[ Page 6535 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 6535

Oral Questions

Pensions and the Nemetz report. Mr. Rose –– 6536

Motor vehicle testing and exhaust emissions. Mr. Cashore –– 6536

Sale of New Westminster property. Mr. Williams –– 6536

Sale of Westwood land. Mr. Williams –– 6537

Sunday shopping. Mr. Loenen –– 6538

Sale of Expo lands. Hon. Mr. Michael replies to question –– 6538

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Attorney-General estimates. (Hon. S.D. Smith)

On vote 13: minister's office –– 6538

Mr. Clark

Mrs. Boone

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Perry

Mr. Sihota

Continuing Care Act (Bill 15). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Dueck –– 6552

Ms. A. Hagen –– 6553

Hon. Mr. Dueck –– 6554

Trade Development Corporation Act (Bill 3). Second reading

Hon. J. Jansen –– 6554

Mr. Gabelmann –– 6556

Mr. Williams –– 6557

Mr. Miller –– 6559

Hon. Jansen –– 6561

The House met at 2:09 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. KEMPF: On Monday morning, while driving through Quesnel en route to my constituency, I took the opportunity to visit the first member for Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser) at G.R. Baker Memorial Hospital. I am sure that on this occasion you will forgive me for naming the member. Alex has asked that I convey his best wishes to this assembly in which he was such an active participant for so many years. I can report that although the first member for Cariboo is in a serious state of health, his mind is still alert and his interest in what goes on here is still very keen. Mr. Speaker, I would ask at this time on behalf of all of us here if you might, as Speaker, convey our best wishes to this individual who has given so much in service to his community and to this province, and to his family who so lovingly care for him day and night.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: It's indeed a pleasure for me to rise in this assembly today to introduce a lady from Toronto, Mrs. Joan Kosich, wife of George Kosich, chief executive officer of Hudson's Bay Co., Simpsons, Zellers and Fields. Her husband George and president Bob Peter are meeting at the Hudson's Bay department store this afternoon and could not be with us. It is a pleasure to welcome Joan, George and Bob to Victoria.

MR- ROSE: We are Indebted to the member for Omineca for bringing us news of our good friend Alex Fraser. I hope that we can convey from this House to his family that we all miss him very much. We would like to hear from time to time about this friend of ours.

While I am on my feet — probably on a happier note — I would like to introduce some of my relatives, mainly from Texada Island. They are Mr. and Mrs. Roy Ditto — d-i-t-t-o; no kidding. Mr. Ditto is celebrating his birthday today, so if we could all pause for five minutes while we sing "Happy Birthday to You".... But we already did it, so we won't do that now. Along with them is Mrs. Art Phillips, who is the sister-in-law of Patty Ray, their friend and mine. They are all visiting the Legislature today. Would the Legislature please welcome them.

HON. MR. DUECK: Today we have visitors In the Legislature from Mexico: Dr. and Mrs. Horacio Rubio Monteverde. Dr. Monteverde is the director-general of the National Institute of Respiratory Diseases in Mexico, and is visiting British Columbia to take part in meetings and discussions relating to the planned cooperative project between his institute and various medical groups at the University of British Columbia. The project has just received approval for a CIDA grant of $745,376 over five years. Accompanying Dr. and Mrs., Monteverde are Dr. William Black, clinical professor of medical microbiology of UBC, and Mr. Scott McDonald, executive director of the British Columbia Lung Association. Would this House please make them welcome.

Mr. Speaker, I have one more introduction. Dr. Elaine M. Gallagher, RN, is a gerontologist at the UVic School of Nursing, and she is in the Legislature today. Would the House please make her welcome.

MR. PERRY:. I'd just like to join the welcome to the visiting Mexican physicians, as well as Dr. Black and Dr. Gallagher. I would welcome the chance to meet them while they are here, if it's possible.

HON. MR. REE: I appreciated the comments about our old friend Alex. Having been in this chamber nearly ten years now, I certainly concur in the best wishes to him and his family, and in how much we all miss him here.

In the gallery today we have two very distinguished guests. Mr. Hans Van de Bovenkamp is a renowned Dutch sculptor from New York and is presently working on a project at the University of British Columbia. Our second guest is Madam Joan Carlile Irving, formerly of New Brunswick and now of Vancouver. Madam Carlile-Irving has contributed a great deal of her energies to worthwhile organizations over the years. She was a national director of the Canadian Red Cross Society and, as well, headed the Duke of Edinburgh awards in New Brunswick. Until recently she worked with the famous United Nations International School in Geneva, Switzerland. She is now vice-president of the Whistler Institute, a private advanced-learning executive school soon to open at Whistler, and a founding board member of the Whistler Foundation for the Environment, an international body also to be headquartered at Whistler. I would ask this House to welcome them both to Victoria and to British Columbia.

[2:15]

MS. SMALLWOOD: Today in the precincts is a group of grade 9 and 10 honours social studies students from Johnston Heights Junior Secondary School. Along with the adults accompanying the students is Miss Morissette, their teacher. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. PELTON: In the members' gallery today with my wife Louise is a longstanding friend of our family, Mrs. Elsie Palmer. Would the House welcome her, please.

MR. BARLEE: In the precincts today are two visitors, one a longtime supporter of mine, Mrs. Kitty Wilson of Naramata; and Mrs. Elaine Baldwin of Cumberland, Maryland, an ex-Canadian who is very pleased to be back in Canada. Would both sides of the House accord them a warm welcome, please.

Hon. L. Hanson tabled the annual report of the Workers' Compensation Board for the year 1988.

[ Page 6536 ]

Oral Questions

PENSIONS AND THE NEMETZ REPORT

MR. ROSE: My question is directed to the Minister of Government Management Services and arises from a press release that he issued recently — yesterday, I think — about the Nemetz report. Has the minister decided that the Nemetz report, which of course was prompted by the famous Poole golden handshake, will be made public after cabinet has reviewed It?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: The report will go to my cabinet colleagues for review next Wednesday, and the decision on whether or not to make it public will be made by the executive council.

MR. ROSE: A supplementary — a new question, really. The answer to this one doesn't have to be decided by cabinet colleagues but can be decided by the minister alone. On November 29, 1988, the Leader of the Opposition posed a number of written questions about 11 sweetheart pension deals. I wonder if the minister has now decided it's time to respond to these questions?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: In the fullness of time they will be responded to.

MOTOR VEHICLE TESTING
AND EXHAUST EMISSIONS

MR. CASHORE: My question is to the Solicitor General. The report of the task force on exhaust emissions in the lower mainland shows that the amount of carbon monoxide in the atmosphere nearly doubled after the elimination of motor vehicle testing. Has the minister now decided to follow through on the government's 1988 promise to institute comprehensive motor vehicle testing, including exhaust emission controls?

HON. MR. REE: No.

MR. CASHORE: A supplementary question to the Minister of Environment. The government's approach since the elimination of motor vehicle testing has been to talk about beefing up roadside inspections. This emission task force report characterizes this approach as ineffective. In Ontario there is only a 2,000-to-1 chance of a motorist being checked. That's what the actual situation is. Has the minister decided to recommend exhaust emission inspections as part of a comprehensive vehicle-testing program?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That has come out of the Ministry of Environment report. We will be approaching the GVRD, which has legislative responsibility for this type of environmental assessment as well as others. That's what the task force will be recommending. There's more to it than simply exhaust emission controls. There's the whole issue of butane addition to gasolines, proper nozzle covers for service stations and processes to be used in bulk plants. Automobile emissions standards are just one function of the whole air emission study.

MR. CASHORE: Supplementary to the Minister of Environment. Will the Minister of Environment Stop waffling and tell the House and the people of British Columbia if he has decided to recommend comprehensive motor vehicle Inspections in this province?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That question would be best put to the Solicitor-General, as you already have. If you're speaking of comprehensive vehicle testing, my responsibility and the responsibility of the task force which the Ministry of Environment put into place in 1984 is to ensure that we have proper emission controls and that we are doing everything within our ability to measure and regulate, to control air emissions in the greater Vancouver area.

MR. CASHORE: A new question to the Solicitor General. Am I to take it that "no" means you are not willing to make this recommendation for comprehensive motor vehicle testing at this time?

HON. MR. REE: I think, Mr. Speaker, my answer to that question — which is put as the first question was put, as a double: do you think, what, when or how? — would be the same as to the first question: no.

SALE OF NEW WESTMINSTER PROPERTY

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Government Management Services. I hesitate to ask him a question in the House, since he prefers to answer them in the corridor. In the corridor yesterday you claimed that the government has been able to refute in its entirety the $10.5 million land flip on the New Westminster waterfront. Could we go through it step by step? First, Mr. Minister, did First Capital City, the government Crown corporation, not sell the land in January of last year for $2.2 million?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, if the member would do his research, he would find that the sale was completed in January, but the sale in fact took place many months before that.

MR. WILLIAMS: The minister confirms it was sold January 7, deposited in the land registry, for $2.2 million. Would the minister then confirm that, indeed, land registry documents show that it was transferred the same day for $10.5 million?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Once again, Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question. The response is that my information is that in reading from the documents before the court, the Supreme Court statements, the property was indeed transferred from company A to company B on that date, from $2.2 million up to $10.5 million. But it is my understanding that it was a paper transaction and it was flipped, in

[ Page 6537 ]

effect, to the same owners as company A, who were the same owners as company B.

MR. WILLIAMS: It was mortgaged by the Bank of America for $3.5 million; land registry documents show us that. Is that real money, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: In response to the member, I would like to have the evidence of the basis of the loan that was given to the company by the bank. If the $3.5 million is a fact, was it a draw-down mortgage based on infrastructure, underground service and things like that being put into place? Where was the appraisal? We have yet to find any appraisal that the member alludes to. I know the press have been trying to track it down as well. We can't find it. We'd like to know who done it; what it looks like; how it reads; what type of infrastructure; what type of underground services. Indeed, are sewer and water, underground hydro and connections with the city facilities part of the overall agreement?

We have in evidence the fact that we had appraisals done some time before the sale took place. We had in-house valuations done by professional staff. The property had been advertised for months — indeed years. All the major properties had been sold over the years, and this was left until the very end because it was commonly referred to as somewhat of a very low-profile, low-cost property that was a dredge left to the very end by the developers. Top developers in British Columbia that are very familiar with that site have said in the press and publicly that the value the province received — the $2.2 million — was very good. One developer actually made a statement that as far as he was concerned the property, because of the cost of the infrastructure, wasn't worth a 5-cent piece.

Along with that we have the evidence of the B.C. Assessment Authority, which again is very professional. They appraised the property at the time of the sale at significantly less than $1 million. After the sale, after the rezoning, after the increase in density, they went back and did a further assessment of the property and came up with a value of $2.2 million.

If that doesn't satisfy the members opposite — and, indeed, the member for New Westminster (Ms A. Hagen), who referred to making statements in this House about incompetence and corruption — I don't know what will, Mr. Speaker.

Every single thing we've researched, every party we've talked to, whether it be the Assessment Authority or appraisers — in-house or out-of-house — all points to the fact that we got very good value selling that property at $2.2 million.

MR. WILLIAMS: That wasn't a stream of consciousness; it was a raging torrent of unconsciousness. The point is that this was real money — $7 million in bank money minus $2.2 million leaves $4 million in real money in somebody's pockets, Mr. Minister. Is that what you mean by a paper transaction: somebody walking off with $4.8 million and still owning half the land?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: That is precisely why the question is in court. Perhaps some of the member's friends got snookered on the transaction; I don't know. I'm not going to make any comment on that, because it is before the courts. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, that is why the matter is before the courts of British Columbia today.

MR. WILLIAMS: The minister says: "Who done it?" The member for Vancouver-Little Mountain certainly knows who done it, but that's another story. The question is to the minister of lands.

MRS. McCARTHY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member for Vancouver East to withdraw the inference that he has just made on the floor of this House.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'd be glad to withdraw the statement. If the minister who is responsible doesn't know who done it, I have to accept that she just didn't know.

SALE OF WESTWOOD LAND

MR. WILLIAMS: I have a question to the Minister of Crown Lands, who is involved in another major sale with respect to the Westwood lands. There are going to be 5,000 lots In Westwood Plateau. Will you confirm, Mr. Minister, that you are going to sell it for more than $13,000 a lot?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member opposite will have to wait until the conclusion of those negotiations.

MR. WILLIAMS: Would the Minister Responsible for Crown Lands advise the House whether the Crown will retain a percentage of that land for social housing? Or will you make the same errors you — or your colleagues — made with respect to the Expo land?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Again, I will have to say that the details of that will be released to this House at the conclusion of the sale.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's my understanding that Wesbild Enterprises will get the Westwood lands. It's 1,200 acres, 5,000 lots. It's a chance to play Monopoly with public lands. Can we be assured that it will not be just one player like Westbuild?

[2:30]

HON. MR. DIRKS: Again, I will take that question on notice and reply to the House when the sale is concluded.

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Premier. Some $18.5 million of public money, most of it from BCEC, has been spent on infrastructure or committed to the Westwood lands. Can the Premier assure the House that this huge public expenditure will benefit the public

[ Page 6538 ]

in the form of a genuine housing mix in that area so that we will begin to solve the housing crisis in the lower mainland?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes, I can assure British Columbians that they will benefit from additional housing.

SUNDAY SHOPPING

MR. LOENEN: A question for the Attorney-General. Yesterday the B.C. Supreme Court made a ruling in favour of the city of Quesnel and against Canada Safeway on a Sunday-shopping issue. What impact will this particular ruling have on Sunday shopping in British Columbia?

HON. S.D. SMITH: I will have to study the decision a bit more carefully before I can give a proper and full answer to the member as to the impact it may have on Sunday shopping. I'm sure the member for Kootenay (Ms. Edwards), the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), the members for Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser, Hon. Mr. Vant) and other members around the province will be interested in this decision.

