which they might achieve, develop and work on their budget and achieve independence, while at the same time working for the House.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The hon. member raised a number of points, but she latterly asked a question. I think the answer to the question would be that it is the government's view that the issues being discussed here are appropriately before the Public Accounts Committee, as evidenced by the fact that the hon. member has raised it in the House now.

It's not a question of having the issues addressed. They have been addressed, and the existing structure provides for that. It is a committee of the House and, as such, has all of the powers that the House confers on it. In the opinion of the government, that is an adequate device by which the House's views might be heard and recognized.

MS. MARZARI: I think that the minister referred to having a device that could debate the issues clearly. One of the issues that has come up again and again in the Public Accounts Committee is that issues are not debated clearly. I tried to intimate that during the presentation of my report from the Public Accounts Committee earlier today. The issues are not debated clearly, because the Public Accounts Committee historically has been a very polarized committee, a very political committee, a committee which has been structured in such a wav that there are eight government members to four opposition members conducting business in what has in the past been a very political forum — sometimes called a circus.

In the last two sessions we have perhaps toned down the nature of the debate within that committee and continued to meet, but I would not say that anywhere along the line there has been a clarity of debate, particularly around this topic, Mr. Minister. In fact, I would suggest that there were approximately five and a half hours of debate on this subject, with a subcommittee struck, and it did not really come to a solid and substantive resolution about where it should reside.

I would suggest to the minister that until such time as the Public Accounts Committee can conduct its business in a more bipartisan manner, looking at public accounts as a group of colleagues rather than a group of adversaries, we might best ask the auditor-general to go for approval of his budget to a committee of the House which is more evenly distributed between government and opposition, so that we could have a more collegial form of decision-making and not quite so political a forum for decision-making.

[ Page 5514 ]

Thus far we have a new auditor-general who has approached the job, I think, with a good beginning, a good opening statement in his first year, notwithstanding the Coquihalla. He is saying, basically, that what he has to look at to be a part of the partnership of checks and balances in our financial accounts is (1) an increase in staff of five auditors and (2) a better reporting mechanism, a better budgetary mechanism — always reporting to the House, always having reports go to the Public Accounts Committee, whatever the House wants to do with them; but basically dealing with his budget.

I feel very strongly about that. Those two problems put the auditor-general in a very difficult position, as it is now. I advocate for the auditor-general for the reasons I suggested earlier: he is a link in the financial accountability process and he is a watchdog for the government. It would behoove the government side, as well as the opposition side — it would behoove everyone — to know that public accounts are being properly tended. I would ask the minister if, perhaps, after hearing a few of my comments he has had any further thoughts along that line.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I guess my first thought is that while I wasn't privileged to sit in this Legislature prior to the last election, I am told by others who have had greater experience that during her tenure as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee the hon. member has handled her duties responsibly and has had a beneficial impact on the style of that committee. I'm advised by those who've been accustomed to other times that considerable progress has been made, notwithstanding the hon. member's comments about her concerns that sometimes it becomes a bipartisan animal. Nevertheless, I wanted to start by conveying to the hon. member appreciation for her tenure as Chairman of that committee. 1 think she's done a good job, and it's been recognized as such.

Secondly, dealing with some of the points you made, as I made notes of them, let me say that the issue of the funding and staffing level for the auditor-general has been considered seriously and examined closely by Treasury Board and by the government. It is the view of the government, as I believe the member would have been advised at the committee deliberations, that the auditor-general's funding and staffing levels should be restored to pre-Expo levels. We increased the budget and staffing levels of the auditor-general, I'm advised, in order to accommodate our desire that the Expo operation be well audited and that the final reports and documentation be verified by the most credible commentator available — that is to say, the auditor-general. We provided extra funding for that purpose. Expo having wound down and the full reports provided, it was no longer necessary, in the government's or Treasury Board's view, that that level of funding be continued.

I could also comment that the government is aware that the auditor-general is desirous of increasing the number of comprehensive audits he performs. The comprehensive audit is a fairly recent phenomenon in auditing circles and one that is receiving more and more favour. The government is not opposed to comprehensive audits per se, but given the government's interest in seeing privatization benefits accrue to the larger business sector, the government is interested in the possibility of auditing some of the public bodies being examined in light of prospects for privatization.

That's not to say that the government has made a decision. We have not. It is to say that we are aware of the fact that there are many ways to address this important public matter that would provide the same degree of comfort to the public at large and might, in that process, also enable us to do it without increasing public costs too dramatically.

There are two facts here. By virtue of the absence of the Expo workload, we thought we could get staffing and budgeting down a little bit. And we are not totally supportive of the thesis that comprehensive audits should be undertaken with any great vigour by the auditor-general, although we are not opposed to comprehensive audits in themselves.

Dealing with the question of privatization and the importance of public scrutiny of that initiative, the government has no difficulty agreeing with the hon. member that it is an important public matter. However, it was the view of Treasury Board, when these issues were debated in terms of budgeting levels, that privatization can and should legitimately be addressed by the auditor-general after he's got something to audit. At the moment, I think the House would agree — as a matter of fact, I heard a few comments from across the floor supporting the thesis — that so far nothing of any major import has been privatized, and that would hardly, therefore, justify increased staffing. The government and Treasury Board certainly understand the importance of providing comfort to our citizens that privatization is well accounted for and appropriately reported. We have no difficulty with the thesis that it's an important issue, and we're confident it will be addressed after there is something to address. Auditors normally deal with past actions, when they've got something to audit. At the moment, we don't think there's anything there yet to justify a request for increased staffing.

Lastly, maybe just to reiterate my earlier comment, the hon. member has done a good job, in the government's view, of chairing that Public Accounts Committee. We believe these issues have been appropriately addressed at that level, and we're happy to concede to the hon. member that, had she not been such a capable Chairman, that comment might not have been accurately made. I think she's done very well with that committee, and I applaud her efforts.

[5:15]

MS. MARZARI: Hearts and flowers from the government side is the kiss of death on this side, Mr. Minister.

I don't think it's for the minister to say that there's nothing there to be audited. I don't think that's your job. You had a couple of problems determining the difference between your job and the auditor-general's job. We've got a couple of clippings here: the auditor-general supposedly has been called in to help name the Boundary–Similkameen . . . oops, I mean the budget stabilization fund. There have been a few moments of serious conflict, I would say, between the minister's interpretation of what the auditor does and what the auditor thinks he should be doing.

For you to be saying that nothing is there to be looked at, even in terms of privatization over the past three years, is a little off the wall, if you don't mind my saying so. We had a major financial restructuring of BCEC, and the gradual parcelling out of lands and businesses is privatization of a public resource. It seems to me that even at the present time there are substantial things being privatized. I don't know what your definition of "substantial" is, but let the auditor general figure that one out. That's just one point.

The business of them not doing comprehensive audits with any great vigour also concerns me. One of the things the auditor-general has accomplished just in the last year is to

[ Page 5515 ]

point out deficiencies in the collection of royalties by the natural gas division. I think that was a saving of $7 million, which the auditor-general was partly responsible for sniffing out, if we can use that term about natural gas. The saving of $7 million is far more than what the auditor-general is actually looking for in terms of additional auditors for his staff. I'm talking about effective cost savings. I'm talking about an auditor who is actually finding this government some money, perhaps because of some inappropriate behaviour on the part of ministries or inappropriate interpretations of regulations and legislation. This has already gone on; this already saves tremendous millions of dollars, which I don't think should be overlooked.

