[ Page 6967 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services estimates.

(Hon. L. Hanson)

On vote 41: minister's office –– 6967

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. R. Fraser

THURSDAY, MAY 25, 1989

The House met at 10:07 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. BLENCOE: In the precincts today, and probably in the gallery very soon, there are 25 grade 5 students from George Jay Elementary School in Victoria. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. D. Conway. Would the House please make them welcome this morning.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR
AND CONSUMER SERVICES

On vote 41: minister's office, $273,577 (continued).

HON. MR. REE: Aye.

MR. SIHOTA: I see the Solicitor-General is anxious to get to his estimates, and we may be able to accommodate him this morning.

I want to start by dealing with an issue that we dealt with only in passing yesterday: the human rights commission. I want to make some comments to the minister with respect to his code, and point out to him what I think are some weaknesses. I am disappointed again in his opening comments in introducing his estimates. He did not indicate that there would be any comprehensive review of human rights legislation in British Columbia, a program of human rights, and the approach this government takes to human rights.

Let me say why first. The reason I raised this, and obviously I am a little more sensitive to this issue than most, is that I want to tell the minister that, particularly in the greater Vancouver area, we're on the threshold of some major racial problems. I don't exaggerate, and I don't say that lightly.

I was party to a lot of the things going on in the late seventies, early eighties — to be more precise, the late seventies — in Vancouver in terms of race relations and multiculturalism. We went through a wave of sentiment that was triggered in part by changes in immigration laws, an influx of people from other nations, changes in the economy, housing prices and the presence of more and more visible minorities in service sector jobs. All of these, combined with changes in school composition, spawned a whole set of race-related problems and emphasized the need for human rights protection in British Columbia.

At that time there existed the former Human Rights Code, which in many ways has been amended, particularly after 1983 by Mr. Bennett's government. I want to point out that I think it would be appropriate for his ministry to revisit some of the discussions that took place during the late seventies with respect to human rights in British Columbia. You should be prepared through a better legislative mechanism for what I think is going to be a problem. I don't think the legislative mechanism is by and in itself the sole vehicle to deal with these problems. Legislation is one very small cog in a larger wheel. The matter of human rights legislation falls within your purview, and that's why I give it some focus this morning.

Your legislation and the government's program as they exist right now have too many gaps. They fail to provide protection in four areas, which I'm sure the ministry is aware of: family status, which I'll explain in a second; sexual orientation; personal harassment, which I'll also elaborate on; and source of income.

First, family status, with respect to residential matters, is a real concern, in that people can be denied access to housing in British Columbia on the basis of family status. They can be denied access to housing in British Columbia on the basis of age. It's discriminating against people to say: "You're too young or you're too old to get into housing or be allocated housing in B.C." If you seek to rent and you have children, you can be denied housing.

I'm not convinced that that's consistent with people's human rights. I think that the government ought to be taking immediate measures to curb the discrimination which exists with respect to housing, in terms of both family status and age. It's peculiar that age discrimination is prohibited with respect to employment, but not with respect to tenancy. Family status may also be a ground for denying people access to a job.

Sexual orientation. I am sure the minister is well aware of the concern there, and I don't have to elaborate on that. The third one that I touched on was personal harassment. Actually, if you think about it, if you are white and male, you are not covered at all in many ways by the human rights code, and I think you should have a personal harassment clause in there, or a clause that deals with any other reasonable cause which was taken away from the board.

So one problem area is the protections which exist; that's the first sphere, the gaps that you have in your legislation. The second sphere is the process or procedure that exists right now. It takes an inordinate amount of time to get in front of the human rights commission and get your case adjudicated. In fact, I've been told that the delays are as bad as they are in court, which is two to two and a half years down the line. I think that there should be thought given to expediting the process. The time to hear a complaint, I guess, is about two and a half years. So that's the second sphere.

[10:15]

The third sphere, which I think the government has to pay some attention to, is what happens if you do indeed prove that you've been discriminated against. You have a ceiling in your legislation which limits the size of the award to about $2,000.

The nature and quantum of the awards provided by the Council of Human Rights in British Columbia

[ Page 6968 ]

are totally out of sync with reality. To think that the maximum award that you can get for emotional or personal injury is $2,000 is totally out of line with awards, first of all, in other jurisdictions; secondly, and more importantly in my view, it's out of line with of the enormity of the problem.

You take someone who has been sexually harassed at a worksite. We have a case going on here in Victoria with respect to an RCMP official. I realize it doesn't fall under your ministry, but you can take an analogous situation which falls under the provincial scheme. Let me tell you where the failings are.

First of all, for the emotional component of the award you can't get more than $2,000, which just doesn't make any sense. Where is the punitive value? Where is the punitive measure in a ceiling of $2,000? There have been cases before the human rights commission where people have repeatedly violated in the area of sexual harassment, and it's just a cost — the $2,000 –– I don't think you should provide a ceiling but just allow the board to make decisions in terms of what the quantum of the award should be based upon how it affects the individual.

To use an example, a woman has been sexually harassed at work and suffers from a psychological scar. That scar just doesn't evaporate. I'll tell you, having done a lot of personal injury work as a lawyer, those kinds of traumatic scars that occur on people aren't put aside by money. A pittance of an award really, I think, trivializes the nature of psychological harm which occurs to people. I think the minister should really think how an Andrea Fields feels after she goes through the kind of process she had to go through in order to get an award that really is a pittance. That's one area where your awards are totally out of sync with reality.

Another area where your awards are totally out of sync with reality, and far more important in some ways, is the loss of future wages. If you are sexually harassed at a job, and you lose that job or you quit that job because someone else has chosen to sexually harass you, you may get back wages, but it may be quite some time before you get back into earning the same level of income that you had prior to the incident of sexual harassment. You may go — just to use an example; I'm just picking this one off the top of my head — from a unionized position in government that pays $40,000 a year; you're sexually harassed and you leave. Sure, you get past wage losses, but it may take you five or six years to get back to the same level of income. So you suffer a future financial loss from the date of the decision to the date that you get back to that same level of earning. There should be an award for future loss. In fact, it may take years to get back to that level, to get fully integrated back into the workforce, to find another job and to have the same level of seniority benefits and coverage.

You're lacking in terms of the quantum of awards for emotional suffering and for future wage loss. I think that's just not right.

So I've identified three, and I'm going to go on to the fourth sphere now. I've identified that you've got significant gaps in the legislation, particularly when it comes down to matters of tenancy; you've got matters of procedure; you've got difficulties with the size of the award; and you've got a human rights council in British Columbia which is not proactive.

I want to tell the minister something about this. A lot of discrimination goes on with respect to employment and people not being able to get jobs because they're visible minorities. Some of those concerns are founded; other concerns are unfounded. There's always a grey area, but there are cases that are clearly — if I can use this term — black-and-white.