What Madam justice Prowse has done is uphold the bylaw that was drafted by Quesnel, which provided that community with a way to regulate the hours of sale and size of stores involved in selling commodities on Sunday. The Supreme Court justice, in so upholding section 921 of the Municipal Act and, I believe, sections relating to part 3 of that piece of legislation, has provided a vehicle through which municipalities such as Smithers, Williams Lake and Cranbrook will be able to deal with the issue of community standards in relation to store-opening hours, which they had felt they were unable to deal with as a consequence of the decision of the B.C. Court of Appeal flowing out of Cranbrook some months ago.

SALE OF EXPO LANDS

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I would like to respond to a question taken as notice. I rise to reply to the poorly researched question from the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams), which I took on notice yesterday.

The first member for Vancouver East was wrong yesterday when he stated that the Plaza Grill had a 20-year lease and virtually nobody else did. The Plaza Grill has a ten-year lease with two five-year extensions. The Irish Rovers' Unicorn Pub has a five-year lease with three five-year extensions, for a total of 20 years. CKNW Radio has a five-year lease with four five-year extensions, for a total of 25 years. All these figures were only a few pages away from the schedule he referred to in his question yesterday.

The Plaza Grill lease was awarded during Expo 86 in a formal bid process for operation of a restaurant in the B.C. Pavilion. The agreement allowed the company to bid to stay on after Expo, which they did.

The first member for Vancouver East was wrong again when he said that the British Columbia Club was on the same terms as the Plaza Grill. The B.C. Club had a one-year lease and a one-year extension. A further six-month extension will expire September 30, when the B.C. Pavilion Corporation transfers management of the Enterprise Centre to Concord Pacific.

The taxpayers have been getting a very good return on these leases. In the past year, the Plaza Grill paid $30,000 based on a percentage of its gross revenue; its kitchen provided more than $140,000 as a percentage of its catering sales. The catering is by far the largest part of the business, allowing the B.C. Pavilion Corporation to earn revenue it could not do on its own and avoiding the expense of building its own kitchen.

The B.C. Club also pays a percentage of gross sales to the Pavilion Corporation. Last year it paid $220,000, mostly as a result of catering in its meeting and banquet rooms, with a total of $390,000 in a 12 month period. It is a pleasure to defend the B.C. Pavilion Corporation from the unsubstantiated attacks of the first member for Vancouver East.

Orders of the Day

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ATTORNEY-GENERAL

On vote 13: minister's office, $254,015 (continued).

MR. CLARK: I'll just wait until the staff gets seated, if that's all right with the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed.

MR. CLARK: Yesterday we were canvassing the Attorney-General's representations on behalf of the government of British Columbia with respect to a new law regulating abortions in Canada. The Attorney-General responded by saying that he did have a meeting with the Minister of justice to express the government's position on this question. Could the minister tell us whether he canvassed this area fully? Essentially, what is the government's position on this important question?

HON. S.D. SMITH: I think it would be somewhat of an understatement for me to say I canvassed those questions fully, completely and substantially yesterday. I can only say to the second member for Vancouver East that there isn't anything that I know of that I can add today.

MR. CLARK: The minister did talk at length about this meeting. We are trying to get to the bottom of what the government's position has been. He did say at one point that he conferred with the Minister of

[ Page 6539 ]

Justice verbally, and he said: "There ought to be a law." I wonder if the Attorney-General could tell us what the nature of that law is? Is it the government's position that it should be included in the Criminal Code, first of all?

HON. S.D. SMITH: I will repeat: I answered that question, as well, several times yesterday. There isn't anything that I can add to my answer today.

MR. CLARK: This could go on for some time. We're trying to canvass the government's position. The Attorney-General has stated that British Columbia's representation to the federal government is that there should be a law governing abortions. We're trying to ascertain whether or not the government has a position or preference as to what that law should say.

There were at the time of the representations three or four options before the federal House. Did the government of British Columbia take a position with respect to any of the positions that were put before the members of the House of Commons at that time?

HON. S.D. SMITH: Again, I answered that question yesterday as well. I was accused even of being too thorough and repetitious with my answers yesterday. I can only tell the member that that question was answered yesterday, and there's nothing I can add today.

MR. CLARK: Perhaps he could be extremely brief and tell me whether the government took a position on any of the three options that were before the House of Commons. If there were three distinct options before the House and a fourth option, which is the status quo — which, of course, was adopted by default — did the government make any representations with respect to which option it would prefer?

HON. S.D. SMITH: Again, I answered that question yesterday. To refresh the member's memory on that specific question: those options were before the House prior to the election being called, and therefore weren't before the House when I met with the minister. All of that I have answered as thoroughly as I can, and there is nothing more I can add.

MR. CLARK: Reading Hansard from yesterday really elicits one fact. We have one fact that the Attorney-General admitted in the House yesterday, and that is that it's the government's position that there must be a law with respect to regulating abortions or the access to abortions in Canada. That's the government's position. We know now that the status quo is not acceptable to the government of British Columbia. That's not the position.

I'm trying to determine whether the minister talked to the federal Minister of Justice with respect to any preference about the nature of that law, or whether he simply said to him that we just want a law, and we don't care what the law is.

Let me be even more specific, Mr. Chairman. As I understand it, the major fundamental discussion in the federal House prior to the election was where the line would be with respect to criminality, in terms of numbers of weeks in which it might be deemed to be a criminal offence to procure an abortion in Canada. Does the government of British Columbia have a position with respect to where that line might be drawn?

Before the minister answers by saying he has canvassed this question, I can assure the Chair that a careful reading of all his remarks yesterday elicited no response as to whether the government had a position. Maybe we could first have the answer to the question: does the government have a position? Then we can ask what that position is. So if he could answer the first question: do they have a position beyond saying that there should be a law, and therefore it should be criminal? Do they have a position beyond that?

HON. S.D. SMITH: Well, Mr. Chairman, these are the same questions that were asked yesterday, and that I answered yesterday as thoroughly as I can answer them: the reasons why and the position of the province, when it was communicated, how it was communicated, what was communicated, why a minister communicates government policy — rather than their own biases, as was suggested that I should be doing — and why it is important that an Attorney-General particularly has to be mindful, when discussing matters of law enforcement, that they don't allow their personal biases to render their imprimatur on their responsibility to enforce the laws, whatever they may be.

[2:45]

Mr. Chairman, I certainly don't want to offend the House in any way, but I can only answer again that all of those matters were dealt with yesterday. I don't know of anything that I can add to them. But I'm more than happy to stay here — as I said yesterday — until the cows come home and answer the opposition's questions in the full knowledge that prior to these questions being raised, there was an agreement between the opposition and the government Whips as to how the course of conduct of the House would take place. Those agreements obviously mean nothing, and that's fine. We now know that agreements rendered will be broken, even with the sanction obviously of the Leader of the Opposition, who participated in the breaking.

That aside, I'm happy to answer your questions. I will give you the answers to the best of my ability.

MR. CLARK: Let me assure the Chair and the Attorney-General that I'm not the slightest bit interested or concerned about the Attorney-General's bias with respect to this matter. We are canvassing the question of the position of the government of British Columbia with respect to a matter of fundamental importance to many people in Canada.

Yesterday we heard from the minister that there was a meeting at which this was canvassed, and at

[ Page 6540 ]

which the minister took the position that the government of British Columbia wants to see a law....

MR. LOENEN: Have you got any new questions?

MR. CLARK: To the second member for Richmond: we'll canvass this until we get some answers to the questions. They're very simple questions. Maybe we could start with some other kinds of questions. Could the minister inform the House how long this meeting was that took place between him and the Minister of Justice with respect to this question?

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I'm tempted to respond in a way that perhaps wouldn't be appropriate for the office I serve. Nevertheless, I think that meeting was in excess of an hour when I was in Ottawa at that particular time. So you know you don't have to go down through the rest of the day. I was there in my capacity as the co-chairman of the Council of Ministers, on behalf of the province.

I met that day, I think, with five ministers. Most of those meetings were about the same length. Many of them canvassed a whole host of issues. As well, I met with members of the Prime Minister's senior office staff, both in the Privy Council office and in the PMO. And I met, I believe, on that particular occasion with one or more members of the New Democratic Party caucus. I met, as well, with most of the members of the Conservative Party caucus.

MR. CLARK: We'll just try and home in on the meeting with the Minister of Justice, and we could deal with that. The meeting lasted an hour. Could the minister inform the House whether the subject discussed during that hour was abortion and the federal government's position on that matter or whether it canvassed a range of other subjects.

HON. S.D. SMITH: To the second member: I answered that yesterday. I am certainly not in the habit.... I'm a little concerned about the appropriateness in relation to my counterpart, the Minister of Justice, but I can tell you as well that you can judge for yourself how long the discussion was by what I told you yesterday.

There were two other matters raised. Actually, if my recollection serves me, I believe there were six items on the agenda of that meeting. At least one of them has come to fruition, and I was very pleased about that.

We discussed the appointment of a new justice to the Supreme Court of Canada. British Columbia was very much concerned that our position be adopted by Canada, which was that there ought to be a replacement from British Columbia for Justice McIntyre, to thereby establish, we believe, a convention of our constitution, or certainly to work towards that, so that this great Pacific region will be represented on the Supreme Court of Canada. The Premier of British Columbia took a lead in that process. The Prime Minister listened carefully to our representations, and in that meeting, I discussed thoroughly with the Minister of justice the reasons why I was confident that they would find, upon analysis, that our nomination of Madam Justice Beverley McLachlin would serve them well. That took a considerable amount of time.

We also discussed an Issue that I think the second member for Vancouver East would find interesting, because I know he has raised it as well. It's an important one: the question of the Young Offenders Act. While most people recognize that the Young Offenders Act has had an important and generally positive influence on the course of justice issues for youth, there are a number of areas where it is deficient and where it particularly impacts on British Columbia. That is in the area in which young offenders are sentenced differently than "thee or me" would be. That has turned out to be a major source of recruitment for the leaders of these gangs that are causing us a problem, especially in Vancouver.

I know that the various justice ministers and Attorneys-General across Canada will be dealing with the Young Offenders Act. There had been up till then, I think, a sense that there wasn't much need for change in it. I made the point that so far as British Columbia is concerned, it does have a particular impact that it may not have in other parts of the country. That took some considerable time.

The Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) will know that CEPA, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, raises an issue appropriate for Attorneys-General to discuss inasmuch as it flows as well out of the Criminal Code. As we're talking about the Criminal Code right now, it's often the case that Ottawa passes legislation and the provinces have to pick up the tab for enforcement. That's a major impact, and I put that forward very strongly, particularly as we were anticipating a budget that would reduce the level of expenditure by the federal government in some of the areas transferable to the province, or at least that would reduce the rate growth.

We were concerned that the government of Canada be alert and sensitive to the proposition that while we all know they've got to deal with their budget deficit, and I guess we recognize that maybe some impact would flow to the provinces.... For goodness' sake, let's not get into the business of passing more of these laws that end up with us having to pick up the tab to enforce them. That was discussed at some considerable length in that meeting. It is a very important issue.

Generally touched on as well in that meeting was a question which I think is upcoming, which relates to the appointment of judges that are necessary to be appointed to.....

Interjection.

HON. S.D. SMITH: We have an outstanding Court of Appeal in British Columbia, but some of the justices there are about to go supernumerary, so there will be a need for appointment. I wanted to alert the Minister of justice of that. To those, as I say, Mr. Chairman, I am trying to the best of my ability to give a proper, complete and full answer to the mem-

[ Page 6541 ]

ber. Those were the things discussed in our meeting, as well as the question he asked, which I answered fully yesterday, on what was discussed and why, and what government policy was being represented during that discussion. The entire extent of what was said about that was put forward thoroughly yesterday, in many different ways, and there's not a whole lot I can add to that.

I can't remember what else took place in that meeting, and I would render my apologies to the Minister of Justice Canada and hope that he recognizes that I won't — hopefully — always be having to stand in the Legislature and give a blow-by-blow description of meetings between ministers. I'm doing that simply because I don't want it to be said in this House that I'm not prepared to answer questions. I'm trying desperately to give as full answers as I can, and I have given a complete answer on what that meeting was about.

MR. CLARK: It's quite clear that the Attorney-General was more concise and to the point in his meeting with the Minister of justice than he has been here in the House the last few days.

Perhaps the Attorney-General could answer it this way: is it the government of British Columbia's position, one which he conveyed to the Minister of justice, that there must be a law regulating abortion; that it doesn't matter what the law is, as long as there's a law?

HON. S.D. SMITH: That very specific question was asked of me yesterday, and I answered it as well yesterday.

MR- CLARK: It seems to me that the answer to that question could be one word. It doesn't require a lengthy rebuttal.

The government has said there should be a law. The minister has refused to say what that law should be. I wonder whether it's his view that this is the federal government's responsibility and it's therefore not the role of the province to make suggestions with respect to a criminal law matter. Is it his position that there should be a law, but that it's up to the federal government to decide what the law is, not up to the province?

HON. S.D. SMITH: I answered that question several times yesterday. Let me, this once, repeat in part what I said, because if I were to repeat all of what I said it would take me, I believe, three hours and 45 minutes. That's how long we were on it yesterday.

To sum it up in some way that I think members on both sides can understand, even if the members of this chamber, individually or collectively, should come up with the one rule or law or solution to an issue that has been with humankind since the beginning, we would not have the constitutional and jurisdictional authority to render that finding into law, because it is a matter solely and exclusively and completely for the Parliament of Canada.

MRS. BOONE: I don't think anybody is questioning that it's the government of Canada's responsibility. What we are questioning here is the fact that this minister made a submission to the federal minister, stating a position of the government when it comes to abortion. For some reason or other this minister seems unwilling to tell the people of B.C. exactly what that position is, other than that the law has to be changed.

[3:00]

I think the minister owes the women of this province an answer to one very easy and simple question. Did the minister at any time advocate, support or agree to the criminalization of the act of abortion, to putting women in prison for seeking abortion? That is a very simple question, and it's one you have evaded answering for two days. You can jump up as much as you want, Mr. Minister, but we need to know what your stand is, because it's clear that this could become an option. The criminalization of abortion could very easily take place. If you, sir, are advocating this or supporting this in any way, shape or form, then the people of this province have a right to know.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

HON. S.D. SMITH: First of all, in the issues that I try to discuss I answer questions not only so that women would know my position, but that all British Columbians would know my position.