I should also suggest to the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that one of the special projects the auditor-general is engaged in now is basically a look at the estimates process itself. Wouldn't it be interesting, for example, if within the next five years estimates as part of the functioning of this House might be relegated to another level of operation; that the Committee of Supply, which deals with estimates, might be smaller; that in fact it might not be me standing across the room from you in this House? It could be a much simpler, more efficient and less time-consuming operation to deal with these estimates. With the operations and procedures we've got now, I would suggest that there might be considerable cost savings there, with more information available to the public about the public's business.

I know what you're saying. I have read your tone across the floor. I think I understand what the minister is putting forward in response to my questions. He's basically saying, "Status quo; keep it as it is," with a few hearts and flowers thrown in for my benefit. But I would suggest to the minister once again that as we deal with these estimates for the auditor general, we are basically facing two very serious problems: serious cutbacks. . . . Pre-Expo, post-Expo — that's not the crucial point. The crucial point is that someone who has been hired in a very important position, a very important office, and given professional credibility has given you a report. Now I think it's incumbent on us to give the office the tools that have been requested to do the job. The tools are five staff and a budgetary accounting-reporting structure.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman. I'm disappointed to learn that a genuine, heartfelt compliment should be construed as a kiss of death. I would hope that your colleagues would appreciate that we on this side of the House are generous-spirited and speak humbly of the merits of the loyal members opposite.

In any event, at the moment the privatization account doesn't have a nickel in it; there's nothing to audit. There will be this year, and at that point I think it's appropriate that this issue be addressed. The government and Treasury Board are quite prepared to look at it then.

Vote 2 approved.

ESTIMATES: LEGISLATION

On vote 1: legislation, $16,623,155.

Vote 1 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I move that the reports of resolutions from Committee of Supply on April 14, 19, 22 and 26, May 2, 6, 13, 17, 19 and 26, June 2, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 21, 27 and 28 be now received, taken as read and agreed to.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I move that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty for the public service of the province there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund: first, the sum of $11,624,774,000 towards defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1989, the sum to include that authorized to be paid under section 1 of Supply Act (No. 1), 1988; and second, the sum of $424,471,586 for recoverable disbursements required for the purposes referred to in schedule D of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1989, the sum to include that authorized to be paid under section 2 of Supply Act (No. 1), 1988.

Motion approved.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 2), 1988

Hon. Mr. Couvelier presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act (No. 2), 1988.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, this supply bill is introduced to provide supply for government programs for the 1988-89 fiscal year. The amount requested is that resolved by vote in Committee of Supply after consideration of the estimates. In order to maintain uninterrupted delivery of government programs, it is essential that this supply be granted expeditiously. Because of my understanding that the House is about to enter an indefinite adjournment, I request that this bill be permitted to advance through all stages this day, pursuant to standing order 81.

Mr. Speaker, I move first reading.

Bill 59 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be committed for second reading forthwith.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time.

Motion approved.

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

Motion approved.

Bill 59, Supply Act (No. 2), 1988, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 2), 1988

The House in committee on Bill 59; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

[ Page 5516 ]

Preamble approved.

Schedule approved.

Title approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 59, Supply Act (No. 2), 1988, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I've got a little hummer here from a private member, Mr. Speaker, if the House will indulge us for a moment. On behalf of the first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran), I call second reading of Bill PR406.

NORTHWEST BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL
COLLEGE AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I move second reading.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I ask leave to refer Bill PR406 to a Committee of the Whole House now.

Leave granted.

Bill PR406, Northwest Baptist Theological College Amendment Act, 1988, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

NORTHWEST BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL
COLLEGE AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

The House in committee on Bill PR406; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill PR406, Northwest Baptist Theological College Amendment Act, 1988, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

[5:30]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call committee on Bill 58.

MINERAL TENURE AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

The House in committee on Bill 58; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Sections 1 to 9 inclusive approved.

On section 10.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, there is an amendment to section 10. It's been received without notice, so I would like to read it out. There is an amendment to the proposed section 48 by deleting "came" wherever it appears and substituting "comes"; to the proposed section 48(10) by deleting "this Act" and substituting "this section"; and to the proposed section 48(11)(b) by deleting "section 35(9)" and substituting "section 35 (9)(b)."

On the amendment.

MR. BLENCOE: Given that we didn't expect any amendments — I must admit that this is not exactly my area of expertise — perhaps the minister could very quickly give us the gist of them.

HON. MR. DAVIS: It merely changes the terminology to be consistent with the rest of the legislation.

Amendment approved.

Section 10 as amended approved.

On section 11.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is another amendment to section 11(b): (a) by deleting "by adding" and substituting "in subsection (1) by striking out 'and' at the end of paragraph (i) and by adding"; and (b) in the proposed paragraph (i.2) by deleting "section 48" and substituting "section 48, and".

Amendment approved.

Section 11 as amended approved.

Sections 12 to 14 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 58, Mineral Tenure Amendment Act, 1988, reported complete with amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: With leave now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 58, Mineral Tenure Amendment Act, 1988, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call committee on Bill 62, Mr. Speaker.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1988

The House in committee on Bill 62; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

[ Page 5517 ]

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 62, Income Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1988, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call committee on Bill 53.

HEALTH STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

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

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

On section 7.

MS. MARZARI: A few weeks ago in this House I rose to ask a question of the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training (Hon. S. Hagen). It basically had to do with whether he was aware of any universities that were considering selling their libraries and leasing them back, that being a tax loophole that many Ontario public institutes and institutions had discovered to be lucrative for the development and cost saving in their university libraries and, I gather, in their hospital systems.

It came to my attention a few weeks ago that this practice has been vetoed by the federal government, which obviously turned around and saw that Ontario hospitals selling off their equipment and then leasing it back was a major cost at the federal level in terms of tax expenditure. In fact, when we tracked down the information a little further, it turns out that for every dollar saved by the university or hospital, the taxpayers, we Canadians, through the federal tax act, are spending $9. The corporations that have bought these facilities have the ability to write off the assets they've bought and depreciate their capital.

I would like to put to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) that given the fact that this is not a cost saving in the long run — certainly not to the taxpayer — and given the fact that the federal government has already said that this will not be allowed anymore, that this loophole is being closed, and given the fact your own Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) said during the second reading debate on this bill that it was immoral, it seemed unethical and it wasn't the right thing to do, but you were going to do it anyway because Ontario did it and you didn't want to be left behind, would the Minister of Health not agree that the selling off of public facilities, equipment and libraries is not an appropriate thing to do? I raised the vision in the House a few weeks ago of the W.A.C. Bennett Library at Simon Fraser being sold off. Is this not an appropriate thing to do, given that (1) it's not going to pay off in the long run, (2) it's simply a bad use of federal tax law, and (3) it's repugnant for the province to sell off these facilities?

HON. MR. DUECK: To begin with, I don't think the federal government has vetoed it; there's a moratorium currently in place. Also I do not believe that it's immoral; I don't think we can make that statement. I should mention that there is quite a difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. Every one of us, I don't care whether individuals or corporations, makes use of tax avoidance. When you have a piece of rental property and you have tax avoidance by way of depreciation, it could very well be that when you go to sell that property ten years hence, it's worth more than when you started. That's tax avoidance. That is not immoral; that's what laws are for. That's legitimate.