I find as I travel around the province talking to — it's part of my responsibilities — people from different ethnic groups, that they will always point to a major employer in their community who for decades hasn't hired any people who are members of visible minorities. Through your legislation, you provide no ability to attack that type of disease in society. I was in the minister's riding most recently in Vernon.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: I don't want to get into the business of naming names. I've sent over to you in correspondence the names of three major employers in your riding in Vernon, Lumby and Kelowna — it's just outside your riding in terms of Kelowna — who since 1976 haven't hired people who are members of visible minorities. They have an atrocious record in terms of hiring. But I've sent those over to you in the expectation that your ministry will investigate, and I'm going to give the minister the courtesy of giving him that information in advance as it relates to his own riding.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: It seems it's their policy, because they haven't hired anybody since 1976. I've got a full dossier in terms of who's applied and so on and the fact that they meet all the qualifications. I've sent that information over to the minister, but I want to put the minister on notice that I want an investigation with respect to those employers in his riding who aren't hiring visible minorities. If I'm not satisfied at the end of the day that the ministry is investigating....

HON. MR. REID: Are you threatening the minister?

MR. SIHOTA: I'm not threatening; I'm saying that I'm expecting the minister to do it. If I'm not satisfied with it, then I guess we'll deal with it in another fashion. But it is my hope that by bringing these types of matters to the ministry's attention....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: I will let the other member know, and certainly the minister. There are other ways to handle this, and one other way is to simply stand up here and start talking publicly about which employ-

[ Page 6969 ]

ers. But I'm going to give the ministry a chance to investigate, which I think it should.

It points out the need to have a proactive element in the human rights commission, and I don't think that proactive element is exercised at all. If you look at the record of the human rights commission over the past few years, it has not had the ability to act on its own initiative to deal with these types of issues, which are issues we should be dealing with in society.

By referring the material I have discussed to the minister.... I apologize that it hasn't got to him yet; the typing pool is about a week behind this week. It will be on his desk, and I would expect some investigation and careful looking at that. I think it should get the minister to begin to think about getting that commission to do some proactive work. That's another sphere.

The final sphere I want to bring to the minister's attention....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, hon. member, but your time has expired under standing orders.

MR. BLENCOE: This is a fascinating topic. I would like to hear the member continue, if he may.

MR. SIHOTA: The fourth and final sphere I want to talk about is the educational aspect of the Council of Human Rights. I just don't think that the council is doing much — from what I can determine in terms of the budget, there just isn't a lot there — educational work, preventive work, race relations work, work with respect to discrimination against women, preventive work in terms of sexual harassment, promotional work in terms of the consequences of engaging in those types of practices, articulating to people what their rights are, telling them how the processes and procedures of the board work. Those promotional, preventive, educational components are vital to a vibrant human rights council. They are lacking if one looks at the track record of his ministry. I would expect his ministry to begin to deal with those matters in the affirmative way that is required if you want to head off some of the problems that I'm saying you are on the threshold of.

I don't like coming in here and saying that the sky is about to fall and all that kind of stuff. I don't want my comments to be interpreted in that regard. But I have a sensitivity to these issues and an involvement with those elements in the community. I can tell you that we have a lot of problems in this province relating to visible minorities and natives, and one of the vehicles through which they can be handled is the Council of Human Rights. As a province, we're way behind the times in dealing with those issues.

We sit on the threshold of what I think is a repetition of what we saw about 15 years ago in this province. The government ought to be taking some affirmative steps, as the city of Vancouver has most recently, to begin to deal with the problem before it becomes acute, while we can head it off. Those are the comments we want to make with respect to human rights. I certainly look with interest to what the minister has to say in response.

HON. L. HANSON: It is a very complex topic, and I would certainly agree with the member. I would like to commend the Council of Human Rights for doing the good job that they are in adjudicating. You do have a point as to the time. We are aware of some of the difficulties and the length of time it takes to hear cases. In looking at other jurisdictions, such as the Canadian Human Rights Commission, comparatively it's not too bad. But it's not good enough. We are adding some staff members shortly, which will hopefully deal with some of the time problems. Some things will be coming forward to help streamline the administration process. I acknowledge that the time is longer than we feel would be the utopian situation, and we intend to address that.

The member was talking about one of the most recently raised issues, that of the hate literature being circulated. Certainly it is a deplorable situation; we have no disagreement there at all. The material is terrible, and its distribution to young people who are easily manipulated is really bad. The government is aware of that. There is a statute, which I am sure the member is aware of, the Civil Rights Protection Act under the Attorney-General, which may be the correct vehicle — we're not sure. It is a big concern.

Talking about education for a moment, the Council of Human Rights is now in the process of publishing a curriculum unit on human rights, which we hope will be introduced in the schools. We are encouraging schools to teach this, and we hope that it will have some effect on a better knowledge of human rights, the act that's in place and how various things are dealt with. We hope that it is introduced shortly.

[10:30]

I'm sure the member is aware of the Council of Human Rights and the speeches they make on request from different groups, which is part of an educational process. It also publishes a number of pamphlets on various issues dealing with human rights. We continue to look at what is most appropriate.

I look forward to receiving the correspondence that the member mentioned; I don't have it yet in my office. But again, the issues that the member raised are ones that we are always concerned with and looking at, and I appreciate the member's observations about the things we should be considering as we look at the various legislative opportunities that we do take. I will be introducing some legislative amendments this year, but most of them are administrative improvements that will help deal with the time more than any of the others. But I certainly will keep in mind the other issues the member mentioned.

MR. SIHOTA: Proof of commitment lies in action, and the absence of commitment, I guess, lies in inaction. It's news to me that the minister was thinking of some legislative amendments.

[ Page 6970 ]

Let me suggest a couple of things that can be done very easily. The matter of tenancy discrimination, which I mentioned earlier, doesn't take a lot. It's not complex at all to amend the human rights legislation to put an end to discrimination in tenancy in terms of age and family status. It's very easy to change that. It's not difficult to insert two words, "sexual orientation," in the prohibitive clauses with respect to discrimination. If you did that, eliminated the section that places a ceiling on damage awards and allowed for future-wage-loss awards, I think you'd go a long way towards solving all the problems.

Those are four or five minor things in terms of legislative drafting that can be dealt with in a matter of minutes. In fact, I'd be quite happy to show how it can be done.

It just doesn't make sense that an Andrea Fields would have to go all the way through hearings and rehearings for five years, argue that sexual harassment equals sexual discrimination, ultimately win, and then after five years get an emotional damage award of $1,500. Where is the penalty to the perpetrator of that type of activity?

I want to shift now, because I think I've made my point. I'm going to look forward to what the minister does.

The other point I wanted to make is this. You're spending $137 million or $134 million, depending on how you count it, on TRY. It might not be a bad idea to do some of the same type — not at the same volume, because I understand the problem of alcohol and drugs too.... It would be commendable to do some of that kind of work in the human rights field as well, in terms of educating the public at large with respect to the value of having a multicultural society. Maybe we could start with one of your backbenchers who was heckling me the other day.