I have told the House thoroughly and completely what was discussed between me and the Minister of Justice. I have told them as well that it reflected the policy of the government of British Columbia and that I communicated that policy to the minister. I have stated to you what was communicated, and today I have also, probably unfairly to my colleague the Minister of Justice for Canada — and I apologize to him for that — set out what else was discussed in the meeting, all the other subject matters. As the member for Prince George North will recall just from my discussion a few moments ago, prisons were not one of the things discussed.

MRS. BOONE: I asked one simple question of the minister. Did he at any time advocate, agree with or suggest to the minister that there be a criminalization of abortion? You have not answered that question. You have stated and stated and restated and, yes, you have been repetitious. But you've been repetitious not in repeating an answer, Mr. Minister, but in repeating a non-answer time and time again. A very simple question: did you at any time advocate or agree that there should be criminalization of abortion or that it should be written into the Criminal Code? That's all we want to know: yes or no. You don't need to give us a long history; you don't need to tell us you've gone over this and canvassed this. Just a yes or a no, Mr. Minister; then we'll be off your back.

HON. S.D. SMITH: The member can, figuratively speaking, stay on my back as long as she wants. The answer to your question is that I have told you what

[ Page 6542 ]

was discussed in the meeting, the position I put on behalf of the government of British Columbia respecting its policy. Therefore any other hypothetical question you raise about what was or was not discussed you can be assured by that answer was not included. If you go and look at what was in my answer, you will find what was fully in my answer, and you can make the assumption, therefore, if I am indeed an honest person, that I didn't discuss anything else. I don't know, Madam Member, how many more ways I can make this point to you. But if you want to stand up and ask me more questions hypothetically — did I discuss this, that or something else in the meeting — I will do my very best to answer you.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I know there are other members who are interested in the minister's point of view on this subject, and they will be canvassing it at a later date. But I want to talk a little bit more about some of the women's issues, some issues of equity and justice, that fall under your responsibility, as well as another issue that relates to sexual abuse. I have two particular cases that I want to talk to you about.

First of all, I found it quite Interesting, with the government's announcement of the family maintenance program and all the PR around that particular announcement at the time, to look back in the history of this government to see how long the government has been talking about resolving this particular problem. As far as I have looked right at the moment, I have a record as of July 1967 of a comment by the minister then responsible for social services. At that time she said that one of the biggest problems of welfare services was that of deserted wives. She went on in 1970 to say, just to bring the record up to date again, that it's important to take this to the news media. "I also ask you to spread the word that we are going to do something to enforce this issue and to make a better life for those people." That was in 1970. This continues on. It is a really interesting history. I am sure that the new minister responsible will find it fascinating. On January 21, 1977, the minister again says:

"Women have been unfairly dealt with — and they have — where their husbands have gone scot-free — and they have — where they have left children, with responsibilities only on the onus of the mother and the wife — and they have — where the whole court system and the whole welfare system has grown in this country to try to provide care for those who will not provide care for the wives and their children...."

On March 20, 1980, the minister again says:

"Mr. Speaker...it's about time in this province that those who have deserted their wives and children -and sometimes it's the other way around, but that is not the norm — must not just leave the taxpayers to pick up their responsibility. We must have a different system."

As you can see, this goes on and on. August 1980; June 1, 1981; April 1982; July 1983; October 1983. This was only a record that was produced for a Hansard debate for 1985. This government has been promising to deal with this very significant problem for a long, long time.

Now it comes to this minister's record in dealing with the situation that the Social Credit past governments have been talking about, acknowledging that there is a significant problem and we need to do something about it. So now we have a program, and what do the women of this province have to look forward to, because this government has finally after 20-some years put a program in place? The women of this province have to look forward to more delays, more inaction, because the government is not prepared to put the resources where it is necessary to actually make the program work.

I'd like to bring to the attention of the minister a particular problem that a constituent of mine brought to my attention last week.

I had a 65-year-old woman come into my office. Her name is Victoria Law. Victoria has asked me to bring her case to your attention, as she did bring her situation to the attention of your predecessor. I have a letter here that was written to the hon. member in December 1987. 1 am sure that Mrs. Law would want the Attorney-General to hear her case, so perhaps I will just wait until he is paying attention.

Mrs. Law writes to the past Attorney-General to explain that in 1987 her marriage fell apart. This is a long-time marriage, where they raised and supported children together. Back in 1987 — I believe it was somewhere around February — Mrs. Law ended up being attacked by her now ex-husband. It was a situation where her glasses and her dentures were broken. She faced a considerable amount of physical harm and considerable trauma.

That was the incident that finally brought their marriage to a close, and at that time Mrs. Law found her only means of support being welfare. I am sure the minister is well aware of the fact that for the majority of women in this province, when a divorce is brought about, women's actual income falls in the first couple of months by 70 percent. For the male partner in that relationship, after that time, the real income rises by 40 percent.

What that meant for Mrs. Law at the age of 64 was going to welfare, asking welfare for support so she could continue in her home. Mrs. Law has been through the courts several different times since then. She got a court settlement that instructed her husband to split the assets of the family; to provide support for her — a total of $950; and, I also understand, to split his pension. The husband, Mr. Law, has considerable assets and can afford to support his wife in some fashion.

I think I would like to continue providing some information about Mrs. Law's case, but I understand that a member would like to make an introduction.

MR. ROSE: I apologize to the member and to the House for interrupting at this point in this very serious matter. The school group that I wish to introduce and welcome to the House and Legislature will only be here for a minute or two.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you like to ask leave to do that.

[ Page 6543 ]

MR. ROSE: I wonder if I could have leave. I beg leave — I'd even grovel for leave.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm not so sure the Chairman will insist on that.

Leave granted.

MR. ROSE: I would like to introduce some youngsters from Meadowbrook Elementary School in Coquitlam visiting the House as a school group.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Name names.

MR. ROSE: I wouldn't mind. If I had a list of their names for the edification of the member, I would read the whole works. I think there are about 40 of them. We are glad to have them here, and I hope they have a fine day.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam also wishes leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. CASHORE: I too would like to welcome part of the group that has traveled with the students from Meadowbrook. These are the students and staff from Porter Street Elementary School in Coquitlam. Would the House join me in making them welcome.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I will continue with Mrs. Law's situation. She's presently living in the family home and supporting and caring for her 94-year-old mother. The situation that Mrs. Law faces now is causing her considerable stress. She is now 65 and no longer having to depend on welfare because she has her old age pension and a supplement. That's what she is living on at present.

She found this whole process very confusing, very frustrating and very demeaning. For the first time in her life she had to seek some support from welfare to be able to feed herself. She applied for welfare, after she had her court settlement where the court instructed her husband to split the assets. When she went to Welfare, they referred her to the family maintenance program. This was the first Mrs. Law knew of that program, and she thought that for the first time she was actually going to receive some support and be able to resolve this very traumatic situation.

[3:15]

She didn't hear anything from the family maintenance program. Her sixty-fifth birthday came around and she got her old age pension. She came to me saying: "What am I to do? I can't make ends meet. I can't make the mortgage payment. My family's picking up the mortgage payment now. My husband's not making the mortgage payment as he was instructed to do; he's not making the support payments as he was instructed to do. I've been through nine lawyers. I've gone to legal aid. I can't get any help." So we became involved at my constituency office and phoned the family maintenance program. It was only after our call that they dug out Mrs. Law's file and began to take a look at it.

The person responsible told me at the time that she would find the file and, if it was a straightforward case, she would process it as soon as possible. We have made several calls to the family maintenance program, and so far Mrs. Law has not had any call back to let her know whether her file will be responded to.

I'd like to ask the minister. since the women of this province have waited since prior to 1967.... The government acknowledges that there's a serious problem, and it's taken almost 20 years to get a program in place. Are the people of this province going to have to wait another 20 years before they have a functioning program to deal with this serious reality? What am I to tell this 65-year-old woman when she is risking losing her home because her husband refuses to make the payments? Perhaps the minister can advise me.

HON. S.D. SMITH: What I would tell the woman whose problem has been described very fulsomely is that I will undertake to work with the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley to try to resolve the problem as quickly as I can. I will make that a personal commitment, and hopefully the member will be in touch with me or my office directly. If I can't be in when she's in, I will get someone to deal with the problem directly, so that I can follow up and see that the service is provided. That's the first thing I would tell her.

The second thing I would tell her and perhaps all other people trying to get the services of this program is that there has been — as you have so correctly described — an extended period of time when we simply haven't dealt with the issue as a province. As a consequence, there is a substantial backlog of applicants. As one might expect, when you start a new program like this, people who have had the unfortunate circumstance that their husbands — usually — refuse to obey the courts and live up to their responsibilities, have seen a ray of hope and have come in great numbers to the program to look for help.

So you should tell her and others that we are working to have that backlog dealt with during this summer. We are also confident that the backlog will not continue. It will not be an ongoing problem because the program itself will register.... The newer court orders and so on will be up to date. People will know the locations of people and so on, so there should not be as much time taken with each application to register with newer court orders than with previous ones for the reason that some of the previous ones are dated.... Not in this instance you're talking about, but in some instances there are problems of information and so on which have exacerbated the backlog problem. Nonetheless there is a backlog. It's a new program, and we're dealing with that problem.

The third thing I would say to them, when you ask me what you should say about these issues, is that, no, there won't be the kinds of time-lags that you so

[ Page 6544 ]

rightly describe since 1969 or '70 for people or governments to act, and that we are, in fact, acting. One of the reasons will be that there has been a very profound attitudinal change in our society, which I think is reflected in this chamber, in the laws and in the family maintenance program.

The fourth thing I would say is that it is very much a non-partisan issue. I think the manifestation of that would be found in your own statements you read as to what the attitude of government was in 1969-1970. Those issues were raised then, and they weren't responded to. They were raised in 1972, 1973, 1974 and 1975, and they weren't responded to. During that period of time, we didn't have a family maintenance program to do what we're doing here; we didn't before that time; nor did we in 1976 to 1988. So you're right when you say that there has been a tremendous time lag since these issues were first raised. Governments in the province did not respond with the tools to deal with it. That is perhaps one of the other things I would say in response.

As to the specific person you raised, as I said right at the outset, I would appreciate you coming over to my office to deal directly with me or a member of my staff, and I will undertake to follow up that problem.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I thank the minister for his offer to deal with Victoria Law's problem. I raise it not only on her behalf but on behalf of other women who are facing the same frustration. We will all recognize that Mrs. Law is not alone in the problem that she is trying to deal with. However, with the minister suggesting that he will help her, that doesn't particularly help the other women.

There are currently something like 14,000 cases or contacts to the office dealing with claims or inquiries. There are only 14 staff people in Victoria, 15 in Kamloops and 27 in Burnaby, Burnaby being the main office. There are currently seven lawyers who are on full-time contract dealing with the case work generated by this office. It's very clear that the support is not there for the program to be able to deal with the backlog satisfactorily.

We are in a situation in this province where we have women and children who are unable to support themselves while at the same time having court documents in their hands that say that their husbands should be paying that support. For the minister to say that this backlog is there because of years of Social Credit neglect is not good enough. While I acknowledge that reality, my question to the minister is: are you providing more funds in support of this program to be able to deal with the backlog and deal with the demands of the women and children of this province?

HON. S.D. SMITH: As a measure of my concern for this problem, I've tried very clearly not to make it a partisan issue, but if the member insists, I don't have any hesitation. "The years of Social Credit neglect, " she said. I would remind her that she read from documents that talked about 1969 and 1970, when this issue became fairly current. I would ask her to reflect on how many sexual assault centres were funded between 1972 and 1975 by the government of British Columbia. I would ask her to reflect as well on the nature of the family law maintenance enforcement program that was in operation during that same three-year period. I would as well like to see documentation about the victim services system that was in place during that period of time — the police-based system, the community-based system or the prosecutor-based system.

It makes no useful sense for us to deal with the issue at that level, because I don't think it is a partisan issue. I think it's very much a non-partisan issue. You're absolutely correct that there have been years of neglect in this province with respect to the question of family maintenance enforcement. The family maintenance enforcement program was kicked into operation, in part, in October 1988, and in other parts of the province in January 1989. There is a backlog. There is inevitably going to be a backlog when you bring a program into place which is going to have to try to accommodate people who have not had a vehicle through which they can seek enforcement assistance for all those many years.

When you refer to the number 14,000, 1 don't want to be argumentative with you, but the 14,000 number refers to the number of calls to the program. Some of those will reflect repeat calls and so on. The backlog number is very high, but it is 5,500; it's not 14, 000. There are services that are there being used to try and deal with that backlog, by way of the contract, but I don't think there will be a need for additional funds — and there isn't a commitment to that — to the contractor. We are working with the contractor, and the contractor understands that the backlog will have to be dealt with under the terms of the contract, and to the services and the changes that they can make in this new program to deal with the backlog. We're confident that that will be done during the course of the summer.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Whether the member likes it or not, the history that I refer to is the history of your government, and the reality of this side taking over government for two years does not excuse 30 years of neglect. The reality, again, and the history that you are adding to this neglect, sir, by not providing the funds necessary to clear that backlog will just add to that neglect. And no matter how much PR you are prepared to pump at it, it will not deal with the needs of these families.

Let me go on. I have another situation where a mother has come to ask for some support from my constituency office. This mother is a single parent; she's on welfare. Her name is Wendy Ackerman. Wendy has a son who is 17 years old. He is about 6 foot 4 inches, so this is a big boy. Her son is currently in the House of Concord, serving time for charges of nuisance sexual abuse, and is borderline mentally impaired. He functions at a grade 5 level. While the House of Concord has been very supportive, both of himself and of his family, in three weeks he will be leaving the House of Concord and returning home. His mother has for some time tried to work with the

[ Page 6545 ]

system to get this young man some assistance, not only in counselling but hopefully, as she puts it, in some kind of home that can provide him with the kind of supervision, the kind of custody service that is necessary for his transition back into the community.