I'm not saying that perhaps it shouldn't be. That's up to the federal government, not us. Hospitals can gain; they can buy equipment. They have their own equipment and they sell it, then they lease it back by putting money aside in an annuity and make X millions of dollars, and the federal government says: "Yes, we have that provision." Whether we're going to close that loophole, all we're asking with this legislation is that we be treated no different than Ontario. We have a number of these in place now that are going this route, and they've shut it off after we got started. Ontario has already had the opportunity, and that's what we think is unfair.

Yes, in general terms, I don't think it's appropriate, but that's not for us to say. That's the federal government with their legislation. When there is legislation in place that you can have RRSPs, you can have depreciation on property, of course the taxpayer at large is going to pay for it. Every time I gain, someone's going to pay for it, but it's there to use.

It is their legislation that is available to us. It's available to the hospitals. We're asking for no more, no less. We ask to be treated no differently than the Ontario government, and until they close up loopholes, we're saying: "Let us at least do the ones that we have on stream now. If you close the loophole, so be it."

Interjection.

MS. MARZARI: I notice the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations is saying that that was well said, but I haven't exactly read Hansard. Was he the one to suggest that it was illegal and immoral and unethical just last week when this was in second reading? The suggestion that we should do it because Ontario is doing it, because they have a loophole that we haven't taken advantage of. . . . I don't know if it's fully acceptable. I don't think it's appropriate at all.

In fact, I would ask the minister that if our health services and our capital equipment isn't up to scratch, and if the federal government should be contributing more to the welfare and the health care of our province, then perhaps there could be more innovative ways of approaching the federal government. Perhaps there could be new contracts written and new sources of funding found. Obviously EPF isn't working as well as you thought it should, and the Canada Health Act isn't delivering all that we need.

Going this back-door route, using a tax expenditure, basically using the capital depreciation of corporations on our equipment bought with public money. . . . There is something seriously wrong there. Let me put forward a technical question. What happens when those corporations that have bought our equipment, that have bought our libraries, go out of business, go bankrupt, leave town, fly the coop? Where is it in any contract? I haven't seen any provision, really, to protect the public interest there. What happens? Does the ownership of that company somehow transfer back to the

[ Page 5518 ]

province? Does the ownership of the equipment transfer back to this province?

HON. MR. DUECK: Of course the contract is written in such a way that the equipment never leaves. It not only never leaves, but it reverts back to the owner after the length of the contract. In the case of a bankruptcy, of course, the contract would have to be fulfilled and it would revert back to the hospitals.

It wasn't a scheme that was invented by us; the hospitals asked for this. I think that we should accommodate them. I'm not hung up on what you're saying at all, and I don't think you should be. If you take that stance that you're taking now, then you should also go into all the corporate endeavours, all the income tax laws. You avoid tax; I avoid tax. Corporations I have been involved in avoid tax on a legal basis. Suddenly 1986 comes along, and they close one of them, and we can no longer do it.

As long as the federal government has the window, for us the ability to do so is absolutely legitimate. There is absolutely nothing wrong. There is not only nothing wrong, but I think we would be foolish if we did not take advantage of a situation the federal government has there for us to take and says it in law. If you take the attitude that you've just suggested, then you would also say I should pay more income tax because it's coming out of somebody else's pocket. You should also not depreciate any revenue property you have because someone else is paying for it.

[5:45]

A few years ago, many developers — and I was one of them — bought buildings and depreciated them. We could take it off of our personal income tax, and in the end the government paid for that building; but it was quite legal. It was tax avoidance. They closed that loophole, and once they close it it's legitimate. But as long as the federal government says, "This is open for you to use," which it is, we're saying: "You will have a moratorium. Do you want to close it?" Let at least the hospitals that applied some time ago go through with it at this time. That's all we're asking.

Section 7 approved on division.

Sections 8 to 11 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 53, Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1988, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee on Bill 54, Mr. Speaker.

MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING AND VALIDATING
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1988

The House in committee on Bill 54; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. BLENCOE: I've already made some introductory comments about this piece of legislation, and I have a number of questions I want to ask the minister. It's too bad the first member for Boundary–Similkameen (Mr. Messmer) isn't here, because I think much of this bill is to try to deal with some of the mistakes that were made at the local level, and he was there at that time.

I would like to ask the minister a first question. When was the ministry aware of the petition filed with the Regional District of Okanagan–Similkameen by the residents of H3-specified area?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Were you referring to the petition to do with the provision of service or the petition to do with the court action?

MR. BLENCOE: The petition to deal with service.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: It appears that it would probably have been in November 1986, about the time that we received the bylaw.

MR. BLENCOE: So the ministry was aware in November 1986 of exactly what the petition said and the service to be provided?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: We don't analyze the text of the petition. Our concern is that the petition is in order and that the required signatures are in place.

MR. BLENCOE: The petition clearly was not in order when the terms of reference of that petition that the people had voted on had changed.

Second question: at what point was the ministry made aware of the agreement pending between B.C. Hydro and the regional district made on the basis of the petition which sought a self-generating electrical scheme?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: We wouldn't automatically have that information. Our concern, as I mentioned earlier, was whether or not the petition as it was prepared was legal.

MR. BLENCOE: Is the minister saying that her inspector of municipalities was not aware of the original petition, was not aware of the petition that was changed? The inspector of municipalities was aware of the petition that was being — how will I put this — used in a fashion other than for the specified electrical plant, and then when they accepted B.C. Hydro that petition was technically illegal. Wasn't the inspector of municipalities aware of that situation?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The inspector saw the bylaw, and the bylaw refers to both generation and connection to the Hydro grid. We were aware of that information.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister must be aware that the inspector of municipalities and the ministry staff saw the original petition, which referred to a self-generating electrical plant, not a Hydro plant. That got three readings at the regional district level. The first member for Boundary–Similkameen voted for those first readings and then flipped over, and on the fourth reading they cancelled out and went the Hydro route. The minister must be aware that ministry

[ Page 5519 ]

staff were fully aware of the change, fully aware of the implications of the first petition, and that the inspector of municipalities was fully aware.

The third question. Was the minister advised by her staff, particularly her inspector of municipalities, of the funds being borrowed by the regional district to finance something other than what her petition had sought?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: No. The minister does not deal with inspector situations, so the minister was not made aware.

MR. BLENCOE: Was anybody in her office, any of her senior staff other than the inspector of municipalities, made aware of the change in the petition and the fact that borrowing was being sought to finance something other than what the petition had sought?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: It was assumed that this was a normal bylaw. Normal bylaws are signed by the inspector and would not normally come to the attention of the minister.

MR. BLENCOE: Question 4. I'm not really getting answers, because I think we know what's happened here. When was the minister or her deputy or her assistant deputy told by the inspector — or if, in this case, because the minister is denying these facts — that the actions of the regional district were contrary to the petition's request, which was the basis for the agreement with Hydro?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: My recollection would suggest that it could have been early April.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister is admitting now that either she or senior staff — the deputy minister or the assistant deputy minister — were informed of the difference, and that the petition was indeed not for the borrowing that the regional district wanted to carry out. Is she admitting that now?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: We were told in early April that there was a claim of illegality; of course, early April was well after the final adoption of the bylaw. It was brought to our attention in early April that there was a dispute and that a claim was being initiated.