I want to talk about the Industrial Relations Council for a few minutes. There has been a lot of chatter in this House about whether or not Bill 19 is working. There are a lot of reasons why we haven't had a lot of strikes or lockouts in British Columbia for the past few years. I think the minister has been fair, in some of the comments I've read, in acknowledging that economic factors have as much to do with it as anything else. But it's also clear that there are some real problems with the Industrial Relations Council in British Columbia.

As I said to the minister earlier, in furtherance of our desire to put forward alternatives to Bill 19.... I heard the Premier say a lot about it the other day. He should just read the ten weeks of debate that we had on Bill 19; he'll know what many of our alternatives are.

I have been meeting with employers and employees around the province, predominantly major employer groups, and the feedback I've been getting is that they themselves would like to see some changes to Bill 19. We'll be putting forward, towards the end of this year, our suggestions in terms of what we think should be done in that regard: principles that should govern the implementation of labour laws in B.C.

Everywhere I go, everyone I meet talks about the boycott. I think the consensus, both with employers and employees, fairly put, is that it's there due to a violation of process, and also the failure of the government to move forward with amendments to the legislation. I'm sure it's a matter of concern to the minister as well that we have a boycott of the legislation. I've talked to people at the IRC as well about their frustration with the boycott. I want to know from the minister what affirmative steps his government is taking to put an end to the boycott.

HON. L. HANSON: First of all, I have to point out to the member that not all of organized labour is recognizing the boycott. Many of the unions and many unaffiliated unions are not observing it. They continue to use the Industrial Relations Council. The terms of the boycott reflect that the act continues to provide the most appropriate mechanism for trade unions to organize and represent workers. Many of the trade union applications to the IRC for certification have been approved, and the boycott has been given a blanket exemption for those applications.

The B.C. Federation of Labour also gives individual exemptions from the boycott to member unions, when they find they need to rely on the provisions of the act to represent their members. Whenever there are actions contrary to the act, such as taking unsupervised strike votes — when they are challenged by the employers — the federation often grants its members exemption from the boycott to rectify that illegal action.

One of the things that has to be looked at by those who support the boycott is the IRC's administration of the act and the manner in which they have.... Last year more than 300 decisions and a number of administrative letter decisions were issued. The parties to any form of legislation may not be totally satisfied with the result. But the IRCs record demonstrates that it is administering the legislation in as fair and just a manner as any of the previous boards — in my opinion, perhaps more efficiently.

My ministry has continuously invited labour's participation in its review of legislation — notably the recent very successful review of the Workers Compensation Act. We have also talked to organized labour on some other issues concerning possible amendments. Right now we are working on section 48, which I know the member would be aware of: the dependent-contractor provisions of the act.

I don't think that it was ever intended that the Industrial Relations Council would be involved in every dispute between the union and its employers. The parties are encouraged to work out their difficulties themselves. I think the member would agree that there are times when there could have been interference, and we haven't interfered, in the hopes that the situation would be.... The strength of any agreement is the agreement of both sides in their dedication to sincerely making it work.

I suppose in the final analysis, the boycott was imposed by a section of the labour community. They will eventually be the ones to remove it.

[ Page 6971 ]

MR. SIHOTA: Those are very interesting comments from the minister. The fact of the matter is there is a boycott going on. The minister knows that and I know that. I am sure there have been representations to the minister that it would be best that the boycott end.

There are certain things, of course, that the labour movement should do. There are certain things that employers should do, and there are certain things that government should do. Quite frankly, government has done very little, after it created this problem.

The minister said: "Any law without the support or at least the acquiescence of the majority of those it purports to affect will inevitably be opposed, and this opposition will guarantee in this case the failure of the larger objective." I am sure those words have been quoted back to the minister by a lot of people other than myself.

What I am trying to get at here is that the minister knows that I know that the larger objective hasn't been achieved. The legislation doesn't have the acquiescence or the support of the majority. It is true that the boycott has been lifted with respect to certification and some other ancillary matters. The IRC is a six-cylinder engine that is running on maybe one or two cylinders right now.

It's got to affect the morale of the people who work there, and it clearly has had an effect on people who would normally see the IRC as a catalyst in resolving their disputes. There is no doubt that there are some serious questions in terms of the confidence that has been engendered in the IRC.

The minister knows that last January Mr. Gallagher criticized the government over the insensitivity that it had shown in the administration of the act. He criticized the handling at the time of the BCGEU matter, in terms of both the mediation that had occurred in that dispute from the outside and the failure to conduct strike votes in compliance with the legislation. In January Mr. Benson said: "They didn't even have the decency to tell the government negotiators to contact us and tell us what they were going to do." These are two people who were at the time involved in the day-to-day administration of the act. Mr. Gallagher then resigned in March. These are people who were involved in the day-to-day administration of the activities of the council. If they have so little confidence in its operations, how can the minister really expect others to have a measure of confidence in the IRC?

HON. L. HANSON: I have to inform the member, first of all, that I have the utmost confidence in the IRC. Regarding the criticisms the member is referring to, I know that the chairman of the adjudication division has submitted his resignation. Quite frankly, his resignation was submitted long before those remarks were made and certainly had nothing to do with his position as far as the Industrial Relations Act is concerned. He has stated publicly a number of times that he was involved in it for the period of time that he wanted to be and that he was going back to private practice. He also spent about two years at the Workers' Compensation Review Board as chairman.

[10:45]

The criticism that I think the IRC members made was not levelled at Bill 19; it was, in my opinion, a criticism of the negotiations that went on between our union and the government negotiators. Just in talking about that for a minute, there is no question that it was a past practice that government had used private mediation services. Also, the Public Service Labour Relations Act is a statute which governs relations between government as an employer and the B.C. Government Employees' Union, and it has slightly different rules than the normal ones.

I think the member or someone mentioned that last year was a good year. There is no question that last year was a good year, in terms of loss of days of work as a result of labour disputes. There are a number of reasons why. There is no question that good labour relations happen more easily when the economy is buoyant. I don't think anybody would argue with that. When the economy is good, both the labour movement and the employers achieve reasonable gains, and they are usually achieved through peaceful negotiation.

I guess the real test comes when circumstances force both of the parties to take hard positions, and most often this occurs when the economy is suffering. In a perverse way, some of the B.C. Fed's boycott policies have encouraged settlements, just because of the boycott, I suppose. I guess the end result — as we have said many times, and continue to say — is the bottom line that we are looking for, and last year was certainly a good year.

It appears to me that if Bill 19, which is the subject, is as onerous and distasteful as is being suggested, maybe a proper approach would be to lift the boycott, give it a really good test in the actual work place, and then measure those results. The IRC is certainly an independent group, and I believe their decisions have been fair, reasonable and brought forward in a timely manner so that there aren't undue delays.