[3:30]

We talked earlier about sexual abuse and the need for your ministry to support the programs in this province to meet the need of victims. Here we have a situation where we have need for support to deal with the abusers themselves. This young man in three weeks will be coming back to his mother's home in Surrey. There is nowhere else for him to go. There are no PLEA homes, no special foster homes, no programs that are prepared to receive this child, either for the fact that he has a history of nuisance sexual assault or because the programs that are in place are full and have a waiting-list.

As I talked to the professionals in juvenile services and probations and also Social Services, I find out that there are some models in the province that are doing some very good work. One of the models that was referred to me was the Spectrum Learning Centre in Langley, which has a model program for young offenders. At present it can only deal with four kids. They have three beds for kids and one transition bed for children that are beginning to move back into the community.

Wendy's son is currently receiving counselling and is on medication. In three weeks he will be returning back to the community, to a home that cannot support him. When Wendy's son went into the centre, Wendy was forced to move from her home because her welfare was reduced. She is now living in a one bedroom apartment, and if her son comes back to her she will have to move again. Wendy is not equipped to support her son, and is, quite frankly, frightened of having the responsibility of this 17-year-old once again. She has gone to Social Services and asked them to take over the custody of her son. She is prepared to make her son a ward of the state. Social Services, because of the age of the boy, say they don't have anywhere for him.

Again, I put this case to the minister. Will he support the crying need for additional accommodations for these children? I point out to the minister that while Wendy Ackerman's situation is the case that I bring to his attention, the House of Concord alone knows of ten other children in the same situation. Wendy's son will soon be on the street, and I'd like the minister to tell me what I'm going to tell Wendy. I'd like the minister to make a commitment to explain whether or not there's additional money for these young offenders.

HON. S.D. SMITH: The funding issues that the member raised are clearly the responsibility of, on the one hand, the Solicitor-General for the lockup facility; on the other hand, the question afterwards is for the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon Mr. Richmond). To answer your question first of all as to what you tell Wendy Ackerman, I hope that's what you would tell her. But so that it doesn't.... I guess what I'm telling you is that I can't make a commitment to funding that I simply don't have authority over. What I will do, if you come to see me, is work with you to speak to the minister responsible for the Solicitor-General's services, as well as to the Minister of Social Services and Housing, to be certain it doesn't fall between the stools.

MR. PERRY: I want to be very brief and ask three rather rapid questions. I apologize if some of this has been covered before when I wasn't able to be here. I've tried to read through the debates, and I'll try not to be redundant.

On the abortion question, I'd like some reassurances from the Attorney-General. During the Health estimates I asked the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck), in my role as the health critic, to assure the province that women throughout the province would have equal access to the medical service of therapeutic abortion, which is legal, and which is regarded by the public as a medical service like other medical services. On April 24 the minister told me, at page 6309 of Hansard: "That's an issue that should be referred to the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General, because I don't make laws, nor do I enforce them. The law, whether it was obeyed or not obeyed, is a different issue than what I'm faced with in my ministry."

I want to remark on what I think is an apparent contradiction between the minister's stated concern over the Americanization of Canada, or the Americanization of Canadian law, and his apparent stand on the reinstitution of abortion into the Criminal Code. Yesterday during my absence in Vancouver I understand that he said — or that he implied — that he thinks abortion should be reinstated in the Criminal Code of Canada. A very interesting article in the Vancouver Sun last Monday night pointed out that American law — in fact, the law in most of the world — only began to deal with abortion in the late nineteenth or early twentieth century, and that abortion was not previously dealt with in the civil or the criminal law.

My position, and certainly that of this party and, I think, the majority of Canadians, is that abortion is a medical matter between a woman and her doctor, that it does not belong in the Criminal Code, and that the Supreme Court made a wise decision. I see a contradiction between his concern over Americanization of law, which I think is the trend to invade private matters of patient-doctor confidentiality and privilege with legal rulings — the Attorney-General has said he's disturbed by Americanization of Canadian culture — and his stand in favour of restoring abortion to the Criminal Code. I would like him to explain himself. And can he assure us that he will take the necessary and the stern actions to ensure that protesters violating the law do not impair the rights of women to obtain abortions in British Columbia?

HON. S.D. SMITH: While I very much appreciate hearing the member's view on these issues, every one of those topics was canvassed at some considerable

[ Page 6546 ]

length over the last two days. The question relating to civil disobedience generally was canvassed. The attitude that has been disclosed there, the position by the government vis-à-vis those who would break the law relative to the decision striking down section 251, juxtaposed with the responsibility of hospital boards to make decisions about what goes on In their hospitals, was discussed at some length, as were questions of government policy relative to communications to Ottawa that recently have been held. All of those things have been canvassed by me, I think it's not an overstatement to say, thoroughly and fully. I don't think there's much I can add to the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey.

MR. PERRY: What we're debating here, as I understand it, are the estimates, including the minister's salary. Earlier this year we witnessed a spectacle where a legal facility, the Everywoman's Health Centre, licensed and with trained physicians prepared to provide a medical service, was blockaded by protesters. I don't question the motivations at all of those protesters. I respect them for having the courage and guts to do what they did, although I disagree with them. But they did break the law. They were allowed to do so with impunity for a period of weeks. The clinic itself was expected to....

HON. MR. RICHMOND: What?

MR. PERRY: They were allowed to do that with impunity, and women who were seeking medical services in that clinic were turned away or made to suffer because of the blockade. The clinic's financial position was impaired because of the blockade, which clearly — I would speculate — was a deliberate strategy on the part of the protesters and perhaps of the government.

The minister did not exercise his responsibility to protect the law, to observe that the law was not broken. In fact, I submit that the law came very close to being placed in jeopardy and a mockery being made of justice. Eventually the minister did exercise his authority and brought prosecution.

I don't want to suggest that the protesters should be punished more vigorously than they were; I think the opinion of the public was that the justice who dealt with them did so in an eminently fair and sensible way. But what we saw was that the prosecution had to be begun by the victims — namely the clinic — and the government stood by and watched.

I would like, before I vote on these estimates, to see a very clear reassurance by the Attorney-General that he will enforce the law of British Columbia, that he will ensure that that clinic and any others like it are not blockaded by demonstrators with impunity, and that they will receive justice, just like everyone else does in the province. I would like also to have a clear answer, if we could — before I vote on his salary — on whether he feels that abortion should be reinstituted in the Criminal Code of Canada or not.

HON. S.D. SMITH: There are a number of things that come to mind with the discussions we've had over the last number of days. We discussed yesterday, considerably, the issue of which side of the law is the appropriate response. In fact, I don't think it was the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota); I think it was the member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) who talked about it comparatively with Strathcona Park. Again, we went through at considerable length those issues and the kinds of things that ought to be taken Into consideration.

We talked as well of the timeliness of the response; how much more quickly the law was applied in Vancouver than in the case in Strathcona, for instance, for an action in both instances that relates to a failure to obey a court order. So I would recommend to the member to look at the discourse on that, because that has been canvassed pretty thoroughly, to say the least.

You referred to prosecutions. I would just tell you that there haven't been prosecutions in Vancouver. That discretion has not been exercised either publicly or privately, so I don't know quite how to respond to your question. I think perhaps the best way would be — if you are interested, and I'm sure you are — to refer to the lengthy discussion we had about the civil versus the criminal process in that regard.

[3:45]

MR. SIHOTA: I just want to provide the minister with a quote. The quote is: "...legal opinions should be sought regarding breaches of the Financial Administration Act and possibly the Criminal Code." The quote comes from page A45 of the inquiry into the Coquihalla. Could the minister tell me whether or not the ministry has investigated this issue?

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: If it will help, for clarity, that is one of the recommendations of the commission of inquiry.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I'll have to get the report and take a look at which recommendations have been followed up on. The report was rendered, as you know, Mr. Member, well before my time in this portfolio. So I will have to take a look.

MR. SIHOTA: The reason why I raise it today, quite frankly, is that I thought it would only be fair, when it came down in December 1987, to give the previous Attorney-General about six months to deal with it. I intended to raise it in June, but the changes that occurred in the portfolio made it difficult to raise. The estimates happen to be the earliest opportunity one can raise it.

The recommendation is in relation to the Great Bear snow shed; namely, contract B-2882. During the course of evidence there were a whole series of allegations with respect to falsification of invoices and a whole series of allegations and concerns by the commissioner of inquiry in relation to contracts being

[ Page 6547 ]

paid for work that had not been done, hence being contrary to the provisions of the Financial Administration Act, which of course require payment once work is done. The report, in fairness, said that this was an arrangement that those who worked there had made with the contractor — namely, Kerkhoff — albeit there were some extenuating circumstances around why it was done.

The recommendation was that opinion be sought as to whether or not breaches of the Financial Administration Act and the Criminal Code had occurred. That, needless to say, would go to the Attorney-General ministry, and the ministry would of course have to investigate. My first question is: did your ministry react and investigate in keeping with that recommendation?

HON. S.D. SMITH: I will check it out and get a more specific response for you, but I am advised that with respect to that recommendation as it applies to the Great Bear tunnel, the answer is yes. I will check it out even more thoroughly for you.

MR. SIHOTA: Of course, that raises other questions with respect to the conclusions of that investigation. If the minister is waiting for information, I will go on to another topic and await that information.

HON., MR. VEITCH: It's in the mail.

MR. SIHOTA: I will ignore that comment.

I see Mr. Hughes is gone, so I will just shift, for the time being, to another matter. As the minister is aware, there have been a number of concerns with respect to logging activity in the Tofino area, particularly at Sulphur Passage. For some time now I have received correspondence from the people who were involved. There was a highly publicized incident with respect to a number of people chopping down trees across which a hammock was strung by one of the protesters. On August 3, 1988, a group of men representing Millstream Timber threatened an individual and threatened to chop down the trees that were holding up his hammock. That was recorded on videotape and presented to the RCMP. I am just wondering again, with respect to that incident, whether or not the Crown acted upon the recommendation of the RCMP with respect to laying charges against Mr. Kemp and others.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Again, I will have to get the report. The Crown, I can simply say generally, obviously receives the recommendations of the investigating agency and then makes a decision as to whether to proceed. I will simply have to follow up the Kemp matter for you and try to get an answer.

MR. SIHOTA: By the way, I am still waiting for the answer from yesterday on the matter of re-laying charges at Millstream Creek.

Let me ask another question while we await that information; I don't expect a lengthy answer from the minister. The "Access to Justice" report made some recommendations with respect to contingency fee agreements and legislation of the same. Is it the minister's plan to deal with that issue or to leave it?

HON. S.D. SMITH: Is it my intention to deal with it? The answer is yes. As you may be aware, there is extensive discussion — not to overstate it — with the benchers about that matter. You will get the answer to that question when we introduce the reform material package, hopefully in the next couple of weeks. I am not trying to be cutesy and not answer you, but we are still in discussions with the benchers of the Law Society on that point. Dependent upon the result of those discussions and their commitments, we will make a decision.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to thank the minister for that answer. I want to let the minister know what my position is: I don't think he should touch it at all. I think he should leave it as it is. The evidence is that there hasn't been abuse of those types of arrangements, and I don't think legislative intervention would be appropriate, let alone intervention through policy directives.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Perhaps the member would remember the rules of the House and canvass questions directed at the minister rather than other opinions, which you've just gone through.

MR. SIHOTA: I thought he would welcome my opinion. Knowing where I stand, he should know where he should stand.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Knowing where you stand is irrelevant in this debate though. That's the difficulty.

MR. SIHOTA: With respect to court filing fees, there are a number of issues. The first is, of course, whether or not those fees should be rolled back. I take it from the revenue projections that that is not possible or is not going to happen. I disagree with that. I think the Law Society has made an appropriate recommendation to the minister there, and it should be acted upon.

The "Access to Justice" report makes a recommendation with respect to a procedure for indigent individuals, and I understand, as best as I can ascertain, that the matter has hardly been acted upon. I am just wondering what the ministry's intentions are with respect to allowing those people with little or no financial resources to have access to a straightforward procedure for waiving those fees.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I appreciate the member's views on contingency fees. I must tell him that they reflect very well the views I have heard from many people who, like him, have a personal injury practice.

I must tell you — I'll 'fess up — I was never in court when I practised. I was a solicitor throughout that time. Therefore a lot of this has been a wonderful learning curve for me, I must confess.

[ Page 6548 ]

We will address the Issue. I have said this to the Law Society on a number of occasions from day one, after I took over this portfolio. I had to deal with a number of issues, one of them being interjurisdictional law firms. I don't like to see the Legislature in the business of governing self-governing organizations. As I put it to them, if we're a self-governing organization, then we ought to govern ourselves. However, there is the business of the public interest. Sometimes when the public interest isn't served by the self-governing organization, thankfully the Legislature has power to stand in their place. So I have asked the Law Society to deal with that issue. I have asked them as well to deal with the whole question of the growing number of paraprofessionals providing legal services.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Interjection.

HON. S.D. SMITH: The second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) says it's good competition, and probably it is. But there is also the protection of the public interest. While I know it is sometimes good clean fun to titillate the sensitivity of lawyers in these matters, there is an important and a real issue there. So I have asked them to do that. I have asked them to come forward with rules, which you will see reflected in legislation, for the governing of interjurisdictional law firms. Likewise, if they can deal with the issue of contingency fees and fees generally, then we won't have to.

To get to the question you asked me about the indigent applications dealt with in the JRC, and more specifically will there be a rollback in fees: the answer is no, there won't be. Since August '88 there have been 21 indigence applications served. Four of those were represented by lawyers and six by the Legal Services Society; the remainder came forward themselves.

On the matter of Mr. Kemp.... I am hoping that I have got the right one. The Crown made a decision that it was a matter that would be appropriate for diversion. That is what has followed.

With regard to the Millstream Creek issue you raised yesterday, the conservation people have now completed their investigation, and the senior Crown counsel will be meeting next week with those investigators to make a decision about how or how not to proceed as a result of the information they got.

MR. SIHOTA: Along with Mr. Kemp it was suggested that others ought to have charges laid against them. I understand Mr. Kemp was diverted. My question pertained both to him and to the others. If you get that information, fine; if you can deal with me later, that's fine as well.