MR. BLENCOE: Did the ministry receive legal advice on this matter?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Apparently staff has been in touch with the solicitors for both parties, and we have had advice from the Ministry of Attorney-General with regard to the preparation of the bill before us today.

MR. BLENCOE: I know we want to move on, but I think the minister and the ministry are trying to avoid their responsibility in this situation. I think the minister knows very well that a number of her staff were aware of this petition, that there are implications for her ministry, and that they are serious. I want to ask the minister: will the ministry or the government participate in a financial settlement? If not, why not? If the problem isn't resolved, the burden will fall on taxpayers in the regional district, who don't even benefit from the expenditure. Clearly there were some mistakes made. Things were overlooked, the ministry is involved, and there are people who stand to lose a lot of money. I think the ministry should admit some responsibility. Will the minister participate in a financial settlement?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: No, we won't.

MR. BLENCOE: Will the minister admit that she and her staff have some involvement in terms of not bringing this to the attention quickly enough of the regional district quickly enough?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I guess it depends on how involved the inspector's office is expected to be. I would rather consider the autonomy of the local government that is putting forward the bylaws. I don't really feel that we've been negligent in any way.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 54, Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act (No. 2), 1988, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call second reading of Bill 50.

ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT
AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'd like to advise you, Mr. Speaker, and members of the assembly that when this bill goes to committee, it's going to get really whipped around. Only sections 4 and 20 will come out of the committee; in other words, the rest of the sections will be defeated. Section 4 deals with the business of the policy of the government — namely, privatization — and section 20 is the commencement section. That is all I anticipate passing in committee. With that said, I move second reading of Bill 50.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm not taking my place in debate because I've closed debate in terms of my second reading opening statement. I'll move adjournment of this debate until later today.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: By agreement, Mr. Speaker, I move that the House now recess for 30 minutes, at which time would you be so kind as to ring the bells and summon us to return.

Motion approved.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

The House resumed at 6:36 p.m.

[ Page 5520 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, the House recessed second reading of Bill 50, and that debate is adjourned until later on this evening.

I call second reading of Bill 55, Mr. Speaker.

SECURITIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The amendments contained in this bill fall into two categories. First, there are housekeeping amendments which will correct wording problems and simplify interpretation and administration. Several sections are amended to clarify or slightly modify the intended meaning. These include changes to definitions, removal of awkward or unclear wording, and corrections of cross-references.

The discretionary exemption sections and the section authorizing cancellation or suspension of registration are amended to give the commission as well as the superintendent of brokers power to make these orders. The current division of jurisdiction on these matters is administratively impractical and procedurally undesirable in certain circumstances.

An exemption from registration and prospectus requirements for trust companies that sell proprietary mutual funds is proposed to be repealed to ensure parallel treatment with banks and credit unions. When this provision is fully implemented, all financial institutions will be required to meet the same standards for the sale of mutual funds through their branch networks.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

The second category of amendments in this bill is a set of provisions to strengthen the enforcement powers of the Securities Commission. The commission will be given the power to require the directors, officers, promoters or control persons of an issuer to file a personal information form. The commission is currently able to obtain this information only at the time an issuer is seeking approval of a prospectus or statement of material facts. The information contained through this form, known as form 4, allows the commission to assess whether persons associated with an issuer can be expected to conduct the affairs of the company with integrity and in the best interests of the shareholders. Similarly, the commission will be given the power to remove a director or officer of an issuer and to prohibit a person from becoming a director or officer. At present, the commission has direct influence over the persons involved with an issuer only at the time a prospectus or statement of material facts is filed. This is accomplished through the withholding of approval for a public distribution. The new procedure will be much more effective and will follow the public hearing process applicable to cease-trade orders and removal of exemptions.

A new provision will be added to allow the superintendent to require a registered dealer to produce trading records. Trading blotters and other records required to be kept by dealers are the private property of the dealers and can be obtained at present only through a formal investigation order. Investigation powers are to be amended to permit a person appointed by the commission to investigate persons in British Columbia regarding violations of securities laws of another jurisdiction.

A new section will permit the commission to authorize disclosure of such information to other securities regulatory authorities. These provisions will allow the commission to fully implement the recently signed memorandum of understanding with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. The SEC is seeking similar amendments to its legislation from the United States Congress to permit reciprocal exchanges of information on a wide variety of securities law enforcement matters.

Finally, a new section is added to permit the commission to assess costs against persons who are respondents in public hearings. The costs of pursuing investigations, assembling evidence and conducting hearings can be very substantial. It is appropriate that those whose actions lead to these costs be required to reimburse the taxpayer for at least a portion of the public resources consumed in the enforcement process.

Before concluding, Mr. Speaker, I should state that this bill represents only an interim package of amendments. We are working on further and more extensive amendments in the areas of takeover bids, insider trading and enforcement powers, which should be ready for the next session and which will provide another opportunity to discuss securities matters in this House. In the meantime, we have assembled in this bill the amendments urgently required by the Securities Commission to continue improving the securities regulatory system in this province.

This bill will contribute to the achievement of the goal we all share of making Vancouver a recognized international financial centre. I move the bill now be read a second time.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to indicate immediately to the minister that we will be supporting this legislation. I want to deal first with the matter of why we will be supporting this legislation. Then I want to deal with a number of other comments that flow from the principles enshrined in this piece of legislation. I think it's safe to say that if someone were to walk in halfway through the course of those comments, they may not be sure if we're supporting the bill or not. I want to put that position out for the record immediately up front so that all are aware of our position with respect to this legislation.

I want to indicate why, and it really ties in with the comments the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) made at the end of his presentation with respect to this legislation. I must say that it is indeed a pleasure to many that the Minister of Finance and I at least see eye to eye with respect to this legislation.

The reason we're supporting it is that we agree with the minister when he says that all of us have an interest in making Vancouver an international financial centre. That's a position which I've articulated in the House on several occasions. It's a position, more appropriately, which our leader has taken both in his current role as opposition leader and in his previous responsibilities as mayor of Vancouver, where he had an outstanding record of dealing with the business community, the financial community; where he had an outstanding record of traveling around the globe representing the interests of Vancouver and particularly the financial capabilities of Vancouver, and promoting its potential as an international financial centre. As a consequence of that, he has built up a series of contacts throughout the investment community.

It has been for those reasons — and I don't necessarily need to explain his behaviour, but I think in his absence one should at least dwell on it for a moment — that he has been somewhat vocal in the past few weeks and months with respect to activities on the Vancouver Stock Exchange.

[ Page 5521 ]

We on this side of the House believe very strongly in making Vancouver a first-class international financial centre. We on this side of the House recognize that one of the driving engines in making sure that we have a first-class international financial centre in Vancouver is to ensure that we have a proper exchange. The exchange must have a positive image of itself, and currently it is our submission that that image is not there.

[6:45]

I don't think that's a position which only we articulate. It's a position which implicitly the Vancouver Stock Exchange has itself acknowledged by virtue of its recent decision to engage a renowned firm to assist it with respect to improvements on the exchange. We applaud the governors of the exchange for taking that very positive initiative, one which we trust will be a bold initiative, and one which we hope will result in significant improvements in the exchange and its operations. We look forward with some anticipation and delight to what happens four months hence when that report comes down, because we think it's important that the exchange take that type of initiative.