I don't suppose anything is perfect, and I suppose even my critic would agree to that. I look forward to the member's suggestion that they are going to be tabling their opinion of what changes would be made. We are not reluctant to make changes when there are concrete problems brought forward, but the boycott has prevented a lot of those tests that should be made from being made.

MR. SIHOTA: It's pretty perverse for the minister to say that the boycott should be lifted so we can see how bad the legislation is. The minister knows as well as I do, despite his comments in here, that the government is under some pressure to deal with the problem that it has created with respect to labour legislation in British Columbia. Indeed, his advice to the Premier was originally in terms of the support of the majority. It has just not occurred, and that has resulted in the legislation not working anywhere near

[ Page 6972 ]

to the expectation one would have of legislation that's there to do its job.

Just take a look at what's happened. The legislation — we can get into a debate on this — was not effective during the BCGEU situation. It was unnecessary, in many ways, during the forests settlement. I would defy the minister.... In my discussions with employers — I don't want to get into naming names, because I've had those conversations in confidence — I was surprised at the number of employer groups in this province who have said to me that they themselves would not want to go through another set of negotiations knowing that Bill 19 sits there, because all of a sudden a fresh set of dynamics arises if a strike is deemed to be illegal.

Outside mediators were involved in the teachers' dispute. We have had three decisions of the board overturned as being patently unreasonable. I don't think there were that many with respect to the old one.

We've had some changes in personnel at the IRC. The head of the adjudication department is not a lawyer. Mr. Gallagher and Mr. Benson have left. I'm not convinced that the minister can say that it's working all that well. I think the government has been fortunate that the past year has been a good year in terms of avoiding strikes.

Quite frankly, I think the minister wants the problem solved, but he can't get support out of cabinet to bring forward the amendments he knows are required to get it solved. I believe that. Let's have the minister elaborate on that point. I don't want to get into a big contest about the BCGEU situation. I know there is a difference of opinion there. I'm saying that I think that's your basic problem: you know and I know that you can't get it past your cabinet in terms of getting changes to the legislation.

I've been very careful all the way throughout these estimates to offer some alternatives. I want to make one suggestion as I leave this area, and that is in the matter of the construction industry and building trades. I think the minister's original suggestion that that industry ought to be put aside and dealt with in a special way, given its peculiarities, was a prudent one. I think the government has been in error in not reacting to that suggestion.

If there's one thing I'd like to see from the minister, it is a reassessment of what's happening in the construction end, particularly some of the decisions that have come down on section 37 and section 53 –– I know we can't talk about this stuff, because we're in estimates, in terms of the peculiarities of legislation. But if you're looking at section 48, you should be looking at those other two sections as well. All the successor provisions — section 37, section 53 — are those you should really be looking at.

I proposed earlier that I would bring to the minister's attention some WCB matters. Because of the pressures of time I'm not going to, except one. I'll tell you exactly what I want on this one. I want the minister to personally ask the new board to take a look at this case. As MLAs, we all get our classics. I get a little more than most now, because I'm the critic, so if there's a problem it comes to my desk.

This is a case older than I am — if I can use that analogy. I can tell the minister exactly what day it occurred, and I will forward to him a synopsis of the decision. On April 28, 1954, at approximately 9:15 a.m., Mr. Harold Petrini was involved in a motor vehicle accident while in the employment of a company, at that time known as Western Lumber Ltd. He was employed as a truck driver. His brakes failed, the truck rolled over, and he suffered pain and injury to his shoulder and his neck. I'm not going to go through all of the medical evidence, but over time Mr. Petrini's injuries got worse and worse. Everybody — and I can document every medical practitioner that's looked at it from 1954 on — has acknowledged that his injuries have gotten worse except those medical practitioners in the employment of the Workers' Compensation Board. Two and sometimes three or four independent people have said there is a difficulty there.

That doesn't bother me as much as the following fact. On my birthday in 1966, February 18, Mr. Petrini received a letter wherein he was advised that he would be provided with an award based on the extent of his disability. At that point he was mailed a cheque in the sum of $1,643.49. This has been the only payment that Mr. Petrini has ever received for his disability. No release was signed at that time. No explanation was provided that he would not be receiving any further sums. There was nothing to indicate that this was the final disposition of this matter. He got this cheque for $1,643.49, and since then has not received a penny.

I've tried every angle on this case. I've taken it to the board and met with the chairman of the board. I've got fresh medical evidence which explains that the problem in terms of his shoulders and neck has gotten worse, and videotape evidence of him working and photographic evidence. There isn't anything that hasn't been done in this case. It's a case that I inherited from my predecessor. It goes back to 1954, and he has received one payment of $1,643 and change in 1966. He's gone on to doing other work, but in present-day values he hasn't reached the same level of income that he enjoyed at that time.

I've got here, and I'll give to the minister, my submission back in January to the board of commissioners when I asked them to look at it again. Quite frankly, I think one of the difficulties is: what is he entitled to in terms of wage loss, and are there damages or income that he should be paid back in present-day values from 1966? If so, then he is owed a huge whack of money. I hate to say it, but I think that's got to be one of the underlying reasons why Harold Petrini hasn't received the compensation that he's justly entitled to.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

I'll pass this over to the minister. It's a long, very detailed account — 14 pages — of the difficulties Mr. Petrini has had. I want an assurance from the minis-

[ Page 6973 ]

ter that this will be sent over to the new board for review, because I think Mr. Petrini, who is getting pretty old now and lives in the greater Victoria area, deserves to have somebody look at this thing. Maybe with the new system Mr. Petrini might have a little more faith in the new system than the current one. I don't want to get into allegations of whether or not the current system is fair or unfair, but there is a perception there. In the case of Mr. Petrini, I think it is a well-founded one.

There are a lot of cases I could bring to your attention, but I can't think of any other case that on the face of it has the level of unjustness and unfairness that Mr. Petrini's case does. It is a classic case of where the rules don't seem to cover his situation or he may have given away a benefit or a right that had been accrued to him but since has not been....

[11:00]

It's not my usual practice to bring up individual cases. It is tough for the minister to respond to them. But I just want that assurance from the minister. I'll pass these documents over to him in the appropriate manner. In fact I'll give them to him right now. They're just a fax copy of something that I submitted earlier to the board, but that highlights the situation. I just want the minister's assurance that that is what will happen.

HON. L. HANSON: I'm sure the member is aware of the report that was done on the new formation and what sort of duties they will perform. I'd like to have that information and certainly will investigate it. If there is a policy question that is involved in that decision, then certainly the policy question would be referred to the board of governors. They would not adjudicate an individual case, as the member can appreciate. But certainly I'd be pleased to investigate that, and if it is a policy issue that would be appropriate for the board of governors to deal with, I'm sure that they will deal with that as a policy issue. I'd like to investigate the case and understand all the details of it first. Then, I assure the member, we will do the things that are fair and reasonable that should be done as the member describes it.

