[ Page 7099 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Sale of Westwood land. Mr. Rose –– 7099

Labour minister's involvement in alleged political interference.

Mr. Sihota –– 7099

Mr. Harcourt

Dumping of dredged material on Westwood Plateau land. Mr. Cashore –– 7100

Labour minister's involvement in alleged political interference.

Mr. Sihota –– 7100

Factory closures in Kootenay and Thompson-Okanagan regions.

Ms. Edwards –– 7101

Labour minister's involvement in alleged political interference.

Mr. Harcourt –– 7101

Tabling Documents –– 7101

Home Mortgage Assistance Program Act (Bill 22). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 7102

Mr. Clark –– 7103

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 7104

International Trusts Act (Bill 18). Committee stage. (Hon. S.D. Smith) –– 7104

Third reading

Supreme Court Act (Bill 23). Second reading

Hon. S.D. Smith –– 7104

Mr. Sihota –– 7105

Hon. S.D. Smith –– 7105

Court Rules Act (Bill 24). Second reading

Hon. S.D. Smith –– 7106

Mr. Sihota –– 7106

Hon. S.D. Smith –– 7107

Small Claims Act (Bill 25). Second reading

Hon. S.D. Smith –– 7107

Mr. Sihota –– 7108

Hon. S.D. Smith –– 7109

Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 12). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 7109

Mr. Clark –– 7109

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 7110

Public Trustee Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 11). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 7110

Mr. Sihota –– 7110

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 7110

Tobacco Tax Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 13). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 7110

Mr. Clark –– 7111

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 7111

justice Reform Statutes Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 26). Second reading

Hon. S.D. Smith –– 7112

Mr. Sihota –– 7113

Hon. S.D. Smith –– 7114

Seminary of Christ the King Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill PR401). Second reading

Mr. Jacobsen –– 7114

Continuing Care Act (Bill 15). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Dueck) –– 7114

Ms. A. Hagen

Third reading

Personal Property Security Act (Bill 28). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 7124

Mr. Clark –– 7125

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 7125

Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1989 (Bill 5). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Couvelier) –– 7125

Mr. Clark

Mr. Miller

Third reading

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. PELTON: Hon. members, this afternoon I would like to introduce to you John and Elizabeth Travis. John Travis is a clergyman and was minister to St. Andrew's United Church in Maple Ridge for some years until recently, when he retired and moved to Victoria. Would you please welcome John and Elizabeth to the Legislature.

MR. LOENEN: On behalf of the Premier and myself, it's always a pleasure to welcome constituents. Today in the members' gallery we have Sid Treur. Sid makes a contribution to our community in many ways. Recently he was appointed to the GVRD transportation study. With him is his wife Jan. They are accompanied by guests from Brampton, Ontario: John Saly and his son Anthony Saly. Would the House please welcome them.

MR. RABBITT: Today, on behalf of my colleagues from the Okanagan, namely the first member (Mr. Serwa) and second member (Mr. Chalmers) for Okanagan South, I would like to introduce to the House and ask the House to welcome 63 students from Westbank Elementary. Accompanying them is their vice-principal, George Waldo — who is also the mayor of Peachland — a teacher, Wayne Lawrence, and parents Rod Barrett, Marguerite Taylor, Linda Cody, Ruby Eikenaar, Marlene Crosby and Stan Coster. Would the House please give these students a very warm welcome.

Oral Questions

SALE OF WESTWOOD LAND

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct an unexpected question to the Minister of Crown Lands concerning the sale of the Westwood Plateau to a single developer, in spite of much advice to the contrary from both within and without his party. I want to know if the minister is prepared to table the contract with Wesbild in this House today.

HON. MR. DIRKS: The closing of that deal is actually scheduled for June 29, and release of that sale agreement will be at the option of the buyer.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, it took almost a year for us to get the Expo contract when that deal was announced. We had to wait at least a year. Can the minister tell us now when he will make the Westwood sale agreement public — because it's public land; it's not just the buyer's land — and also the competing bids, so that this House and the people of this province can decide for themselves whether we have a good deal, or whether we were taken to the cleaners?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Speaker, I'm very proud of the process that we followed in selling the Westwood lands, and we will certainly reveal those to the public.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary. I wonder if the minister can tell us whether or not any of the members on the government side, in terms of the back bench, have seen this deal. Presumably they have, because at least one of your back-bench MLAs has called this deal "stupid."

LABOUR MINISTER'S INVOLVEMENT IN
ALLEGED POLITICAL INTERFERENCE

MR. SIHOTA: I have a question to the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. Lee Doney conducted the ministry's internal investigation with respect to the referendum on the Knight Street Pub affair. Did Mr. Doney know of the call between Mr. Poole and Mr. Hick prior to the writing of his report?