The concern about the image is recognized implicitly, of course, in this legislation. It is clear that this legislation must take some affirmative steps in dealing with the problems that I have brought to the attention of the House on the occasion of the minister's debates and occasionally in question period. Implicit in this type of legislation is a recognition that there is a need to clean up the image of the exchange.

I think the minister has implicitly said that, although I don't think he's actually to my knowledge said publicly, at least not in the confines of this chamber, that there is a need to do that. However, I think implicit, again, in the minister's actions, which will lend credence to what I'm saying, is his decision to make some of the changes that he did with respect to the superintendent of brokers' office.

All of those are welcome changes. All of those are steps in the right direction. All of those are things which we applaud. That does not detract from our desire and our call for a legislative committee to look into the matter of the exchange. We are witnessing a series of actions now being taken. I would submit that those changes are occurring because of the fiasco created by the Carter-Ward trial, by the Cumo Resources trial, by the action filed in Montreal with respect to Levesque Beaubien. I think these types of initiatives are legitimate responses to the concerns which flow from the types of court actions I've referred to. But it is our view on this side of the House that there must be some coordination with respect to the actions that are taking place. There must be coordination with the superintendent of brokers' office, with the VSE, with the Investment Dealers' Association, the Securities Commission and, most importantly, the Legislature and the public.

There are some actions being taken by some of the constituent groups, and I mentioned those: the exchange, the Securities Commission and even the superintendent of brokers. But it seems to me that the theme of these actions has to be one which sees us moving toward addressing the public interest and dealing with the desire of the public to make sure that investors who invest on the exchange are fully protected — not guaranteed with respect to their investments and not guaranteed a rate of return — with respect to manipulation on the exchange and regulation of activity on the exchange.

That's why we say there's a need for a legislative probe. These actions are somewhat piecemeal, because the minister himself confesses during the course of his opening comments that there is need for further Securities Act changes — remember, we came in with this legislation on February 2, 1987, if I'm not mistaken — and that the legislation has some gaps in it. I think the best way of addressing those gaps is through the Legislature and through a legislative committee which hears representations not just from the governors of the exchange or from the Investment Dealers' Association, but from the point of view of investors. Let's have them come before the committee. Let's have individual brokers and representatives of individual brokerage houses come to the committee and see what we come up with. Something that can be achieved through a consensual arrangement on a committee I think would serve the interests both of the exchange and of the investment community, and would serve to further the government's initiative — which we support —of developing an international financial centre in Vancouver.

So those are the reasons we think there should be a legislative probe. The fall is coming on us, and we're probably not going to be back here until February. It may not be a bad utilization of some of the committees that we have in the Legislature to take a look at those matters.

I want to now turn to the Securities Act itself. I took the liberty this morning of reviewing some of the comments that the minister made in Hansard with respect to the Securities Act. On April 28, 1988, he said, when talking about the Securities Act: "We're satisfied that there are more protections in that act for these kinds of abuses than in others; we've just made some changes there."

On June 29, in response to another debate between me and the minister, the minister said: "The new Securities Act came into effect on February 2 and heralded a new, expanded mandate for the commission. Companies seeking financing and potential investors need to be assured that B.C. is an attractive place to do business. Part of this assurance involves a proper level of funding for the commission and the superintendent of brokers' office."

The minister said on that same day: "There is absolutely no reason for any investor in the Vancouver Stock Exchange to be concerned about this government's strong desire to ensure that it fulfils its destiny and plays a very significant role in world stock exchanges as a seed or venture capital location." You know, those are reassuring words, I'm sure, to the minister and perhaps to certain elements of the community. They are not reassuring words to me, and more importantly — because I'm sure it doesn't matter to the minister if those words reassure me or not — they are not reassuring words to investors out there.

I want to take a minute. Mr. Speaker, to share with the minister some statistics which I am sure have not come to his attention, because they've never been presented in this fashion before. I want to present them in a fashion that really tells the tale. Before I do that, I want to explain why I want to deal with these figures. The minister has said on several occasions in this Legislature that it is we in the opposition who are doing damage to the exchange, who we are hurting the image of the exchange, and that we are the ones who are driving away investors by raising these matters, whether in a public or a private forum — we raise them in a public forum and it scares off investors.

I want to say to the minister that it's not us doing that. The investment community itself has made some determinations and has come to some conclusions with respect to the Vancouver Stock Exchange. I want the minister to listen very

[ Page 5522 ]

carefully to the figures I'm about to provide to him, because they are a telling tale of what's happening with the Vancouver Stock Exchange. I think that within the minister's own mind, they ought to trigger alarm bells with respect to the need to reform and bring about a stronger regulation of the exchange.

Statistics are kept by the exchange, national figures, which show the level of trading volume across Canada. Those figures also show the percentage of the volume that's traded in the Vancouver Stock Exchange vis-à-vis other exchanges. Will the minister listen very carefully to these numbers?

In 1983 the Vancouver Stock Exchange had 51.3 percent of all of the trading volume in Canada; in 1984 that slipped to 45.4 percent; in 1985 it slipped to 39.8 percent; in 1986 it slipped to 35.4 percent; in 1987 it slipped to 32.1 percent. I'm quoting only figures that aren't dreamt up by some research department downstairs in the NDP caucus but that are provided by the exchange itself. The total share, the volume, of Canadian trading on the Vancouver Stock Exchange has fallen from 51.3 percent in 1983 to 32.1 percent in 1987.

Clearly, Mr. Speaker, it is not just us talking about damage to the exchange. The investors themselves are speaking, in the sense that they are starting to go elsewhere. That's very clear. In fact, if you look at trading volume just for the year 1988, and the figures that we have, indications are that it's going to slip even more. The trend is continuing. In January of this year we had 31.4 percent of the Canadian trading volume; that's down from 32.1 percent in 1987.

MR. REE: What about the total volume?

MR. SIHOTA: Well, we'll deal with that. This is a percentage of the total volume of trading in Canada.

MR. REE: That's misleading. What's the total volume on the exchange?

MR. SIHOTA: You can't make determinations on the number of shares that are traded; you must make determinations on the percentage of the share of the Canadian market. The percentage of share of the Canadian market has slipped from 31.4 percent in January to 31.3 percent in May, I guess, after reaching a low of 29 percent in March.

The member for North Vancouver–Capilano, who has some experience in this, could quite properly quote the number of shares traded, which I'm sure the minister can quote as well, because they show shares going up; but that's not the point. The point is that business is going elsewhere, obviously, because we're seeing a drop in trading volume.

Where is it going? Well, let's take a look at some other jurisdictions.

MR. REE: Percentage, not volume.

MR. SIHOTA: Percentage of volume.

Let's take a look at what's happening in other jurisdictions. In the same period, between 1983 and 1987, in Toronto the share of the Canadian market has increased from 40.2 percent to 49.4 percent. In Alberta it has increased by 3.3 percent to 5 percent. In Montreal it has increased from 5.2 percent to 13.5 percent in the four-year period between 1983 and 1987. The point is that that's where it's starting to go, and it's leaving Vancouver.

MR. REE: Are you talking dollars or volume?