MR. SIHOTA: I should let the House know that Mr. Petrini is watching right now. I noticed he came in.

I want to ask some questions of the minister in terms of liquor licensing policy. My colleague from Victoria wants about five minutes, so I'll give him those five minutes and then I'll get into matters of liquor licensing.

MR. BLENCOE: I'll move aside my correspondence and move to the issue I want to talk about. I thank my colleague from Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. The issue I want to raise is that of manufactured-home owners in British Columbia. In the last year or so, I have become far more familiar with the concerns they have. I know the minister has been reviewing the legislation, but thus far there is a feeling by those who have made a decision — 65,000 British Columbia families, as a matter of fact — to purchase manufactured homes that that is their housing of choice. My understanding is that about 900 to 1,000 families every year opt for a manufactured home. But there are, as the minister is aware, distinct problems. Owners of manufactured homes potentially face a combination of the problems of both buying and renting. There is a distinct feeling that the provincial government over the years has not recognized the growth of manufactured homes and the importance of developing legislation and policy regarding such homes.

There's the problem of interest rates. There is always the problem of unfair rent hikes for the pad and the possibility that the pad will close altogether. Sites are in very short supply, and moving the manufactured home, as the minister is aware, is very expensive, often in excess of $5,000 to $6,000. In my estimation, and from my meetings with groups like the United Mobile Home Owners' Association, there's a distinct feeling that mobile-home owners — they prefer to be called manufactured-home owners — require their own legislation, separate from the Residential Tenancy Act, that provides for fairness and balance in their relations with landlords of the manufactured home parks. They need the power to bargain rents collectively, with binding arbitration in cases where agreement is not possible.

They want it made clear that unreasonable clauses are unenforceable and want the act to give examples of unreasonable clauses that are common in pad rental agreements: in other words, unilateral landlord changes in the agreement that tenants cannot replace their single pets, or that property left on the site belongs to the landlord; things like that. Improvements that are made have to be left, but they often belong to the tenant. Landlords will not accept responsibility for negligence or death or damage which may occur to property. In my understanding, that's quite contrary to law. People are forced to sign agreements with such stipulations. They are forced to sign agreements that say damage deposits are not refundable. All of these are issues that need to be dealt with by legislation and by this minister.

They would like to see protection against the rezoning of park to strata and the landlord then sells at his price to the homeowner. They want some precise definition of a mobile home to prevent a landlord from filling a park with recreation vehicles. They would like to see some action on sections 56 and 57 in the Mobile Home Act dealing with the licensing of manufactured-home salespersons. They would like to see an exemption from the damage deposit requirement that other renters face and protection against entrance fees similar to key money for regular renters.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The process in estimates is to deal with the administrative duties of the minister; this does not afford the opportunity to discuss the requirement for legislation. The list you have just gone through really does stray quite a long way from the administrative responsibilities and deals with the

[ Page 6974 ]

requirement for legislation. I just offer that as a caution. Perhaps you can temper your remarks to deal with the administrative responsibilities.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I probably made the mistake of referring to legislation required. What I'm doing is outlining some of the concerns faced by manufactured-home owners. Whether indeed the government decides to introduce legislation is obviously within their purview; that's within their rights. What I'm outlining is that 65,000 manufactured-home owners in this province are facing these kinds of concerns. The minister has suggested there will be some changes, but they have been called crumbs, I think, particularly by the united mobile home owners' association. They would really like to see their own separate legislation to deal with the issues that I've raised.

For example, maybe the minister could respond to this: notice of increased pad rental skates around the main issue that the increase be justified by an increasing cost. The $3,000 limit on removal expenses seems a little low, and I understand that the minister has suggested it seems a little low when the market charges up to $6,000 for such removals. Other issues that need to be considered are nominal compensation for the stress and inconvenience involved in having to move; that the right of first refusal to buy the pad is empty unless there is some process to ensure the price is a fair one; and since the option to convert is the pad owner's, it is suggested that if the government wants to go down this road, then there should be some low-interest loans to enable people to make the right of refusal a practical possibility of purchase.

In our view, and in the view of 65,000 manufactured-home owners, there is a requirement to have many of these provisions in legislation and in suggested change. I'm obviously not going to dwell on what the legislation should say; suffice it to say that manufactured-home owners feel they have been neglected. It's a major issue in this province. In the minister's riding there are 2,000 or 3,000 manufactured homes, I believe, and I know he's heard from them. They feel it's a major investment. It is a home. They have all sorts of problems that need attention, and thus far the suggestions from the government don't come close to resolving the issues before them.

Could the minister give any hint this morning that they have this matter under review, and that in the days ahead we can expect some major changes to meet the needs of manufactured-home owners?

HON. L. HANSON: I'm aware of those issues. They have been raised with me by an association representing a number of the manufactured-home owners. The issue of the separate act that the member raised I'm not sure is a major one. Whether it is included in the current Residential Tenancy Act or is a separate act I don't think is a major problem. There is a difficulty I have run across instances where manufactured-home park owners....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. For the sake of Hansard and perhaps of other people, could the minister or the opposition member clarify what we're actually discussing. Is it mobile homes and manufactured homes? If it could be sorted out just for the record....

HON. L. HANSON: The term used for a number of years has been mobile homes, simply because they are movable. Recently there has been a trend towards having that name changed to manufactured homes, which the people in the business and the people who live in them feel is more appropriate.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are synonymous.

HON. L. HANSON: Yes. So anytime that is used, it is synonymous. I will try and keep my remarks to the manufactured-home reference.

I have seen some instances where there are agreements that have some unreasonable clauses, and I don't think there's any question that those clauses are not enforceable. There is a sense that no matter what coercion is used to get them to sign it, individuals have that fear if they do sign it, even though there isn't, in fact, any legality that can be forced on the tenant to live by those unreasonable clauses.

It is a fact that in the case of a manufactured-home owner, they probably have a larger investment in the home than in the lot they're occupying, and that is the substance of one of their concerns. All the things mentioned by the member are a question of security in the minds of a lot of people, security of tenure and various things.

The member mentioned moving costs. While it might be acknowledged that they are high, in my part of the country they aren't that high. So it isn't easy to set a figure appropriate to all British Columbia.

The other thing is availability. One of the difficulties is that there is, I suppose, a shortage of land that is zoned properly, which would allow manufactured home parks to increase in number. Generally it is a municipal or regional district difficulty, because they have some concern about providing that or there is a reluctance on the part of....

Some of the initiatives announced in the throne speech dealing with housing and so on will also apply to manufactured-home lots, parks, zoning and so on. We hope that through an increase in supply, some of these difficulties will resolve themselves.

About two years ago, or maybe even longer, I had hoped that I could get the manufactured-home manufacturers' association, the manufactured-home park association and the mobile-home owners' association to sit down at a table and discuss some of those difficulties. I think there are a number of things that could be reached as a consensus — maybe not everything, but a number of things. About a month ago I instructed my assistant deputy minister in charge of that to try and get that meeting organized again. There was a problem in getting the group to meet the last time it was attempted. It's my hope that

[ Page 6975 ]

we will get those representatives together to discuss the issues, put them on the table and find out the various reasons why these difficulties occur.