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I don't have that knowledge, but I can take the question on notice and find out.

MR. SIHOTA: Did the minister never discuss the call between Mr. Poole and Mr. Hick with Mr. Doney during the course of his work on the internal report? The minister has admitted that he knew about the call before the internal report. Did he never discuss it with him at that time?

HON. L. HANSON: Again, I don't have that recollection. I know that Mr. Doney was aware of it, but I'm not sure at what time.

MR. HARCOURT: I have a question for the Premier. The Premier has attacked the media and the opposition for doing their job. The Premier is the only one who doesn't recognize that the issue is neither Mr. Hick nor Mr. Poole. The issue is the minister and the Premier, who condone lying to cover up a political scandal. Does the Premier accept that on this issue the buck stops with him?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: What was the question again? Could you repeat it?

MR. HARCOURT: Does the Premier accept that on this issue the buck stops with him?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: As I said yesterday, I am satisfied that the minister considered all the information, including the ombudsman's report, and took the necessary steps to respond to what needed doing. I am satisfied with the resolution of it.

MR. HARCOURT: It was only a few days ago in this House, contrary to what the Premier said yesterday, that the minister admitted that he'd covered up a lie. The opposition has done its duty by raising this issue. The media has done its duty by reporting it.

[ Page 7100 ]

Your duty, Mr. Premier, is to ensure that a standard of morality is adhered to. When are you going to do your duty and ask for the minister's resignation?

HON. L. HANSON: On a point of order. I heard the Leader of the Opposition suggest that I'd covered up a lie. That is unparliamentary and just not true, and I ask the member opposite to withdraw it.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I will refer you to the minister's own remarks of last week in Hansard that were read out by the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition knows that in a parliamentary democracy, if a member is offended at the statement of another member and asks for its withdrawal, the member under parliamentary procedure would withdraw the statement.

[2:15]

MR. HARCOURT: I will withdraw that statement Mr. Speaker, and refer to the Hansard when the minister made some statements.

DUMPING OF DREDGED MATERIAL
ON WESTWOOD PLATEAU LAND

MR. CASHORE: A question for the Minister Responsible for Crown Lands in his capacity as acting Minister of Environment. It was reported that 60,000 cubic yards of dredged material from False Creek were dumped in the vicinity of the Westwood Plateau. Can the minister advise this House whether the government gave permission for the dumping of this material?

HON. MR. DIRKS: I will take that question as notice.

MR. CASHORE: A new question to the same minister. In light of the serious soil contamination known to exist in False Creek, has the government tested this material to determine its toxicity?

HON. MR. DIRKS: I don't think I'm quite clear as to which land he is asking me to test.

MR. CASHORE: I'm referring to land in the vicinity of the Westwood Plateau.

A further supplementary. Can the minister tell the House who is responsible for cleaning up this soil should it prove to be contaminated?

HON. MR. DIRKS: There is no proof that the soil is contaminated or that it came from that position in the first place.

LABOUR MINISTER'S INVOLVEMENT IN
ALLEGED POLITICAL INTERFERENCE

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Giordano was the Premier's campaign manager's close friend. Has the Premier ever discussed with Mr. Giordano the matter of Mr. Giordano's company being allowed to conduct pub referendums?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Toigo talked to the Premier on a regular basis, as much as three or four times a day. Good, close friends. Did Mr. Toigo ever approach the Premier as to allowing Mr. Giordano's company to conduct pub referendums in British Columbia?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: First of all, I didn't know that I had the opportunity or the time to speak to one person so frequently, but that's obviously again an assumption that we tend to hear from that member and upon which he bases his questions. The answer is no.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Poole was the Premier's righthand man, and of course they talked daily. Mr. Poole called Mr. Hick to ask for a favour for the Premier's campaign manager. Did the Premier ever discuss with Mr. Poole the matter of placing his campaign manager's company on the list of companies to conduct referendums with respect to pubs?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The answer is no.

MR. SIHOTA: We're talking here about the Premier's inner circle, his closest friends. The Premier would have us believe that all of his friends acted together, yet in isolation of the Premier. It's pretty hard to believe.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Is the member questioning the integrity of another member? If he is, I wish he would withdraw the question.

MR. SIHOTA: Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier would have us believe from his answers that his friends acted in isolation of him. The question to the Premier is this: isn't it true that the only reason the Premier is protecting the Minister of Labour is that the Minister of Labour has gone out of his way to protect the Premier on this matter?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that he withdraw. He's attributing motives which certainly I can't accept.

MR. SPEAKER: Withdrawal is asked for.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I'm explaining the intention of the question. The question is to ask the Premier to....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[ Page 7101 ]

MR. SIHOTA: I'll withdraw the motive if that's the way the Premier interprets it.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. Has the member got a new question?