Between the Ministry of Environment and the Attorney-General it has taken a tremendous amount of time to deal with the Millstream situation. There is significant public interest in the issue. I guess another week won't hurt, but this seems to be the message we are getting from people over and over again.

I read the decision of the court on interprovincial law firms. I do have a lot of concerns with respect to the introduction of interprovincial firms. Maybe I am a bit behind the times in not liking what's happening. I say that knowing that I will send a copy of this to some of my best friends at what used to be Shrum Liddle, and they can read it for themselves. I have expressed my concerns about that to them. If there are going to be some rules coming forward, or legislation, I'll look at that with great interest.

[4:00]

I think the ministry could have handled that case differently. I can understand who the judge was in that case as well, and I guess the world is full of irony. I think it was Thomas Berger, if I'm not mistaken, on the McCarthy case. I could be wrong, but somewhere along the line, I picked that up. If I'm wrong, that's fine.

I thought that could have been handled a bit differently, but that's probably an issue that concerns no one other than yourself or myself in this chamber right now.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Only me. Does it even concern the minister?

While we await that information on the Coquihalla, I just have a couple of other questions from the "Access to Justice" report. There are two recommendations that have a financial impact that caught my eye. One of those implications was on an issue that we have already discussed — which is recommendation 147: "Disadvantaged groups in society should have access to funding which will allow them to define and enforce their rights under the Charter...." We did discuss this, but I don't think I ever did ask the minister — for the record — whether or not this year's budget envisions funding In keeping with that recommendation.

Secondly, does this year's budget envision funding in relation to recommendation 34: "Government funding...be made available for the appointment of ad hoc family advocates where a judge decides it's appropriate"? I know there's more money for one of the other ones that caught my eye, which is Crown counsel. Are provisions made in this year's budget for those two recommendations? If so, how much?

HON. S.D. SMITH: There is provision in the budget for ad hoc family counselling. The matter of the funding of Charter cases — indeed, for that matter, all other issues relating to the JRC — there is no funding in the budget. In relation to that and other JRC matters.... You know, with the Zuber report, it's two years before they get to the stage of introducing it, and now they introduce it and say they're going to take two more years to render a decision. We've had the report since the end of November, and hopefully we'll introduce legislation by the middle of May.

As you might expect, we weren't able to chapter by verse put down line by line the items. What we've got is a contingency arrangement with the Ministry

[ Page 6549 ]

of Finance inasmuch as some of those recommendations when they go forward will allow us to put the business case forward and the funding will be there available for us — sufficient, we think, to cover the recommendations that we accept as we accept them.

MR. SIHOTA: That's interesting. Actually, you raised two other issues. One is in response to that question specifically. Maybe I'll deal with that first. Effectively, you've got a line of credit — if I can put it that way — with Treasury Board. How big is that line? How much money are we talking about that's been actually reserved? I know there's some $600,000 or $500,000 for legal aid in terms of promises that have been made, which I take it are coming from there. How big is that line of credit? How much money have you asked them to put aside, just for my own interest?

HON. S.D. SMITH: I can't answer that question, because I'd have to put an individual business case forward in each instance. What I asked for was $4.5 million. Whether or not that's what the Ministry of Finance will ultimately agree to will depend on what goes forward.

It's simply this: we're going to be able to get support for lots of those recommendations, and you'll see that reflected in the legislation. There are certain things where we simply did not have the costing — for instance: technology improvements, some of the filing considerations and some of the issues related to the programs which are experimental in nature.

We simply were not able to in advance of these estimates — and, indeed, maybe in advance of putting the enabling legislation in the House — have a detailed costing, That's what I've done. I can't give you what is authorized in a contingent way because it will depend on what case we put forward.

MR. SIHOTA: The other matter which arose from the response relates to reform from the "Access to Justice" report. The issue that I raised with the Attorney-General, I believe a couple of days ago, was my views about family law changes. I hope they are forthcoming quickly, and I also hope that the rules that come with them or the rules that will ultimately be drafted will be ones that will allow far greater flexibility In terms of being able to move these cases with dispatch, particularly on the custody access and maintenance side of it.

Is it the government's intention — in this session, then — to introduce a packet of family law reforms as part of those reforms that you referred to earlier on in your response?

HON. S.D. SMITH: Yes. I don't want the member to be disappointed when he sees the package. I'd be curious to know his own views on the case-management proposals in there, because there are obviously a number of views on that.

Part of the family law changes will be introduced by way of legislation, and part will be tabled by way of a Green Paper. The components to be done by Green Paper are there because the implementation group that we have — comprised of a number of members of the judiciary — has identified a major section 96 problem with respect to jurisdiction of the courts. We have not been able to draft around that section 96 problem to the satisfaction of everyone involved in the system, so we're going to continue to do that over the summer, working with the judiciary, members of the practising bar and others. The components that have the imprimatur of a section 96 problem will be done by way of a Green Paper. As you know, there are some sections in there as well that deal with disclosure from corporations, and the implementation folks have raised a couple of issues on that, which have to be dealt with before we can bring some specific things through.

Obviously there is a real problem in the extent to which independent agencies, such as corporations, ought to have to disclose their financial data in relation to a single matrimonial dispute. The other thing is an Income Tax Act problem for the corporation, where there might be a problem in the confidentiality if we impose the disclosure as recommended. Generally the thrust of what we're doing is reflective of the recommendations, but it's a matter of trying to find a way to do it that will stand the test of the inevitable challenges.

MR. SIHOTA: I agree with you, and I think you're going to have some difficulty getting around that section 96 problem. In some ways my attitude is: "To hell with it. Let's do it and see if someone wants to challenge it." But I appreciate that you can't just go in with a shotgun on that basis.

You asked me about the case management. I said earlier, and I'll repeat it, that I part company with the brief from the Law Society with respect to its views. I understand that they're saying that this a matter between a lawyer and his or her client. I don't agree. I think that greater power ought to be given to the courts to push lawyers along in dealing with these things.

The recommendations suggested with respect to summary trial, the discoveries, the certificates of readiness, the flag rule, the case-management concept — all those things where the Law Society says no.... I say I think they're wrong. I think that what Mr. Hughes has come up with in his "Access to justice" report is something I applaud. I think we should be pushing this stuff and be a bit more aggressive on counsel. I understand exactly where the concern about that comes, but it's a political and administrative decision that has to be made, and in that instance, I think Mr. Hughes came down on the correct side of it. For what it's worth — and I'm sure it's worth a lot — there's my opinion.

However, because we're waiting for the Coquihalla material, and if this is agreeable to the minister — I'll just canvass it with the House Leader — it might be appropriate just to stand this down and deal with legislation. I can say fairly confidently that it should be the last matter I want to deal with. I'm quite happy to stand this down.

[ Page 6550 ]

MR. ROSE: There was an informal target date of 4 o'clock, and it has now come and gone. We're waiting for papers, and I suppose we'll also be waiting for the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck), who sponsors the first of the bills. If there's no bombshell encased in the response by your deputy minister, then the proposal would be to leave this for this item, go on with the legislation and come back for his report to canvass for one item. It doesn't really matter to us. We're trying to achieve what we thought was an agreement. If Mr. Hughes is back here, then this is unnecessary.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I can advise the House that the matter raised was in fact reviewed. There was a decision that there was not a sufficient amount of material to warrant pursuing it further. There will be someone coming with the actual words, and I'll read them.

MR. SIHOTA: I guess my concern is with respect to the breaches of the Financial Administration Act I'm working from memory, but I think certain sections — maybe 66 and 67; 1 could pull the Section in a minute — which forbid the payment in advance of work being done.... The evidence during the Coquihalla inquiry was to that effect. The Attorney-General may have come to the conclusion that there may well have been breaches, but that they were not worth pursuing. If that's the report, I guess I'll wait to see what comes out.

While you're waiting for that file to show up, I can deal with another set of matters that flow from the "Access to Justice" report. One I had flagged dealt with changes to the tariff In terms of costs both in family matters and generally — eliminating the maximum, on one hand, and on the other hand dealing with making the scale of costs in family matters as close as possible to one's actual costs. I don't know the Attorney-General's view on that. I suspect it's part of the reforms you're coming out with, but I'd be interested to know your views on it.

HON. S.D. SMITH: The goal is to move towards the recommendation. That's the thrust of what we're doing. I suppose you could take Yule in Saskatoon and divide it by two to get 50 percent, but that, it was thought, would work some hardship. So the implementation group, whom I will introduce to the members, hopefully, next week, has recommended — and we have followed that recommendation — that we put someone in place to actually redo the tariffs, so we can get ourselves up in a scaled way to that position fairly quickly; Also, the certainty of the issue....

For the member's edification, so he doesn't wait unnecessarily, with respect to the recommendations he was asking about before, we looked at the criminal side. In terms of the breach of the Financial Administration Act, I think you might more appropriately address that to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier). But I'll leave it for you to decide.

MR. SIHOTA: I'd like to know what sections of the Code you looked at. Sure, I understand that the Minister of Finance has jurisdiction over the Financial Administration Act. But if there are violations of that act, it would seem to me that the opinion of the Attorney-General ministry is required. I'd like to know what you looked at on the criminal side and whether or not you were asked by the Ministry of Finance to look at the Financial Administration Act. Or was it just agreed that the Ministry of Finance would deal with it?

[4:15]

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Page A45. It's under schedule B10 — the paragraph immediately before subparagraph (d).

HON. S.D. SMITH: As I say, Mr. Chairman, I can respond definitively with respect to the Criminal Code, and I would ask the member to direct the question with respect to the Financial Administration Act to the minister responsible for the act, the Minister of Finance.

For the member's information, in the matter relative to the Criminal Code, the advice was rendered to the Deputy Attorney-General, as to the conclusion that had been drawn from the review, on January 18, 1988.

MR. SIHOTA: The Financial Administration Act says, in section 66: "The Attorney-General may sue for and recover in Her Majesty's name a penalty, or enforce a forfeiture imposed by any law relating to public money, In any court." That's why I thought that when it dealt with both penalties and forfeitures, it would fall under your jurisdiction as opposed to that of the Minister of Finance. Fine, if the Minister of Finance is the one who you think is responsible, we can take it up with him.

On the matter of the Criminal Code, while I am glad to know it was dealt with, I wasn't too sure if there was a basis for Criminal Code violations. Given the evidence which came out during the inquiry, and given what he says earlier in his report, it just seems peculiar that there had been no action with respect to violations of the Financial Administration Act.

MR. CLARK: We will take it up with the Minister of Finance, but I am curious now. You did conduct a review with respect to criminal violations; is that what you're saying?

The minister is nodding his head. So there was a review, and the conclusion was that there were violations of the Financial Administration Act, but that they were not criminal.

HON. S.D. SMITH: The question, I think, was in two parts: first, whether there had been a review with respect to breaches of the Criminal Code, which is in that report. The answer to that is yes, there was a review. And no, there wasn't, in the opinion of

[ Page 6551 ]

those who did the review, anything to warrant pursuing that under the criminal law. That letter was directed to the Deputy Attorney-General a year and a half or more before I assumed this portfolio, on January 18, 1988.

With respect to what investigations took place with regard to the Financial Administration Act, I would ask you to direct that to the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for that act. You're quite right: if there was some identified breach, I'm certain it would then be turned over to the Attorney-General's ministry to pursue it. I can't answer to you whether there was or wasn't an investigation. I just think you should direct it to the Minister of Finance, that's all.

MR. CLARK: Just so we have the process down, you are suggesting that the review of any breach of the Financial Administration Act would be done by the Ministry of Finance and then the results of that review would be turned over to the Attorney-General's department for a review of their findings to see whether there was a breach of the Criminal Code. It's on that basis that there wasn't a breach? Well, perhaps the minister could clarify it for me then.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Let's put it to you this way Any investigation is undertaken by the investigative agency contemplated by the act. The minister responsible for the act is responsible, in a legislative sense, for that process. Once that process is completed — wherever it comes from, whether it's the Environment ministry or the liquor branch, or wherever it is — if they feel some further process is warranted, some prosecution or something, then it is for the Ministry of Attorney-General, the Crown counsel's office, to make a decision whether to go ahead on that.

You'll recall that at that time the Attorney-General's ministry had both police — which normally would investigate criminal matters — as well as the prosecution arm; then both of those matters would have been done by the Attorney-General's ministry But in police matters today, they're done by whatever the police agency is. They make a decision and then the Crown makes the decision after that whether to follow their recommendation to prosecute or not.

MR. CLARK: Then is it fair to say, given that you reviewed it, that the Ministry of Finance, which investigated, must have come to the conclusion that it warranted a review by the Attorney-General's department?

HON. S.D. SMITH: No, it isn't. What I am referring to here — it's in the report of the commissioner; it was two-part — should be reviewed as to any breaches of the Criminal Code. That has been done by the Attorney-General's ministry solely. Secondly, there should be a review to see if there had been a breach of the Financial Administration Act, and that review you ought to direct to the Minister of Finance. If the Ministry of Finance — and I am making an assumption here, which I probably ought not to do -reviewed it, presumably, and found something that they wanted to be dealt with by way of a prosecution, they would so advise the Attorney-General's ministry.

MR. CLARK: Just following up so we are clear, you are saying that they did not so advise the Attorney-General as you have just suggested. You're saying that the appropriate course of action would be for the ministry to review it, and if they found something, to then refer it to the Attorney-General. Are you saying, then, that the ministry did not refer anything to the Attorney-General for review?

HON. S.D. SMITH: I haven't a record of anything of that sort, but I think if you want to pursue the business of the investigation pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, which I think is what you really are interested in, I would urge you to take it up with the Minister of Finance, whose estimates may be up this year.

MR. CLARK: You are saying that you did not review anything that came from the Ministry of Finance with respect to that second element, which is any violation of the Financial Administration Act. You did review with respect to an investigation solely by the Attorney-General — they were your words — with respect to the Criminal Code. What did you review then? You reviewed only that which arose out of the MacKay commission inquiry. Is that correct?

HON. S.D. SMITH: Yes. The MacKay inquiry asked to see if there had been any breaches of the Financial Administration Act and possibly the Criminal Code, and I am advised with regard to the Criminal Code that that, in fact, is what has been done.