[11:15]

The member opposite would certainly agree that there is a need in any change or legislation for changes to be balanced and to look after the interests not only of the tenants but also of the people who have the parks themselves. In any case, it is my hope we will have those meetings start and hopefully have some consensus on those things that can be dealt with in the legislation.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to ask the minister some questions around the Knight Street Pub. This is an interesting story in terms of the minister's involvement in this whole situation. It's clear that from the outset, when Mr. Peter Toigo originally developed the lands upon which the pub was established, he said on several occasions that it was his job to come up with a turnkey development that Ms. McRobbie could take over, despite the fact that there was a moratorium in place at the time.

Mr. Toigo has also been quoted in the press as having had conversations with Mr. Andersen prior to turning over the ownership of the facility to Ms. McRobbie. Could the minister tell me what conversations Mr. Toigo had with the ministry's liquor licensing people after the site was turned over to Ms. McRobbie?

HON. L. HANSON: To my knowledge, none. I wouldn't say that there weren't any, but I certainly had no knowledge of them. I am sure that the member recognizes that when we deal with liquor licensing issues, they are handled at the staff level, unless there is an appeal or some other problem arises. I know of no conversations that that gentleman had with any members of my branch. I don't deny that there were some; I don't know that there were any; I just don't know of any. I really don't get involved in those sorts of situations until there is an issue that requires my attention.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I want to add a few words to the Knight Street Pub question, now that it has been raised by the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. The Knight Street Pub happens to be in the riding of Vancouver South, which is represented by yourself and by me.

I would like the record to show that every single letter and every single phone call that comes into the riding office in Vancouver South is logged and recorded. Some of the people who complained about the pub didn't write very many letters or make very many phone calls. In fact, we had exactly one. The important thing is that when we did receive some comments about the Knight Street Pub in the riding, we said to all concerned: "If you have any evidence that suggests there is wrongdoing, give it to the members for Vancouver South, give it to the minister responsible, give it to the RCMP, give it to the Attorney-General, but don't just talk about it. Deliver the evidence and something will happen." That is exactly how it was stated to all concerned: if they had any problems giving it to anybody who's elected, go to the police.

I would like to say to you that as far as we are concerned in the Vancouver South, everything that could have been done by us was done.

MR. SIHOTA: I'd like to ask the minister this question. There are other situations where the minister might not be fully aware of or informed about what's going on with pub applications, but this is one that his ministry has investigated, so I would expect him to know a lot more about the situation in terms of any representations Mr. Toigo made to his people than he would in most normal pub applications. There's a ministerial investigation.

Mr. Toigo, as we know, constructed the facility in March 1987, after the government moratorium was imposed. It begs the obvious question: why would someone build with a moratorium in place unless they knew something was up? He then turned over the operation to Ms. McRobbie. In September 1986, she made the application. The licence was granted in 1987, despite the fact that somebody else had made a similar application in Vancouver South. Mr. Toigo had made representations to Mr. Andersen prior to those dates. Again to the minister, what representations did he make to Mr. Andersen after that time?

HON. L. HANSON: I know of no representation that he made to Andersen. I'm not denying that he did. Andersen was no longer in the ministry when this became an issue, and I have no knowledge.... I'm not denying there were conversations, but I don't know what they were nor was I ever made aware of them, nor were they ever raised as an issue. I would suspect that the member is aware of the investigation that went on, that probably there were interviews by those.... The police and maybe the ombudsman interviewed Mr. Andersen, but I have no knowledge of what those were. I think the transfer from the former owner, Toigo, to McRobbie — the purchase of the land and assets — was before the issue came to my attention, but I am not sure of that.

MR. SIHOTA: Apart from Mr. Andersen, did his ministry during the internal investigation determine whether Mr. Toigo made any representations to any liquor licensing officials after the time that it was turned over to Ms. McRobbie?

HON. L. HANSON: Certainly not that I am aware of. I would imagine the member was aware of the coverage that was afforded the issue by CTV, and it was never raised, that I know of.

MR. SIHOTA: If the minister is relying on BCTV to do his investigation for him.... It seems to me the minister ought to be doing his own investigation to find out what's going on, not relying on the media. He obviously has access to information in his minis-

[ Page 6976 ]

try beyond that which any of us outside the ministry would have.

No one person, as I understand it, can have more than one pub. What steps did his ministry take to ascertain that there was no financial connection between Mr. Toigo and Ms. McRobbie? In other words, what investigations did you take to determine that Ms. McRobbie was not a front person for Mr. Toigo with respect to the application at Knight Street?

HON. L. HANSON: There isn't any restriction that I know of, Mr. Chairman, for an individual to own as a landlord a number of premises that may be rented. Our branch dealt with the application from Ms. McRobbie for a liquor licence on the basis of the normal investigation that is done. We need proof that the licence applicant does have an interest in the premises that are going to be licensed — or control of those premises for a period of time, either through a lease or through the ownership of the land in itself. If it's a company, we ask for statements from the shareholders and so on — if there are more than one — as to their ownership of the company. We ask for financial statements also. To the best of our knowledge, there was no hidden ownership of the licence or the operation as such. There certainly was an ownership by Toigo originally of the land, but it was shown to our satisfaction that the licence applicant had control of the operation of the premises for the licensing purpose.

MR. SIHOTA: What investigation did his ministry conduct to determine that there was no linkage between Mr. Toigo and Ms. McRobbie? What investigations did his ministry conduct — and I'd like the minister to answer this question with precision — to determine that Ms. McRobbie was in no way fronting for Mr. Toigo?

HON. L. HANSON: Again, Ms. McRobbie had an agreement to purchase the land. As far as we were concerned, our other investigations didn't show any undue relationship with Toigo as far as the licence was concerned.

MR. SIHOTA: In relation to the purchase of the land, which I think took place for about $300,000 from Whitbury Holdings, the situation was that given that the amount of borrowing that Ms.... It seems to me that when the ministry is looking at it, they would look at who the applicant is; what type of equity they have in the investment in the land; and how they financed the acquisition of the facility. There was an inordinately heavy borrowing by Ms. McRobbie on one hand. Any public documentation revealed on this matter so far did not show that she had the equity with which to lever that level of borrowing. This would lead one to conclude that there must be some guarantors with respect to her borrowings.

On the face of it, the fact that she didn't have the equity to lever an appropriate borrowing surely would get the ministry to look behind the veil and see whether or not others were involved in the application, so as not to violate the rule that I spoke of earlier on — namely, one licence per person.

Once you were able to see that she had bought it, and that she didn't have the equity which was straightforward to do the heavy borrowing that she did, what steps did your ministry take to determine whether others were involved with her with respect to that licence and to determine whether that rule had been violated?