MR. SIHOTA: We are talking volume, but the member says to talk about dollars. Well, let's talk about dollars, because the same trend comes out in dollars. If we take a look at the percentage of the total Canadian value on the Vancouver Stock Exchange, we see again the same trend with respect to market share. In 1983 the Vancouver Stock Exchange did 10 percent of the total value of trading in Canada. Now we're dealing with the actual dollars. In 1984 that slipped to 6.2 percent; in 1985, to 4.7; in 1986, to 5.3; in 1987, to 5.1. So we've seen the value of that trading go from 10 percent to 5 percent, and we've seen the volume go down from 51 percent to 32.1 percent.

Interestingly, the share of value in other markets has gone up. Toronto has gone up nominally, from 76.5 to 77.3, and Montreal has gone up from 12.9 percent to 16.9 percent. So whether you look at volume or at the actual value, in both instances the investment community has spoken very clearly with respect to the Vancouver Stock Exchange.

We look with interest to what the minister has to say about this, because much is made of the total number of shares traded on the exchange. It's interesting to note — and I don't have the actual figures here; I'm going from memory — that of the $1.34 billion worth of activity last year, $1.08 billion was really by way of private placements, which I think is another indication of what the investment community thinks of the exchange.

[7:00]

Those are some facts that I put forward to the minister, and I look forward to his comments on them.

I also want to say this — to move in another direction, Mr. Speaker. The minister is proposing some changes in this legislation, the most significant of which relate to the production of records by the registrant. They deal with the matter of the commission's ability to appoint people to do investigations. They deal with the minister's ability to appoint a person to make an investigation. They deal with the exchange of information, the removal of directors and the cost of proceedings. Those are very important changes. They are changes that we support, changes that dovetail precisely with matters I've raised in this House in the past.

In the past the minister has taken the position that many of the scandals which have plagued the Vancouver Stock Exchange occurred prior to the introduction of the new legislation that we're now amending. He's taken the position that nothing has happened during the course of his tenure in the exchange. I want to bring to the minister's attention a case which falls very much during the course of his activities, very much during his tenure as minister. It is yet another in a scenario of cases that I will bring before this House — and will continue to bring before this House — which are indicative of an astonishing lack of action on the part of the Vancouver Stock Exchange.

We're aware of the Carter-Ward case, which happened in 1984. The minister says he wasn't here in 1984. The minister says they decided to wait until the courts had heard the matter before dealing with it in 1987. Now we're seeing that the exchange has recognized that it must deal with it when these matters come to light as opposed to when they are litigated, and obviously some of the provisions here are designed to deal with that situation as well.

I want to put to the minister a perfect example upon which he can utilize these provisions that we will pass here today. I invite him to utilize them in an appropriate way, because we have now in our midst another Carter-Ward situation. I'm not

[ Page 5523 ]

exaggerating it; I'm just telling you that we have an analogous situation to the Carter-Ward situation. From the best I can determine, we're looking at at least $5 million worth of alleged fraud; so it's a little bit smaller than the Carter-Ward situation, but the fact pattern is incredibly similar. Because the minister often questions my facts, I've actually brought in the documents, and I'm quite prepared to table them. I've brought with me the statement of claim that was filed this year in relation to this matter. It is a situation which occurred fully during the tenure of the minister, identical — as the minister will see in the fact pattern — to Carter-Ward, and regrettably a situation on which to date there has been no action. Yet we've had the minister say repeatedly that his ministry is now on the ball with respect to these matters.

It's a case involving the Republic National Bank of New York. It involves defendants by the name of Eugenio Sirianni, Francesco Sirianni, the FC Financial Corp., which is held by the Sirianni family, and FSL Financial Strategy Ltd., also closely held and controlled by the Sirianni family. In an interesting parallel to the Carter-Ward situation, this case involves bribery alleged against one Edward Zulaica, according to the documents in my possession, which are public documents. I'm not telling the minister anything that's private or that's a street tip; I'm just going from the documents which are public and now filed in court. It involves a bribery of, effectively, a manager of a particular fund — no different than the Carter-Ward situation.

It's alleged that on or about January 1987 , which is during the course of the minister's tenure, Mr. Zulaica was bribed and paid if:

" . . . he would fraudulently and corruptly cause the plaintiff to enter into certain transactions for the benefit and advantage of the defendants, and each of them, and contrary to the best interests and . . . disadvantage of the plaintiff. In reliance on the said promise and in expectation of payment of the bribe promised by the defendants as aforesaid, the said Zulaica, in the purported exercise of his authority, caused the plaintiff to become party to a series of transactions."

I won't get into the transactions as they're written here. However, I may have to quote from the transcript, as I seem to have misplaced my notes. It really doesn't matter, because I can certainly function from memory on this.

Here we have a situation in 1987, again alleged bribery of a particular individual involved in stocks, and what happened? On February 5, 1987, the bank in question from New York paid $700,000 into an account of Canarim Investment. There was issued on November 30, 1987, again within the tenure of this minister, a series of debentures, in the sum of $5 million. It is alleged that the $700,000 is a bribery amount paid to this official. Five million dollars' worth of debentures were issued by FC Financial Corp. to pay to the bank from New York as security for the $5 million.

On October 16, 1987, the individual, Mr. Zulaica, who for the record was at all material times to this action the manager of the bank that held these notes, agreed to allow the Sirianni family through these companies to borrow up to $500,000. In exchange for that, a series of securities shares was provided, available on companies listed on the Vancouver Stock Exchange. As a consequence of that, about $350,000 was advanced to the individuals involved. What happened here is that all the representations with respect to the debentures — which were liquid, redeemable at any time, tied in with market price — were allegedly fraudulent.

As a consequence of that, in order to reduce the value of these shares, the company did the following, and I want to quote from the statement of claim:

"In respect of the transaction referred to herein, in representing to the plaintiff that the volume of shares accepted as collateral by the plaintiff did not exceed one month's trading in any of the respective companies at a time, knowing said representation to be false or without belief in its truth or recklessly or without regard to its truth. The security provided to the plaintiff in the two transactions described . . . above would not, in the ordinary course of the plaintiff's business, have been adequate to induce the plaintiff to make the aforesaid loans, as the defendants and the said Zulaica were aware, and had the said Zulaica been acting without the corrupt influence of the bribe and in the best interests of the plaintiff, he would not have caused the plaintiff to enter into the said transactions or any of them. . . ."

Here we have a situation of bribery of a manager of a bank, analogous to the bribery of a fund manager in the Carter-Ward situation. Here we have a situation where stocks are inflated to a value and then sold off by the insiders to their benefit, and the loser, by some $5 million, is this bank which had been given these securities fraudulently. Those are the allegations, and all of this occurred in 1987 while the minister was responsible for the activities of the Vancouver Stock Exchange, the superintendent of brokers and the Securities Commission. And do you know what? No action by the VSE. That's fair enough. There is no action to date. 

The challenge to the minister now, in light of the provisions before us, is to utilize those provisions to take the action that we have been calling for on the Carter-Ward and Cumo Resources situations. But I am bringing forward to the minister's attention a matter which is recent, which is worthy of investigation and which, in my submission, is worthy of action on the part of the superintendent of brokers' office and the exchange. Now the minister has, in this legislation, some powers that he did not have before to deal with these situations. So the challenge to the minister, quite frankly, is to take action on this Republic National Bank of New York situation and ask his officials to look into it. Or more appropriately, in keeping with the sections before us, the minister himself can order or appoint a person to make an investigation.