MR. CLARK: Can you advise, then, whether the investigation was greater than that which took place...? Did you simply review the findings of the MacKay commission and the evidence presented at the MacKay commission, or did you undertake any independent investigation with respect to reviewing financial transactions at that time which went beyond that which arose out of the MacKay commission of inquiry?

HON. S.D. SMITH: I don't want to get into the position of misleading the place. I believe the answer to that is yes. They looked at the matter thoroughly and that would presuppose, to me at least, that that would not have confined any investigation to simply the words that were contained in that report. But I have some hesitation about saying that, simply because I am dealing with an issue that is a year and a half before my time, as it were.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for.... The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew.

MR. SIHOTA: You've forgotten?

[ Page 6552 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd never forget you, hon. member.

MR. SIHOTA: Neither will I forget you. At our military bases we still look forward to seeing you, and hopefully we will see you at the sunset ceremony this weekend if you can make it — the Battle of the Atlantic ceremony.

Just on the matter of the criminal end of it, am I correct in assuming that, really, the essence of the conclusion at the end of the day was that there was no criminal intent, in keeping with what the commissioner had said earlier on?

HON. S.D. SMITH: Well, I can only tell you that the conclusion was that there was no basis for charges. Whether that was a question of means or something else, I just don't know.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The second member for Okanagan South would like to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. CHALMERS: I am not sure if he is in the galleries yet, but I had a gentleman visiting in my office a few minutes ago, a friend of mine for a number of years, a business partner in the late sixties and early seventies. He is presently the chairman of the Real Estate Council of B.C. His name is Ed Collinson, and I would ask that you make him welcome, please.

[4:30]

MR. SIHOTA: I was going to say that I didn't know a solicitor could say "means." I am impressed.

Probably the final question on this Coquihalla matter is this: I take it the investigation dealt with the contractors, employees and government officials?

HON. S.D. SMITH: I will have to say that the answer to that would be that the review would look at whoever would probably be implicated for a breach of the Criminal Code. I don't know. I couldn't give you name by name who was done. If I appear hesitant to give an absolutely definitive answer, it's simply because I don't have the benefit of the interplay at that time as to discussions of what was going on in the ministry. I just don't have it, because I wasn't there.

MR. SIHOTA: Those conclude my questions with respect to these estimates. I again want to thank the minister for his responses, and I want to particularly thank the minister's staff for being in attendance throughout the last seven days of discussion.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Nineteen hours, the House Leader tells me, which I'm sure, if you go back in time, is a little more than we normally spend on these estimates. Again I want to specifically thank Mr. Hughes and wish him well in the implementation of his report. I think it is a splendid job. It is really something we should be moving In on. I look forward to the judicial reform package that will be coming down in the House. I am sure it will include the matter of merger and no changes on contingency fees.

Vote 13 approved on division.

Vote 14: ministry operations, $198,902,128 — approved.

Vote 15: judiciary, $20,926,891 — approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I move the committee rise, report remarkable progress — and resolutions — and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 15.

CONTINUING CARE ACT

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 15, intituled Continuing Care Act, be read a second time. This bill will provide a framework by which the government can regulate certain non-profit societies and corporations which provide continuing care to British Columbians. The Continuing Care Act will cover such services as: residential facilities; adult day care; homemaker services; group homes for the handicapped; and family care homes that currently fall within the mandate of the continuing care division of the Ministry of Health.

The principal concern is the health and safety of the ministry's many continuing care clients. In addition to addressing these concerns, the act will help protect the province's equity in various continuing care facilities. The long-term-care program was commenced with an order-in-council in 1978 that contemplated the eventual passage of an act for continued operation of the program.

With the introduction of this bill, we have addressed the specific concerns identified by the auditor-general about the lack of adequate statutory authority for the program. The continuing care division of the Ministry of Health has a current annual expenditure of more than $430 million. Until now the province has had very limited flexibility with which to address problems which arise periodically in the area of continuing care.

Provisions in the new legislation provide the province with the powers to enter into contract with service providers; to establish levels of quality of care and other aspects of service delivery through standards, guidelines and directives; to determine eligibility and residency requirements; to inspect operations and records of service providers; and finally

[ Page 6553 ]

this new legislation will provide the province with the power to appoint a temporary public administrator where the minister determines that it is necessary to protect the health or safety of clients in the facility.

There was consultation with representative associations in the industry: the B.C. Long Term Care Association, B.C. Pricare, the B.C. Health Association and the Home Support Association of B.C. All have expressed support for the purpose of the proposed legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to further discussion and debate on this bill.

MS. A. HAGEN: First, I want to say on behalf of this side of the House that we very much welcome this piece of legislation coming before us in this session. As I think the minister will agree, it has been a long time coming. I know he is very pleased that it is before us. Certainly there is a need. As the minister himself has noted, that need was very specifically referred to by the auditor-general, who has done an extensive review, in his value-for-money audit this past year of the continuing-care program of the ministry.

I think it's worthwhile to quote into the record a few of the statements of the auditor-general that I believe have helped to stimulate action in producing the legislation and provided us with a framework in examining it as it comes before us. The auditor-general said: "It is desirable for each government program to be supported by an act which gives the program a mandate to operate." He noted that the drafting of a new continuing care act should Include proposed standards for quality of care as well as enforcement measures. I think the minister has addressed that in his comments today. He says further: "...set the program on a more solid foundation." A further quote: "...firm up its mandate, philosophy, and planning and evaluation processes."

In looking at the bill, I think it's good to look at some of that advice, because some of it has come from an external look at the ministry and its work in this third largest program of the Ministry of Health. I would like to comment for a few moments about some of our expectations; before I do that, I want to note that I've shared some of this information with the minister by letter. We have had a consultation with representatives of his ministry. The minister has been advised of that consultation and has responded to me. I very much appreciate the interchange and the consultation. It was initiated on behalf of our caucus to enhance the bill and to facilitate discussion. I think it has been productive and responsible on both our parts, and something we might consider doing as we look to the very best legislation that can come forward with the efforts of members on both sides of the House.

We did feel quite strongly that it would be appropriate for a mandate statement to be included in this bill. I'm advised by the minister and his officials that such a mandate has no status, if you like; it's really a statement of intent. The ministry wants to have as much flexibility as possible in the life of this bill and its usefulness in many areas where continuing care may be encompassed by this legislation. I would like to state, however, that I think there is value in a bill having a mandate statement. I found a very useful one in some of the material from the Victoria Health Project. I want to just mention this mandate statement; It's broad and encompassing, very much a statement of philosophy, and would help to frame the intent and focus of this bill.

One of the statements in the early documents about the Victoria Health Project — the ministry's pilot project — that deals with continuing care, particularly for the elderly, is: "To strive for independence and self-reliance of the elderly in a most appropriate setting." I recognize that this limits it to the elderly, but I think that statement of mandate is good for any kind of continuing care and I believe might very well underpin the philosophy that the minister would have as well. It clearly does deal with autonomy regardless of setting, and I found it a very fine statement. Although I don't think the minister is going to agree that there should be a mandate at this time — in his view it may limit the usefulness of this piece of legislation — I believe very strongly that there is effectiveness in having it, because it helps to frame the philosophy of the bill. I commend it to the minister for his interest in his own legislation.

The second thing we want to deal with is to whom this particular piece of legislation relates. We have had some productive discussion around that. I think the minister would agree that continuing care is in fact more than just health care, because we are dealing with the whole person. The social, recreational and environmental aspects of that person's life are very much a part of what continuing care is. We really do believe that definitions should be broad enough to encompass that. The minister has responded to some of those representations around a definition that is perhaps a little less vague than the clinical definition that fits into the health end of things. I think that's going to be a very good move.

I'll leave it to the minister to introduce his own amendment in that regard. The discussion around what is involved in continuing care and the recognition that it encompasses more than a very rigid concept of health — and indeed must do so in order to be functional — is implicit in the understanding of this bill and is an important consideration.

We are talking about people who are called clients. I never particularly liked that word, because continuing care involves people's homes — whether they are independent homes or facilities in which people live. I recognize that the word "client" is one that we can't get away from. Because the decisions made by those who assess people in need of continuing care are so important to their lives and to their continued independence and self-reliance, I think the rights of clients are extremely important to address. During committee stage, we will be raising some questions around the rights of clients in respect to this service.

[4:45]

It's a growing concept that process and administration must provide that people who have programs

[ Page 6554 ]

available to them by statute — which are funded by the taxpayers of the province — have some role in the choices and services available to them. It's a complex area. The act makes some references to that. We want to ensure that the rights of people to due process and fairness are enshrined in the legislation.

As the minister said, this statute is designed to allow the ministry to deal with health and safety issues by statute. I certainly couldn't agree with him more that at times the ministry has not been well facilitated to deal with concerns for the care of people in continuing care. The parts of the act which deal with that are really the nuts and bolts of this act and are very fundamental to It.

There is language in this act that deals not so much with regulations, but with what are called standards, guidelines and directives. I applaud the minister for his desire to have flexibility in dealing with issues. When we discuss this in committee, I want to be assured that that flexibility is to enhance the program and will not leave huge holes in it that allow discretion and separate arrangements, depending on who may be governed by the standards, guidelines and directives. It's very important that they be clear, and that they have the force of law. We want to be satisfied that all of these issues are covered by the clauses of the act.

When we get right down to it, Mr. Speaker, the fundamental issue is quality of care. We have talked about that a lot in this House in respect to this ministry and the continuing care budget that's available. We can have all the standards, guidelines and directives in the world, but if there are not sufficient dollars available for those with whom the ministry contracts to carry out those services, then we're into problems. The balance between what the ministry intends to do through legislation and what it enables the agencies to do through funding is a very important part of the equation that we must look at as we examine this act in detail.

There is one other matter in the act that concerns me in respect to the initiatives of the ministry last year to initiate income-tested user fees for people receiving continuing care. I believe that one clause of the act leaves that door open for the minister to have the right — according to my reading of the act, and I quote specifically — "...to prescribe different rates for different classes of client." That may be a very straightforward statement that I shouldn't read too much into, but it may be a statement that I want to read more into. I think the appropriate time to canvass that issue is in committee.

We did discuss the user fee issue and income tested user fees during the minister's estimates, and the minister assured this House that it was not his intent at this time to introduce new user fees for homemaker services or for residents in long-term care facilities. I think the issue is a very important one which should not be dealt with except through due discussion of any change in the user fee concept. Since the particular clause, I believe, gives the minister the mandate to do that by regulation or by directive, I want to have the opportunity, as will other members of this side of the House, to examine the intent of the clause and to ensure that that will not be the interpretation and the possible outcome. I believe that any changes in such a major policy need to come to the House for discussion, because they are changes in the philosophy of how the program is delivered.

Let me conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying again that we do welcome the act and its commitment to giving the ministry the means by statute to better govern, regulate and administer the very important continuing care program, with the intent of ensuring quality of care, health and safety. We look forward to the opportunity to examine specific clauses in committee stage.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that the cooperation between my ministry and the member for New Westminster has been cordial. We went over the legislation, and some changes were made. Perhaps some more will be discussed during the debate.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 15.

Motion approved.

Bill 15, Continuing Care Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, before I get into the next order of business, I'd like the courtesy of the House in offering a welcome to a White Rock representative. I'd like the House to make especially welcome Mary Wade Anderson of the Fraser Valley Real Estate Board, who is taking part in the great tourism opportunities of Victoria.

Having said that, I call second reading of Bill 3.

TRADE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ACT

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be read a second time.

I am pleased to speak today to the Trade Development Corporation Act. The British Columbia Trade Development Corporation, which is being created, embodies the tradition, the vitality and the position of British Columbia as a trading province, destined to remain prosperous through its continuing dynamic interaction with the global marketplace.

MR. WILLIAMS: Who wrote this?

HON. J. JANSEN: I did. I try to keep it simple, Mr. Speaker, for the members opposite.

The British Columbia Trade Development Corporation will work as a business arm of the Ministry of International Business and Immigration. The corporation and the ministry will work together in complementary roles towards the integration of British Columbia with markets around the world. While the ministry's mandate is to attract and guide advantageous foreign investment, to manage our commercial

[ Page 6555 ]

presence in Ottawa and in foreign markets, and to focus the province's direction in trade and international economic policy, the primary goal of the British Columbia Trade Development Corporation is to encourage and facilitate the export of British Columbia's goods, services and expertise.

We are witnessing the beginning of a global transition. Our world is changing to reflect a global village unified by instantaneous communications and interdependent economies. Although British Columbia has always been viewed as a pacesetter in trade, the pressures and difficulties associated with transition threaten to leave us behind. In the new world of trade, an old adage applies: the only thing constant is change.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. J. JANSEN: Do you like that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: More! Bravo!

HON. J. JANSEN: The growth rate of international trade is accelerating so rapidly that the change to the completely global and liberalized markets foreseen for the twenty-first century seems as close at hand as tomorrow. Let me give you some examples. Well over two-thirds of the world's countries are already participating in GATT talks; that is something we do here frequently. Other major non-member countries are applying to become participants. Industries of both the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China are now moving towards becoming export oriented and internationally competitive, a daunting prospect with staggering implications for modern commerce.

MR- WILLIAMS: Staggering!

HON. J. JANSEN: Something the member does when he walks.

By way of freer trade between Canada and the United States, we have undertaken the largest trade agreement ever concluded between two countries, creating a unified market of upwards of 270 million consumers. Phenomenal change is forecast for the Asia-Pacific nations, home of 12 of the world's fastest-growing economies. Recent studies project that by the year 2000 Canada's share of Asia's massive $350 billion import market will exceed $50 billion annually. That is five to six times what it is today.

During the 1980s, trade activities undertaken by the federal government have not kept pace with the need for a dynamic provincial business community Outside central Canada, export marketing assistance to small- and medium-sized companies at the grassroots level has not been emphasized. North American trade figures show that of the 700,000 shipments sent abroad per month, over one-half are filling orders of $5,000 or less. Assistance to small- and medium-sized exporters, who are clearly the foundation of our export success, is well worth our investment. In the 1990s the initiative clearly lies with the provinces, and British Columbia must take a leadership role.