HON. L. HANSON: That's not a rule; it's a policy that the member is referring to. I don't know that there is a restriction on someone loaning someone money, and I don't know that this is the case. Where the licence applicant starts financing is not a general concern of the licensing process. We look at the company formation and that sort of thing. In our investigation — although we don't go into the case history of everyone in the depth that the member is suggesting — there was no association with Toigo in the operation of the pub as well as the licence application. When we deal with a licence application, we don't go to the person's banker or their source of funding to finance the operation. I am not sure that in the licensing process it is appropriate that we do that.

The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head would like to....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair will recognize the first member standing. That's the tradition in the House. The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, being the first member standing, has the floor.

[11:30]

MR. B.R. SMITH: I am going to make an introduction, and I thank the Minister of Labour for yielding to me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You require leave for an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. B.R. SMITH: I would like to introduce 25 students from Frank Hobbs Elementary School in my riding, along with their teacher, Miss Crawford, and some parents. They are here to observe the Legislature. Grade 5 is certainly a higher level than some of the proceedings that we have had here from time to time. They picked a particularly good day: the day on which the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) is not on his feet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the member not to abuse the privileges of introductions by elaborating beyond the normal courtesies that we afford members.

MR. SIHOTA: What proof then did the ministry have in its possession to satisfy itself that Mr. Toigo was not effectively involved in this pub application?

[ Page 6977 ]

HON. L. HANSON: The majority of the ministry's investigation was on the referendum issue that was raised, and I'm sure the member is aware of that. We do recognize some difficulties where a number of people in a family have started pubs in different locations. We preclude an individual from owning more than one pub. We do a search in the case of a company to see who the shareholders are and so on, or at least the shareholders of record. I suppose there are methods — maybe the member is aware of a method that we aren't — of circumventing that issue. We have an applicant; we do some research, but we don't do a criminal investigation or an in depth investigation into the applicant. We do a character investigation on the individual; but we don't, as I said earlier, go to his sources of financing and so on to make sure that there isn't any difficulty.

I'm not sure what the member is getting at. Does he have knowledge that the individual named owned the pub?

MR. SIHOTA: It seems to me somewhat cavalier, the minister's approach saying that we did not do any in-depth analysis to determine whether or not Mr. Toigo was involved in this pub, or whether he had severed his relationship entirely with Ms. McRobbie and was not involved at all. There are a lot of extenuating circumstances which would point to Mr. Toigo's involvement. They range from his previous ownership of that land, to his reported relationship with the applicant, to the applicant's financial status at the time; all of which would warrant something more in depth.

This ministry has been noted throughout this entire matter for not having done much in-depth work in terms of looking at all of the stones that remain that must be overturned in this whole incident. The proof of that, in part, lies in the internal investigation that you conducted.

I'm going to ask the minister this question again. If you aren't able to tell us here today whether Mr. Toigo communicated with liquor licensing in any way after he sold to Ms. McRobbie — if you don't have that information with you here today — would you be agreeable to going back to your officials, finding out the answer and tabling the response in the House?

HON. L. HANSON: First of all, maybe the member could explain to me, if there was some conversation afterwards, what the problem was with it. I might look at his request slightly differently. It's interesting to note that the member is very satisfied not only with the ombudsman's report but also with the other investigation that went on. It didn't turn up anything along those lines. If the member has some knowledge that there was some contravention, he should table those with us, and we would investigate.

MR. SIHOTA: The issue here, quite frankly — if the minister hasn't seen it yet — is the matter of Mr. Toigo's ongoing, subsisting interest in the pub after he purportedly severed his relationship. Is it true, in fact, that he was only setting it up as a turnkey operation, or did he have an interest greater than that? That's the issue.

There are some indicia which would point to that. Therefore it is incumbent upon the ministry to investigate to see whether or not those indicia crystallize in a finding of just that.

I want to ask the minister another question. What role did Mr. Poole play in the ministry's internal investigation of the Knight Street Pub matter?

HON. L. HANSON: None whatsoever.

MR. SIHOTA: Did Mr. Poole conduct the inquiry? If not, who did?

HON. L. HANSON: I think it very clearly shows that I said "none." That should provide the same answer.

MR. SIHOTA: Was Mr. Poole interviewed during the course of the internal ministerial inquiry as to any role that he may have played with respect to that pub application?

HON. L. HANSON: I don't know whether he was interviewed or not. I don't know whether he was interviewed by the ombudsman or in the other investigation done by the police force. The investigation that was carried on as far as my ministry was concerned was into the referendum. We examined those allegations made as a result of some information provided by a resident in the area. I know of no reason why we would interview Mr. Poole.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister has admitted subsequently that the minister himself was aware of conversations which had occurred between Mr. Poole and Mr. Hick with respect to the granting of Delta Media Services....

MR. DAVIDSON: On a point of order, I must remind the member that currently there is a court case imminent involving that very matter. I would think that with the member's experience and knowledge, he would be very well aware of that. Certainly the area that he is pursuing at this time is flying counter to every rule of this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Members are aware that items that are sub judice may not be discussed, but since the member is a member of the bar, I presume he will take those admonishments by the member for Delta under advisement and continue this debate.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, I am well aware of the case that's pending before the court, and I don't intend to ask questions that relate to the role of the accused in this matter. My question was to the minister. The minister was aware that certain representations had been made by Mr. Poole to Mr. Hick with respect to the appointment of Delta Media Services to conduct the referendum. The minister

[ Page 6978 ]

being aware of that, did he not think it necessary to look into that matter during the course of his own internal inquiry? Is he telling us today that his internal inquiry did not look into the matter at all?

HON. L. HANSON: The inquiries that my ministry did were focused on the allegations provided by the resident of the area and were limited to that. The review of the polling company's process was what we were reviewing. Certainly after the issue was complete, the polling company was dealt with within the ministry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee is advised by the Chair that if it is a criminal case, then no discussion of the issue can take place. If it's a civil matter, the remarks made by members here may have an effect on the case. I haven't the wisdom of the Clerks to give you a total interpretation, but since the subject is under discussion right now, I would just caution members so that we don't affect the outcome of someone's proceedings in the courts.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister admits being told about Mr. Poole's call to Mr. Hick seeking a favour for the Premier's former campaign manager. The minister says that he didn't see anything wrong with it at the time. Does he see anything wrong with it now?

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I think the advice about the issue that's before the court is very appropriate under those circumstances.

My ministry looked at the issue of the referendum and not the other things that were involved at that time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: For the sake of order here, I am going to try using the learned Mr. MacMinn's second edition of Parliamentary Practice, page 58:

"A matter is sub judice during the following period of time:

"Criminal matter — from time charge laid to passing of sentence and from date of filing notice of appeal to date decision given by appellate court. Between sentence and filing notice of appeal matter is not sub judice, subject always to the discretion of the Chair.