I'm the designated speaker on this, Mr. Speaker, which gives me two hours.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please proceed. Under standing orders you are supposed to notify the Chair as soon as possible.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm sorry. I have now that it was raised. I apologize for that. Perhaps I should have done that at the beginning.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: With no opposition from the other side of the House, I would ask you to proceed.

MR. SIHOTA: I won't be much longer, in any event.

I want to say to the minister that now is your opportunity to take this action that you have provided for yourself under section 17 of this bill and appoint a person to investigate this matter. That's the challenge to the minister.

Much of this should not really come as any surprise to the minister. In fact, if someone at that office had been doing

[ Page 5524 ]

their work, they would have done some background research into Mr. Sirianni. Granted, the material that you say now provides you with up-to-date personal information can be provided, but you did have the ability to get this information in any event when the statement of material facts was filed.

We have an individual involved in this transaction who is one of the top violators in Australia. It's interesting that I can readily secure this information among all my other duties as critic for the Attorney-General's ministry. Here they are: one of the top violators in Australia, and I'm wondering what your superintendent of brokers' office was doing.

There are some parallels to the Carter-Ward situation which should get your officials to automatically look at these things in any event. The Carter-Ward situation: Messrs. Carter and Ward were the top promoters on the VSE at the time that scam was going on. Do you want to guess who the top promoters in the VSE were when this scam was going on? I'll answer the question for the minister: Mr. Sirianni. I'll also tell the minister this: the matter is being investigated by the RCMP, of course, since those statements of claim were filed.

[7:15]

More importantly, the scenario, the same modus operandi that I brought to the minister's attention before, has been seen with the same family with respect to other stock transactions. For example, in March 1987 I am told that Golden Tech, one of the companies controlled by this family, had projected revenue of $26 million. In its financial statement issued in May, the quarterly statement, it showed revenue of $3 million, significantly less than the $27 million that it had indicated in March 1987. The June 30, 1987, financial report showed that it had revenue of $600,000 out of a projected $26 million. Surely that must have triggered some type of alarm bell within the offices of the superintendent of brokers so that somebody was prepared to take some action.

But still — we always get down to the investor — somehow those June 30, 1987, financial statements were not released until September. Little comfort to those investors who saw this stock go up, saw the insiders sell it out, watched it go down, and lost money on the transaction. It's no comfort to them. Here we have a number of people who have been involved in a number of other stocks, some of them known to the minister, like Echo Mountain, which went from 75 cents to $4 as the insiders sold out.

Yet no one within that department chose during the course of the minister's tenure to take a look at this scam involving FC Financial Corp. and a number of stocks, the corporation being controlled by the Siriannis, and the stock on the exchange being Golden Lion, Lifequest and Wizan Productions. No action was taken, and we have a manager who was provided as payment $500,000 worth of stock which traded at the time, from which he could benefit. We have a bribery like Carter-Ward. We have an analogous situation to Carter-Ward, except this time we have it during the course of the minister's tenure.

Previously I made quite a few comments with respect to those types of situations and the failures in the legislation. Today I want to make them in the context of the legislation before us, which provides the minister to order investigations. We want to now challenge the minister to take that action, which is now allowed and provided for under this legislation after it passes tonight, and to show that he is prepared to take the type of initiative that we say he should have been taking all along.

As we've said on this side of the House, we think it's time that these types of scandals came to an end. I think it's time that there were swift and punitive actions taken against the investors; that would be the most affirmative thing the government could do to scare off these unsavoury elements from the exchange. This is his opportunity, and we invite him, by supporting this legislation, to take full advantage of it.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I am delighted to understand that the hon. members opposite are supporting this bill. I move second reading.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 55 to a Committee of the Whole House now.

Leave granted.

Bill 55, Securities Amendment Act, 1988, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

SECURITIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

The House in committee on Bill 55; Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.

Sections 1 to 14 inclusive approved.

On section 15.

MR. SIHOTA: I will deal with these very quickly. I want to deal with sections 15 right on through to 25 all in one comment, instead of interrupting debate. I think these are the type of amendments that are long overdue, the type of amendments that I strongly support. I think they give the minister the options that ought to be available to him and they give the commission and the superintendent the powers that ought to be available to them.

I agree that this strengthens the provisions of the Securities Act, and it is welcomed by this side of the House. I put that on the record just for those provisions.

Sections 15 to 30 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 55, Securities Amendment Act, 1988, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 50. As minister, I had taken my seat after moving second reading, and the debate is now open for second reading.

ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT
AMENDMENT ACT, 1988
(continued)

MS. SMALLWOOD: I understand by the minister's comments that he will only be proceeding with section 4 of the bill, but I think it's very important that we put on the

[ Page 5525 ]

record why the opposition is opposed to this legislation as it was presented to the House.

In his introductory comments, the minister said that this piece of legislation was to deal with appeals to the Environmental Appeal Board. The minister indicated that it was a great deal of work over the past few years' experience that allowed them to focus the need for change to the appeal process. The minister also indicated that this bill was based on or consistent with recommendations contained in the report issued by the ombudsman in March 1988. Well, Mr. Speaker, this legislation does not deal with the ombudsman's recommendations. On the contrary, this legislation is quite the opposite to what the ombudsman is recommending. I want, for the record, to put the ombudsman's recommendations forward.

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

There's a series of recommendations. Let me outline them for you. First of all, the ombudsman — this is in the report of March '88 — recommends that the administrator develop and publish written criteria by which he, in consultation with the pesticide control committee, decides whether a pesticide will be used and whether or not it will cause unreasonable adverse effects.

His second recommendation is that all applicants give public notification of no less than 30 days of the proposed pesticide use program. The second part of the recommendation is that the pesticide control program require all applicants to provide proof of public notification.

The third recommendation is that the administrator develop standard practices, and that that be done in consultation with the pesticide control committee, which ensures that all relevant information will be available and evaluated by every member before pesticide use permit decisions are made. Such information should include the need for pesticide use, alternative methods of pesticide control and whether there has been persistent pesticide use in a particular area.

Number four is that there be public notification of pesticide use. A permit should include conditions to which it is subject. Section 18 of the Pesticide Control Act should be reconsidered to provide that upon issuance of a use permit, public notification should include the right to appeal the granting of a permit and the time, period, cost, method and place of appeal.

I think this is very important. 1 recognize that I am taking some latitude by registering these, but given the legislation and some of the minister's recent policies, I think it's very important that this House understand what the minister is proposing by introducing this legislation. So I'll go on.

The fourth recommendation also says that in the case of a multi-year permit, the public notification of the pesticide use permit should be undertaken at the beginning of every pesticide use season.

Number five is that the pesticide control program develop a formal disclosure policy so that any person can have access to the material upon which the administrator's decision concerning a pesticide use permit application is based. That's a very important recommendation, and I'll get back to it.

Number six is that the Environmental Appeal Board should publicize its pre-hearing role of informal mediation and provide a board member as mediator.

Number seven is that the Environmental Appeal Board develop and publish written criteria outlining the requirements and use of written submissions.

Number eight is that the Environmental Appeal Board, as a general rule, determine pesticide use appeals by way of an oral hearing open to the public. That is another very important recommendation. That recommendation was stressed in a court case heard by Justice Oppal dealing with the Islands Protection Society and the Environmental Appeal Board. There's some history there, which has been brought to the House on several occasions.

The ninth recommendation is that the Environmental Appeal Board disclose any material which it has independently obtained to the parties to use during an appeal. I'm skipping a little bit here, but to make a point.