Sending our products abroad is more than a business practice reserved for the largest of our enterprises. We must make it an accessible, familiar practice for all of our enterprises, large and small. This will strengthen our orientation towards Asia-Pacific, ensure our access to markets in Europe long past 1992, bring home the enormous benefits of the free trade agreement with the United States and open us to the boundless potential that change in the next decade and century will bring — change which the members opposite don't relate to.

The British Columbia Trade Development Corporation will help to address the needs of British Columbia's exporters, through a strong belief that with adequate marketing our products can compete with the very best in the world. No one will dispute that, not even the member for Vancouver East. We also hold closely to the view that by penetrating global markets with our product and service exports, we are breaking new ground for future joint ventures and technology transfer, and positioning ourselves to capitalize on other valuable opportunities over the long term.

Right now nearly one-quarter of our gross provincial product and one in seven jobs in the province are derived from foreign trade. Every dollar of export revenue generates three more in the provincial economy. We must continue to diversify our economy and to develop our ability to export a wider product range. Few areas of the world will benefit as we will from proximity to suppliers and customers in all three of the world's major trading areas: North America, Asia and Europe.

[5:00]

The British Columbia Trade Development Corporation will work with exporters to identify and aggressively pursue market opportunities, and it will train new exporters in the basics of trade and in the political, socio-economic and cultural nuances of the markets they plan to enter. It will provide market intelligence, market assistance and counselling service on export regulations and procedures. It will also assist companies to secure export financing, including loan guarantees. It will work in cooperation with ministry officials in Ottawa, the United States and overseas to promote specific product sectors and heighten the profile of all British Columbia exports.

Assisting B.C. firms to meet the challenge of markets head-on in an increasingly competitive global environment is a task which requires us to draw not only from among the best we have in the service of government but in business as well. By providing business leaders direct participation on the board of directors, the corporate structure of the Trade Development Corporation places the private sector beside us at the helm to help chart a new course in export initiatives, promotional strategies and financial assistance for all exporters in the province. But choosing the corporate structure as the most effective delivery mechanism for the province's trade development objectives does not just make it a conduit for private sector input. Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to elaborate on a few of the other advantages this structure brings.

[ Page 6556 ]

In the areas of program implementation and product management, the corporate structure permits a degree of flexibility and responsiveness. Programs can be adjusted to meet changing realities and project resources can be shifted to meet new needs. Within the parameters set annually by government budgeting, the board of directors can customize approaches to funding arrangements, possibly combining elements of grants, loans and export sales with royalties to assist exporters to seize opportunities as they arise. Quicker approval of specific project requests will help the exporting community react in a timely manner to events occurring in the international arena

The mechanism of a corporation offers a businesslike approach to what is essentially a business activity, and there clearly is a need to portray to the private sector and to the public generally that the government is serious about applying sound business practices and principles to its trade development initiative, particularly in the area of international marketing.

Finally, by exploring avenues of cost recovery and thereby minimizing the administrative expenses incurred by the government, the corporation becomes a more cost-effective delivery mechanism for trade development. New sources of revenue and new means of recovering costs that as yet are neither obvious nor open to us will be found in the years to come. Decisions about the appropriateness of these new means will be more thoroughly scrutinized and more easily made in a corporate rather than in a government structure.

Mr. Speaker, now is not the time to let ourselves be outpaced by trends in world trade. It is not a time to miss valuable opportunities. This is a time for government and business to recognize the importance of the ties we have traditionally had with our trading partners and to do something about it. Together, by establishing the B.C. Trade Development Corporation, we move decisively to strengthen the existing ties and establish new ties that will work in our benefit toward future prosperity.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I'm sitting here trying to figure out how I can vote for the bill and against the speech. It's not fair for members of this House to pick on speechwriters, but it might be fair to pick on people who glibly read them without changing a word.

Leaving aside the fun of it, I notice the minister made a brief, eloquent and colourful speech in favour of trade. I didn't expect him to make one against trade, so it wasn't an unexpected speech. But the speech didn't have much to say about the bill. The minister didn't spend much time talking to us about the principles embodied in Bill 3; why certain decisions were made as to this legislative framework rather than other options that were open and were obviously discussed. Perhaps in closing debate on the bill the minister will in less grandiloquent language tell us what he has on his mind and answer a few general questions about some of the philosophical directions of the bill as well, in response to comments made by members in the debate. We would leave to committee stage the more specific issues.

I want first of all, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate the government on adopting a social democratic initiative. The establishment of a corporation to enhance B.C. trade activities around the world is something that I think all social democrats around the world would be proud to support. The idea of the government having a role to play in the marketplace has been accepted by many of us, and I'm pleased to see that members on the other side of the House too believe that government does have a role in the private sector, that government does have role in the marketplace, and that government can establish Crown corporations to assist people out there in that tough world of free enterprise. I think the government should be given its due when it recognizes that philosophies, principles and proposals that we and our sister parties around the world have made over the years, for a relationship between the private sector and government being an appropriate model, are quite good and positive. I'm delighted to be able to stand up here and give the government credit for adopting yet another of our values. Hopefully, Mr. Speaker, in the implementation of this philosophy the government will see fit to continue with the values that we think are important.

The legislation is open-ended; it allows the corporation to do whatever it wants. It doesn't provide for the accountability that I think British Columbians would expect from Crown corporations. The only accountability that is meaningful in any way is the requirement to be subject to the.... I just lost the title of the financial legislation that governs; I'll get to that later.

Mr. Speaker, I think the important point here is that if we are having a Crown corporation essentially run by private sector people, up to 30 people appointed, not necessarily all from the private sector.... The bill is mute on that point, but nonetheless, undoubtedly an overwhelming majority, if not almost all of these directors, will come from the private sector. If there is an ability therefore of those people actively involved in the activities of this corporation to have — and I choose my words carefully here — some inside, privileged information, and if there is no proper public accountability, I think it should be of some concern.

I'm not suggesting that bad things are planned; I don't believe they are. I don't believe that there is a deliberate attempt to create special privileges for people. But the impression of the ability for that to happen is clear, and the ability for it to happen is there. I trust that in establishing the regulations that go with a bill like this, there will be very clear rules of conduct, very clear guidelines — more than guidelines; rules — that people involved, who have information that could be seen as privileged, will have to follow should they choose to participate on the board of directors of this Crown corporation.

I'm curious about the government's thinking on how the B.C. Trade Corporation will operate with relation to the federal Export Development Corpora-

[ Page 6557 ]

tion. What will the relationship be between the two, given that we already have, as taxpayers in this province, considerable investment in an agency to do just what the minister is talking about this corporation doing?

What relationship will exist between the federal agency and the B.C. agency? Are there demarcation lines? Have there been discussions about who does what? With two agencies in place, will there be a duplication of activities? If a potential exporter is not happy with the support he or she is getting from one level of government, do they go to the other? What kind of relationships are going to exist? Who does what? What kind of integral relationship will exist between the federal and provincial agencies?

I don't have a lot more to say. In his comments, the minister said that sound business practices would be followed in the establishment of a Crown corporation. The implication is that sound business practices are not followed within his ministry. I was surprised to hear that said, because by implication, he is giving an implicit criticism of public servants who apparently don't operate with sound business practices.

Or is it that sound business practices do not include a review by a legislative body such as this? I am really curious to know what the minister means. Does he mean that his ministry or other ministries can't operate under sound business practices or for some reason can't conduct themselves in that way? Or is the concern more with the scrutiny given to activities of ministries, as during estimates debates? I'm very curious about what he means by "sound business practices, " because the whole question of accountability to the taxpayer is a crucial one.

Let me just say in conclusion that the proof of the pudding with this bill is going to be in the eating. It's a very skimpy piece of legislation. It doesn't say very much at all. It leaves open to the board of directors options to do just about anything they want to within very limited parameters. I think the idea is good; the initiative is appropriate.

We in the province live by trade, and if this means that we are going to expand and diversify our trading relationships around the world, that's good. We on this side of the House are quite concerned about the possibility, if not likelihood, of our getting further and further sucked into a two-way trading relationship with the United States and, as a result, not being able to survive recessions or survive American economic policy.

If we're looking at finding ways of diversifying or diminishing our reliance on our friends south of the 49th, then that's good. I hope that will be an effect of this particular bill. If, in addition, it's designed to assist small- and medium-sized business people in this province in expanding their markets into areas they don't feel comfortable or don't have the knowledge of or expertise in, then that, too, is good. The idea of being able to expand markets is obviously something we all support.

With that, I don't think I have anything further to say, other than that we will support this bill at this stage and will look forward to a very successful, accountable and productive B.C. Trade Corporation.

MR. WILLIAMS: I was waiting for a rather open-ended bill, as my colleague said, to be explained in some detail by the minister. I expected this person with a financial background to begin the accountability process today. Instead we got the purple passages, the purple phrases: at the helm, the best and the brightest, not obvious, outpaced, hands across the Pacific, into the sunset, blah, blah, blah.

[5:15]

If you look at the bill, though.... I don't know if any of you folks over there have read the bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. WILLIAMS: Probably not. I have to admit that I only recently read it myself. But it's short enough; it didn't take a long time.

HON. J. JANSEN: Did you read the free trade agreement?

MR. WILLIAMS: I read more of it than Brian Mulroney read, I'll tell you that. And certainly more than John Crosbie.

This bill — hey, it's a blank cheque. It just says: "We can borrow. We can guarantee loans. We can help people out." I'd just like to reflect on that a little bit. Don't you people over there remember that we had a grand burial.... I wouldn't want to insult the natives by talking about it being a potlatch, but we had a burial ceremony in terms of a spending spree you folks went on that was very similar to your trade corporation. Do you remember the dear departed? It was called the British Columbia Development Corporation. BCDC — RIP. It was established by my colleague and me and others who were in government from '72 to '75. It was set up with stringent kinds of monitoring and control. Money wasn't shovelled off the back of a truck. Money wasn't given to friends of government.

But then there was a change in government, and it changed dramatically. Loans started being given out. Do you remember the $25 million, interest-free, to Louisiana-Pacific Corp., one of the most successful companies in the United States, which doesn't need welfare? You folks loaned them $25 million interest free. Your current Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) just sold the loan. If you sell a $25 million loan that you're not collecting interest on, you don't get $25 million. He sold it for $18 million.

The auditor-general is obtuse enough in his report not to tell us that it was Louisiana-Pacific, but I hope that's the only one you gave away at no interest. It's the only one I'm aware of. That was through the instrument of the Development Corporation. That money was not needed by Louisiana-Pacific. The aspen of the northeastern part of the province is as good as any aspen anywhere in North America. They needed not one penny. It was a profitable operation without the need for any help whatsoever.

[ Page 6558 ]

When it comes to intervention and aid to business, you people are absolutely, totally, grossly incompetent — and you're now asking for another corporation that is going to test that incompetence to its limits.

HON. MR. REID: Careful, your heart will give out.

MR. WILLIAMS: BCDC — RIP.

Another one of these instruments that you people created is called BCEC, the British Columbia Enterprise Corporation. BCEC — RIP, too. There was a $500 million write-down as a result of your incompetence in aiding business, so-called. That's not peanuts, folks. That's a huge wad that you people blew through incompetence, through intrigue, through deals with your friends and so on. What powers are you asking for here, Mr. Minister? You're asking for all the powers of BCDC and BCEC, and you want to take those powers abroad and deal with the smartest traders in the world. It scares the living daylights out of me. It really does. And we've got a rookie minister who is the person in charge.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Good stuff.

MR. WILLIAMS: Good stuff. Well, given the history with the experienced minister from Little Mountain, maybe there's nothing more to lose.

It was a $500 million write-down we faced with BCDC. What we are talking about here is the potential of the biggest pork-barrel this province has ever seen. How do you determine who gets the help? How did you determine who got the help from BCDC? How did you determine who got the help from BCEC? We don't know. It was all behind closed doors; it was always behind closed doors.

One of the games that was played with BCEC was getting property from government and then dealing in it, because they were losing so much money. So the government, through its Crown land agency, would transfer land for a dollar that was worth millions. It was a way to deal with the spiralling deficit and the bum loans you'd made.

Yes, you may look puzzled, Madam Minister of Municipal Affairs, but that's the way it worked. Maybe you're just tired, and I understand that.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: That's true.

MR. WILLIAMS: There you go.

That land was flogged off. We've gone into that exercise of how you undersold those assets. So, again, this bill would allow you to be a conduit for those kinds of transfers. It allows all of these things. It gives you a blank cheque in terms of borrowing. Even with B.C. Hydro, we limit them by the billion. The borrowing authority of Hydro gets increased incrementally, but it isn't a blank cheque right from the beginning. I don't know that I recall seeing limitations on the borrowing powers here. No, there aren't. There are absolutely no limits on the borrowing powers — and an untried corporation.

You know, I have some sympathy with the idea of a trading corporation, because Japan has five major trading corporations that are incredibly successful. But Japan also has MITI, which has been the brains trust of government working with the private sector to deal with the world economy. It has been incredibly successful. The world economy, to some extent, is beholden to the brains trust of MITI and the five trading corporations in Japan.

I will tell you that when I hear the purple phrases from the minister — no focus whatsoever; all that stuff about hands across the Pacific — I get worried about the money in those hands.

The game of trading involves niches and capabilities in special areas. You didn't point to one particular niche that you wanted to move this trading instrument into. I don't know if you've got any idea which of those niches are there — or the critical ones.

MR. LOVICK: Cameras.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, cameras.

The reality is, Mr. Minister, that we are still a trader of raw materials from this province. All too often we are victimized by the clever wheeling and dealing of the brains in Japan and elsewhere in the Pacific. I don't condemn them for that, but I condemn ourselves for not trying to meet that capability when it comes to trading in raw materials.

They suckered you, your administration and the previous administration on a grand scale with the northeast coal deal. They established a surplus of coal on the world market. And by you people going into the $3 billion northeast coal project, you were playing into the hands of the Japanese in terms of excess coal capacity around the world. That then meant that they could play with that excess to depress world coal prices, and they were incredibly successful. The increased supply and declining demand ended up meaning that we got less for coal. We were the victims of our own game plan, but it was a bigger game plan on the part of MITI and the Japanese.