"Civil matter — from time matter set down for trial (or notice of motion filed as in an injunction proceeding) until judgment (oral or written). Likewise from filing notice of appeal until judgment by appellate court. In British Columbia the practice has been to consider the matter sub judice once a writ has been issued."

It's on page 58 if members would like to refer to it for their own guidance. The Chair is merely trying to guide the committee in this way.

MR. SIHOTA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, the question, if one listens to it carefully, has nothing to do with any of the parties before the courts, but everything to do with what the minister would consider proper.

Let me ask the minister the same question again. He admits being told about Mr. Poole's call to Mr. Hick seeking a favour for an individual, and that individual, of course, was known to the Premier. The minister said at that time that he did not see anything wrong with that conversation. Does he see anything wrong with it now?

HON. L. HANSON: The member is suggesting, in his learned manner, that Mr. Poole's call to Mr. Hick was interpreted as a request for a favour. That's not the knowledge I was given, but I guess he's entitled to that interpretation if he wishes. The fact is that I was told of this call, but I was not told of the call when it was made. I was told of the call when the issue was raised, and the issue at that point was the validity of the referendum.

[11:45]

MR. SIHOTA: Let's just get this clear. What do you need? Do you need someone with something stamped on their forehead saying: "I've got some concerns about this call"? Surely the minister must concede that Mr. Hick probably would not have told him about the call unless he was concerned about it. That only stands to reason. In retrospect, does the minister not see anything wrong with his reaction at the time when he said he didn't see anything wrong with the call? Surely, Mr. Minister, you've got to concede now that there was a critical failure of judgment by yourself in not reacting to what Mr. Hick told you.

HON. L. HANSON: I totally disagree with the member's opinion. He's entitled to his opinion. I don't agree with it. I've said publicly many times that the issue before me at the time was not the question of Delta Media Services being a firm authorized to conduct referendums. It was a question of whether the referendum that was held was a legitimate one or not. Even the ombudsman said that he felt that the call was probably inappropriate, but he didn't deal with it in any depth. Our investigation was not to investigate that call or Delta Media Services; it was to investigate the validity of the referendum.

MR. SIHOTA: We'll get to the minister's internal investigation in a minute. Is the minister saying that if he were to get a call today from an official telling him that he ought to provide a favour for the Premier's friend, he would not see anything wrong with that request and would not twig to the fact that this is an issue that he must be concerned about?

Interjection.

HON. L. HANSON: I heard a remark that the member is bending, and I think he has been bending the whole thing since he started.

In any case, the call from Mr. Hick, or at least the knowledge that was given me about the call, was

[ Page 6979 ]

long after the fact. At that point the referendum was in question, not the phone call. I would hope that if my staff received a call, they would advise me of that call when the call was made, not sometime later. That was after the issue of the referendum's validity.

MR. SIHOTA: The Attorney-General of the day, the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head (Mr. B.R. Smith), appreciated the consequences of that representation by Mr. Poole to Mr. Hick. I believe the comment was: "There won't be any problems with putting Delta Media Services on the list, will there be?" Now the Attorney-General of the day twigged to the significance of that representation, and he moved with dispatch — to his credit — on that matter. The ombudsman identified it as political interference. Is the minister saying that he still doesn't see it today as a matter of concern? And will he not agree that his comment that he didn't see anything wrong with it at the time begs the question as to whether he sees anything wrong with it now? Surely, Mr. Minister, you've got to concede that there was a critical failure of judgment on your part in failing to react to that representation from Mr. Hick in the same fashion that the ombudsman and the Attorney-General of the day did. Do you concede that now?

HON. L. HANSON: I certainly do not concede that, nor was that the way the representation was made to me. I think what the member is insinuating is that Mr. Giordano would not be put on the list of approved referendum companies if it hadn't been for that phone call, and that's just not true. I've been assured about that by the former general manager.

MR. SIHOTA: The Vancouver Sun on August 27, 1988, said: "At least Mr. Hanson was apathetic or blind, if not irresponsible, in failing to act on what he was told by Mr. Hick. Such poor judgment ill qualifies him for a major cabinet position. He should carefully consider, and so should Mr. Vander Zalm, his effectiveness after this episode."

The Leader of the Opposition commented on the absence of judgment and asked for the minister's resignation.

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: I tell you he's right, if the minister to this day remains unrepentant in the fashion that he's articulated in this House. A critical failure of judgment, Mr. Minister, that's what that was.

The ombudsman, in the course of his inquiry, found — apart from other things — nine ballots from addresses that did not exist, several....

MR. DAVIDSON: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. With the greatest of respect, the matter now being canvassed by that member clearly, directly and completely relates to the matter presently before the courts. If the Chair is not willing to bring this matter to his attention, then somewhere along the line something has to be done to remind this member again that there is an obligation, particularly from this member who is a member of the bar, not only to adhere to the rules of this House but to those of the justice system. Surely, Mr. Chairman, this is going too far.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't particularly appreciate the challenge to the Chair. I think if a member is concerned about a violation of the rules, just bring the matter to the attention of the Chair. The matter is a grey area. The Chair has not been advised of whether it's a civil or a criminal matter by either the member for Delta or the minister or, for that matter, the Attorney-General or anyone else. We seek at least that information before making a decision. I have read from Mr. MacMinn's copy of Parliamentary Practice and advise the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew of the rules in this particular case.

MR. DAVIDSON: I apologize if my remarks were slanted towards the Chair. I thought I had made it clear that a criminal matter is being discussed involving the individual who is before the courts. It is a criminal matter. There are criminal charges. There are witnesses being called, and all involves the very discussions that we are having at this time. I think, with the greatest of respect, Mr. Chairman, and certainly to the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, that he more than anyone else in the House should be aware of the limitations of debate on this matter.

MR. SIHOTA: If the member had waited for a second and let me finish my question, he'd find that it had nothing to do with the charges, which I understand relate to the non-providing of accurate information to the ombudsman. Mr. Owen, in his investigation, found nine ballots from addresses that didn't exist, several duplicated ballots bearing the same name and address and over 20 other ballots which raised their suspicion for a variety of reasons.

Could the minister explain why his internal investigation did not discover those discrepancies?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I recognize the minister, it's very close to lunch time. Members may have an opportunity over the luncheon break to consult with both the rules and perhaps with legal counsel to make sure that we are on fair ground. I'll leave that to the minister.

HON. L. HANSON: Just a very quick answer, Mr. Chairman. I believe the 28 ballots in question — or at least those that were raised to the ministry as a result of the individual who lived there — were the focus of our investigation. When the ombudsman pointed out the number of difficulties he had found, it was obvious that there were more difficulties than had been raised. I make no excuses for my staff, who are not professional investigators. I have to credit the

[ Page 6980 ]

ombudsman's staff for finding those difficulties. I think they did a good job.

Mr. Chairman, it might be appropriate to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Ree moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.