Number eleven, the final recommendation, is that the Environmental Appeal Board develop and publish written criteria by which the board decides whether or not a pesticide use will cause an unreasonable effect.

What the ombudsman was saying in his report was that the environmental appeal process in this province should be far more responsive to community needs; that the Environmental Appeal Board should make information available; that wherever possible, hearings should be open and public; and that they should have oral hearings. In the write-ups on the recommendations, on the oral hearings issue, the ombudsman stresses the importance of the ability of community groups to hear the concerns of other citizens and of there being a broad opportunity for cross-examination.

[7:30]

Quite frankly, this legislation, which the government is so wisely proposing to vote against, does exactly the opposite. It restricts the definition of people who are affected; it gives additional power to the chairman to allow written submissions; and basically it contravenes any of the recommendations that the ombudsman so wisely put forward.

Mr. Speaker, I would end my statement on this bill by stating that the opposition was and is opposed to it. I find it particularly curious that when the minister introduced this legislation he talked about the environmental appeal process, and yet, as we will see, the only section of this legislation that the minister needs deals with the privatization of the lab. So I would again state that we are very concerned about the direction that this minister has taken in his policy development as it pertains to the people of this province, and we'll continue to protest that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As I indicated in my opening remarks in second reading, when the bill goes to committee, it is going to be somewhat amended. In fact there is not going to be much left. But I would like to respond to what the member has said.

First of all, a couple of things. I want to put on the record a comment that was attributed to me with respect to the Islands Protection Society in this morning's rendition of the Province newspaper. It is attributed to me that I called the Islands Protection Society "worthless." That is not correct. If one examines the journals of Hansard, you will note that I said "toothless," but I did not say "worthless." It is not my style to call anybody worthless, because everyone has worth. I want to put that on the record.

Bill 50, as it was originally proposed and before the amendments that are going to take place in committee, did take into account some of the recommendations of the ombudsman's report on the Environmental Appeal Board. Although not all of the recommendations of the ombudsman are there, clearly some of them are, so there was some

[ Page 5526 ]

recognition of his report and his concern with the Environmental Appeal Board actions.

It is appropriate to say once again — I said this during my estimates, but I will say it again in this committee, although both the member and I know it is really out of order, considering that we know what this bill is going to look like when we are finished — that I do believe it appropriate that the Ministry of Environment held unto itself some of the processes of an Environmental Appeal Board in terms of a mining company, if I'm not mistaken, that did not want all of their information made public. They trusted to the Ministry of Environment their proprietary knowledge of the mining process and did not divulge or totally disclose everything they were doing. They satisfied our officials that what they were doing was safe and appropriate, but they did want to keep to themselves certain proprietary information, and I believe that is appropriate.

If we are going to live in a province where we encourage investment and we encourage people to come here with processes and things that they want to do, then we have to guarantee them that security of their proprietary knowledge. As a matter of fact, without reflecting unduly on a previous bill, you will recall the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, where the WHMIS federal legislation does allow exemptions from total disclosure to people who have information and their company and trade secrets that they want to protect.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I don't believe you would ever see this government insisting that the Environmental Appeal Board has the ability to force every industry in the province that happens to come before that board to reveal what their proprietary information is. I just wanted to put that on the record. For the benefit of the member, it was said during my estimates, and I will say it again now. With that said, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 50.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I move Bill 50 be referred to a committee now.

Leave granted.

Bill 50, Environment Management Amendment Act, 1988, read a second time and referred to a Committee of a Whole House for consideration forthwith.

ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT
AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

The House in committee on Bill 50; Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive negatived.

On section 4.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Section 4 is going to live, Mr. Chairman. I do want this section to proceed. I'm going to offer one small amendment for housekeeping purposes. Where we see the words "Section 15 is amended," we are going to change that by saying: "Section 15 of the Environment Management Act, SBC 1981, c. 14, is amended." Does that read all right?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I move that amendment.

On the amendment.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Can we have some explanation from the minister?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As I said, it is housekeeping, and I arrived at it by looking.... You see, we've defeated sections 1, 2 and 3, but we need some reference to an act. I looked at section 1 of the act, and if you refer to it, Madam Member, you will read that it says: "Section 11 of the Environment Management Act, SBC 1981, c. 14, is amended." It makes reference to the Environment Management Act, which is what we are amending. I'm including that wording in section 4, because that's our first section now; that's our only section. I don't even know if I have to do that, but I thought I'd throw it in for housekeeping purposes so it makes it totally clear as to what act we are amending. Does that sound okay?

Amendment approved.

Section 4 as amended approved.

Sections 5 to 19 inclusive negatived.

On section 20.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of the committee, section 20 is the commencement section. We need it; otherwise we have no life to section 4.

Section 20 approved.

Title approved.

HON MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 50, Environment Management Amendment Act, 1988, reported complete with amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: With leave, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 50, Environment Management Amendment Act, 1988, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call report on Bill 27.

LAW REFORM AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

Bill 27, Law Reform Amendment Act, 1988, read a third time and passed.

[ Page 5527 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call report on Bill 39.

PENSION (MISCELLANEOUS
AMENDMENTS) ACT, 1988

Bill 39, Pension (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, 1988, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call report on Bill 45.

HYDRO AND POWER
AUTHORITY PRIVATIZATION ACT

Bill 45, Hydro and Power Authority Privatization Act, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call report on Bill 46.

UTILITIES COMMISSION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

Bill 46, Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 1988, read a third time and passed.

Introduction of Bills

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1988

On behalf of the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston), Hon. Mr. Strachan presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Municipal Amendment Act (No. 2), 1988.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now. In making my two-minute statement, I will advise the Legislative Assembly that this bill is for first reading purposes only.

Bill 60 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, after some discussion — heated, good, positive, productive discussion — we have agreed that having passed the legislative package for the spring session of 1988, we will soon adjourn for this evening. We will return tomorrow. There will be no question period. His Honour will attend, following prayers and introductions, for royal assent, and then we will, for the majority of tomorrow afternoon — probably until tea-time — debate the amendments to the constitution of Canada, commonly known as the Meech Lake accord.

I also have to advise you that pursuant to standing order 2(2) the House will sit tomorrow, Wednesday.

MR. ROSE: I would like to thank the government House Leader for his cooperation in arranging the debate for the constitutional amendment, which is outlined as Motion 73, standing under the name of the Hon. W.N. Vander Zalm, Premier.

According to arrangement, I'd like the minister to confirm that we will deal first of all with the main motion, which is Resolution 73. But before we have a vote on 73, we will adjourn debate on 73 without a vote, and call from Votes and Proceedings Resolution 75 — which is, I think, misnumbered, but we can check that out — which acts, really, as an amendment. This is very similar to the arrangement made in the federal House, in which that will be debated briefly. We'll have a vote on that, which is now 75 in Votes and Proceedings, and then return for the vote on the original resolution, Motion 73. If that's agreeable and can be confirmed by the government House Leader, this will, I think, satisfy our arrangements.

Rather than staying up and passing a most historic and important constitutional amendment which brings Quebec into our Confederation legally and constitutionally in the dead of night, we can do it in the clear light of day. I think that appeals to us greatly on this side.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Sure, that's agreed, except that the vote will not have to be taken from Votes and Proceedings tomorrow; it will be on the order paper.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 7:46 p.m.