If you were serious about the trading corporation, one of the first areas you would look at is how that corporation can carry out more sophisticated techniques in the marketing of our raw materials. We did not get one whit of information in that particular area, and that's where hundreds of millions of new revenues for the Crown, the people and the industries of British Columbia potentially reside.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Instead of becoming victims of the smart players across the Pacific, we could become as smart as them, and we could do very well indeed. But there is no evidence from you, Mr. Minister, of how we might begin to move into that area. There is no evidence from you, Mr. Minister, in terms of dealing with the horrendous possibilities of conflict of interest throughout this whole exercise, in terms of how you determine the winners and losers that you will back. That requires an open process; it requires open ac-

[ Page 6559 ]

cess. There is no evidence from this administration that you accept the idea of open access and open processes at all.

There is no accountability, and I'm sorry to say that the public of British Columbia doesn't realize that or understand it. There is no accountability with respect to our Crown corporations in this province. There is no full process. We have no Crown corporations committee of the Legislature. Every other legislature has one. These Crown corporations go for years without reporting to the House or to committees of the House. It's extraordinary. We're talking about multibillion-dollar corporations that don't have to report to the full elected group here, the representatives of both sides of this House. It's incredibly unhealthy, and it's something that should disturb us all. It may be comfortable to have that arrangement when one is in government, but it isn't good for the body politic, it isn't good for the process and it isn't good for the Crown corporations.

What we have here is yet another one with no mechanism for reporting to the House or to a committee of the House. You report to the cabinet; that's who you report to. It's simply not good enough You're asking for a blank cheque.

The opposition is willing to be responsive and say yes, there's a need for a trading corporation; yes, we're a long way from becoming sophisticated players like our trading partners across the Pacific; and yes, an instrument like this could indeed be worthwhile. But your track record is not good in this area, when it comes to intervention. You are your own best advertisement against intervention by government.

You don't live up to your campaign promises. You keep intervening in the marketplace. You did it with northeast coal, and it looks like it could be a $3 billion failure. You did it with BCDC, and that was a half-billion-dollar failure.

Now you're establishing a trade corporation. What could the dimensions be in terms of our liability? There are no limits on the liability in this statute whatsoever. There are no limits on the borrowing. Wouldn't it be reasonable to limit it to $100 million at least, and then come back to the Legislature after you had successfully worked with those funds? Are you going to be the president of the corporation? That's not clear, but you can be. Is your deputy minister going to be the CEO? That's not clear, but he can be Do you really think somebody with a civil service background can become the entrepreneurial CEO of the trading corporation of the province of British Columbia? I don't; not at all. They are two different capabilities. It's a demanding, entrepreneurial, international role we're talking about here.

There are no definitions, no limitations and no boundaries in this flimsy bill you've put before the House today. I must say that I have trouble supporting it, unless there are more detailed explanations from the minister of what the process and the accountability will be. I agree that we need this kind of instrument, but there is no evidence whatsoever that the homework has been done to justify what you're asking for here.

[5:30]

MR. MILLER: I want to make a number of points relative to the state of some British Columbia industries, which will hopefully convince the minister of some of the basic problems we have in the export market. I feel rather strongly about the whole issue of the GATT ruling in the fish-processing industry. It's unfortunate that that's never really been fully debated in this House in terms of an understanding of the difference between the GATT ruling and our position as a party, supporting and being a member of an international panel such as GATT, and the implications of the free trade agreement. It comes to bear in the issue this bill deals with.

Certainly we have developed a very highly competitive fish-processing industry in British Columbia, and I don't think it would necessarily have been developed had we not had the kind of legislative tools at our disposal which restricted the export of unprocessed fish. In other words, we've said, in terms of building a basic industry in this province.... There are all kind of examples we can use right across Canada, where we have imposed a restriction — which we now deem to be an unfair trade practice — to build up and develop an industry, and we did a remarkable job in many instances.

I think fish-processing is actually one of the big success stories in British Columbia in terms of an industry where we developed the capacity, the efficiency and the highly skilled workforce in order to do what we do now: produce a premium product, internationally recognized on the world market. We go to great pains to make sure that the product is superior — and, I'm very happy to say, with a fairly high labour cost. We've built this industry, we have well-paid workers, and it's a credit to British Columbia. It's also a great contributor to the economy of British Columbia of some $750 million, according to a Price Waterhouse study last year — and of some 25,000 jobs.

We can see, with the free trade agreement.... Previously, under GATT alone, there was some protection built in for frivolous applications to GATT. In the case of the fish-processing industry, the Americans had filed an unfair trade practice complaint, and I believe the value of that infraction — I won't call it an infraction; that unfair practice, as they termed it — was in the neighbourhood of $7 million to $10 million.

Under GATT rules, as I understand it, when a complaining country goes to GATT and is successful in getting the panel to rule — if indeed there has been an unfair trade practice — two things can happen. One is that the country against which the ruling is made can alter its regulations to conform with GATT. The other is that they can choose not to do that, which gives the complaining country the opportunity to levy an equivalent value penalty.

That's very fundamental, in terms of understanding GATT versus free trade. Had we just been under

[ Page 6560 ]

GATT, the Americans could have levied an equivalent value penalty that Canada or British Columbia could have easily absorbed, instead of the contrary which is now true, because the free trade agreement made it mandatory that we accept GATT rulings. The complexity of that argument bothers me. I have not seen it understood by the Premier or other members of the government side. Instead, we've put at risk this industry that I previously described.

I see, when I look at the statistics and papers put out by the federal government.... Surely the minister has looked at and studied these little booklets that deal with a range of products right across Canada, and the implications. They build a little profile of the industry and discuss the implications of the free trade agreement; but they also contain some other information that I think is useful for the minister, who on an international level will be trying to sell exports from British Columbia. I note with dismay that all too often the story comes out after the facts, because when we look at these brochures prepared by the federal government in terms of some industries that are important to British Columbia — and some industries that I feel we could expand on — we see the constraints that are built in.

In terms of converted wood products, let's say, in 1986 the industry in Canada had estimated shipments of $2.7 billion and employed 32,000 people in 1,900 establishments across the country. A significant little industry, but one that in British Columbia needs to expand if our forest industry is to survive, and needs to expand fairly quickly. We're looking at a shrinking forest base in terms of the kind of volume we can extract. We've clearly overcut. We've clearly wasted this immense capital pool of our old-growth forests, and any intelligent analysis of the valuable capital in that forest tells you we should not be wasting it in standard or dimension products; we should be moving into the area of value-added, which can be an incredibly valuable resource for British Columbia in terms of jobs and taxation and export commodities. That wood will be desired right around the world.

The pools of old-growth forest in this province simply don't exist in many parts of the world, yet the constraints are there under the free trade agreement. I'll quote from the publication: "The tariff elimination under the FTA, on balance, will leave many of the Canadian companies in the converted wood products sector in a more vulnerable position relative to the more competitive larger-scale U.S. industry."

In some sub sectors, such as kitchen cabinets, where the impact is expected to be more severe, the 15 percent tariff elimination over five years could result in major restructuring, given the dominance of small companies in this sub sector.

Clearly, in terms of the direction British Columbia wants to go, if we want to build on our strength — which is really conversion of raw resources which we were blessed with — we find these constraints are in front us in terms of the FTA.

In dealing with converted wood products, the same holds true with pulp and paper equipment. We are a major supplier of pulp and paper equipment to the world market because of our forest base. Yet we find these kinds of statements in this analysis. These are issues that have to be dealt with by the minister. It's simply not a question of doling out money. You have to deal with the structure of the Canadian industry, the British Columbia industry. You don't suddenly arrive at the export door. You do a lot of work to get there. In pulp and paper equipment....

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

It follows, to me, that if we are a major supplier of a commodity, we should also be a major player in the game of providing machinery that creates that product. The same holds true with wood products. We don't manufacture very much machinery in terms of converting wood, yet we are a major supplier in terms of the world market.

I'll read you the profile on the pulp and paper equipment industry: "The industry is largely foreign owned, with its Canadian subsidiaries accounting for approximately 80 percent of the Canadian industry's shipments." That's significant, Mr. Speaker, because that foreign ownership really has put severe constraints on Canadian industry's ability to get into the game — to get into the competitive market that exists in the world.

Again, quoting from the same document: "A rationalization by certain multinationals has shrunk Canadian capability to manufacture some equipment components. Example: complete paper machines, winders, and rewinders." In other words the dominance of a particular sector of our industry has shackled that industry from moving into the very areas that the minister — I would imagine — wants to deal with under this bill.

Again, from the industry profile on pulp and paper equipment: "A major constraint, however, is that the small scale of indigenous R and D makes it difficult for the industry to be at the leading edge of development in all fields." I'll repeat that, Mr. Minister, because I think it's fundamental: "...the small scale of indigenous research and development...." That comes about because of that foreign domination, because it's not in the interests of the foreign parent to allow the Canadian branch plant to get into the vital area of research and development. It seems to me that research and development takes you to that export door. You have to do just as much work at home as you do in trying to find those international markets or international niches.

Again, just dealing with one final product — converted paper products — one would assume that as a major supplier of the primary resource, pulp, and a relatively minor supplier in paper, we would be thinking of moving in the direction of building on the strength that nature has provided us. But the industry profile on converted paper products reads this way:

"The impact of the FTA will vary with sub sectors and product lines within sub sectors and, while exports of certain products will increase, imports will likely rise dramatically. Loss of domestic market share is expected to lead to a loss of employment.

[ Page 6561 ]

While some opportunities for increased exports will result under the FTA, on balance the impact will be largely negative for most sub sectors."

There we have three vital components of the British Columbia economy, and the profiles done by the federal department of industry indicate that, because of the shackle imposed by the free trade agreement, because of the shackle imposed by foreign domination, we are not in a good position to be competitive.

I note an article in the Winnipeg Free Press of April 24 in which the manufacturers in that province are indicating their deep concern. They have a bit of a furniture-manufacturing industry in Manitoba, and the prognosis under free trade is that the removal of the tariff wall over the five years will force Canadian furniture plants, including the 40 firms in Manitoba, to consolidate their operations and will promote the undertaking of mergers or acquisitions. There we have another negative, if you like, in that the agreement will foster mergers and acquisitions, which clearly have not been in the long-term benefit of the forest industry and the forest-converting industry in British Columbia.

I would be pleased to hear from the minister that there is some understanding that it's not a simple matter of creating a bill to loan money to people interested in exporting. It requires some kind of sophisticated analysis of the industry as it exists and the constraints that are placed on that industry, rather than some of the very simplistic arguments we used to hear over, for example, the removal of the Foreign Investment Review Agency or the national energy program, both of which were designed to foster the kind of development that's required in Canada.

[5:45]

I very much fear that under the agreement and under the shackle of domination by foreign companies, British Columbia will have a great deal of difficulty moving into a value-added economy in the forest industry. If we don't move into a value-added economy in the forest industry, we will be left in the dust. It's quite easy to make pulp. It's quite easy to cut dimension lumber. There are lots of players in that game. Once the natural advantage that we have, which is the forests that were here when we came here, is depleted, then I fear very much that we will no longer be major players in the game.

I look forward to the minister responding to some of the points I raised. I think a failure to deal with those points means that all you've done is chopped down a tree to print this bill, but it won't amount to much else.

HON. J. JANSEN: While my opening comments were general in nature, we understood that we would get into more detail. I'd be pleased to do that as we go through the sections in the bill. A number of the points raised are very good points in terms of such areas as marketing, the relationship with other organizations, accountability and conflict of interest. They are areas of concern that we certainly have thought about and certainly will be speaking on as time goes on and as the debate of the bill proceeds. The programs we envisage the corporation having will be outlined in more detail. The budget that the members opposite were speaking about will also be apparent. Our relationships with other associations that have been established in other parts of the world which also promote trade.... We will talk about those in more detail.

The work at home is very important, as the member said. The free trade agreement's implementation and the issues we will have to address over time in terms of making our industry competitive are very important for us. In fact, the area the member indicated — value-added wood — is one of the sectors the B.C. Trade Development Corporation will be working on. We have a natural resource sector, and it will look at developing that market for export opportunities. It will also work with our ministers of state.

We will be talking about the fish matter that the member raised, I am sure, as the estimates of the ministry proceed. Suffice it to say that though retaliation is not significant in dollar terms in the overall scheme.... What generally happens in retaliation is that it is focused on the most injurable part of the economy. If the entire $13 million were focused, for example, on Prince Rupert, I am sure that would be a concern. That is a big question that we can talk about and will be talking about.

The EDC and CIDA are two areas that we've talked about and talked to. The EDC essentially does insurance for exporters, but it also finances foreign importers. That is substantially different from what the B.C. Trade Development Corporation will be doing; the corporation will be assisting exporters rather than assisting importers of exported products from the province. CIDA is very much involved in the development of Third World countries. It is our intention to complement the initiatives of both of those organizations; in fact, to work with them to ensure that program delivery has no redundancy and that it complements what the B.C. Trade Development Corporation is doing.

Accountability was also referenced. In fact, the accountability is quite clear in that the minister will be the chairman of the corporation. The president of the corporation will be a deputy minister. The Minister of Finance is the fiscal agent, and the Financial Information Act also applies to the corporation.

I'm sure the member for Vancouver East is very interested to know that the conflict sections, particularly of the Company Act, will apply to the corporation. Beyond that, we will have a conflict-of-interest guideline to further enhance what is in the Company Act. If the member looks under section 13, he will see that it's quite clear under the Company Act which areas have to be disclosed.

Mr. Speaker, over time we will talk about some of the programs, what the corporation will be doing in terms of marketing, export assistance and counter trade, and what sectors in the economy we are focusing on. We will outline in more detail the purpose of the corporation.

[ Page 6562 ]

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I now move second reading of Bill 3.

Motion approved.

Bill 3, Trade Development Corporation Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the

Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Veitch moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:52 p.m.