MR. SIHOTA: No, we'll leave it at that.

HON. S. HAGEN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, was the statement withdrawn?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, it was.

FACTORY CLOSURES IN KOOTENAY AND
THOMPSON-OKANAGAN REGIONS

MS. EDWARDS: I've a question for the Minister of State for Thompson-Okanagan and Kootenay. Consumers Glass has announced that its Alberta and B.C. operations must be rationalized by closing one of the plants, possibly the one at Lavington near Vernon, and Alberta has committed to keep its Redcliff plant from closing. Are you as the minister for the region prepared to make a commitment to take whatever steps are necessary to prevent the loss of about 450 jobs at Lavington?

HON. MR. DIRKS: I'm very pleased to say that I did meet with Consumers Glass last year. I had quite an extensive meeting with them, and I'm sure that we will do whatever is possible to save the jobs at Lavington.

MS. EDWARDS: Supplementary question to the minister. Mr. Minister, the major breweries are increasing their use of cans as opposed to bottles. The cans can be priced more cheaply. This threatens small plants, including one in your riding, which is the Columbia Brewing plant in Creston which employs 200 people. Can the minister tell me what steps he has decided to take to preserve small, regional breweries like the one at Creston and the employment that they provide?

HON. MR. DIRKS: I really don't think we've got time in question period to answer a question quite as wide-open as that. Let it be said, though, that I have met with the president of the brewing company. I am very aware of their problems and the problems that are presented to the brewing industry by the import of canned beer. I am working with the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services (Hon. L. Hanson) to see what can be done.

LABOUR MINISTERS INVOLVEMENT IN
ALLEGED POLITICAL INTERFERENCE

MR. HARCOURT: Again, to the Premier. As I said earlier, a few days ago in this Legislature, the minister said that he had heard a lie from his official sitting right beside him. He was stunned by it. He admitted he did nothing about it. Basically, what he said is that he condoned a lie. Mr. Premier, when are you going to do your duty and ask for this minister's resignation?

HON. L. HANSON: On a point of order, I again find the Leader of the Opposition stepping over the bounds of reality and fair play. I certainly would ask him to withdraw that.

MR. HARCOURT: I am saying what the minister said in this House. I am saying that the Premier has still not answered my question: when are you going to ask for this minister's resignation, Mr. Premier?

MR. SPEAKER: Government House Leader on the same point of order.

HON. S. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, I think that generally speaking in this House the debates and the questions are carried on in a reasonable manner. But obviously today the Leader of the Opposition has stepped over that boundary of fair play. I request again that the statement be withdrawn.

MR. ROSE: The Leader of the Opposition withdrew an earlier allegation, but it is very difficult for any of us — no matter how charitable we might be. Last Thursday the minister said in this House during the debate of his estimates that he heard Mr. Hick lie at a press conference. He admitted: "As I said earlier, the knowledge that I had was different than an answer that was given there. I guess that would equate to lying." Our Leader of the Opposition has suggested....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: We're not quite finished. It will be your turn in a second.

I am just quoting the Minister of Labour. It seems to me that if the minister has said that in the House, which he has, and later admitted that he did nothing about it — he didn't do anything to correct it at that time, or at least up until the time that the ombudsman began to look into it — then he obviously has condoned the lie because of omission. He has said nothing.

HON. L. HANSON: I am pleased that the opposition House Leader can read that well. Certainly that was not the request for withdrawal. The request for withdrawal was the statement that I condoned it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Municipal Affairs on the same point of order?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: No, but I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I would like to talk about the last one.

The Leader of the Opposition is saying that the minister said something and that he condoned it. The member is asking him to withdraw the word "con-

[ Page 7102 ]

done, " and I think that's fair. Under parliamentary tradition, if a member asks another member to withdraw a statement about his integrity, it should be done. I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the word "condone."

MR. HARCOURT: I feel very strongly about this issue. I think it goes right to the heart of the integrity that the people of this province expect from the government of this province. The minister's actions — his statements here — are exactly what I said. I will not withdraw the remark that I made.

HON. S.D. SMITH: On the same point of order. The Leader of the Opposition has set himself up nicely to be asked to be removed from the House. He has even come today for the television cameras with a flower in his lapel. Mr. Speaker, I ask that if he does not withdraw his remarks, he be removed.

MR. LOVICK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely if there were ever a glaring demonstration of imputing motive to somebody, we have just heard it. If the rules of procedure and decorum mean anything to the Attorney-General, surely he will leap to his feet and withdraw that remark.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the Leader of the Opposition have a comment to make on this same point of order?

MR. HARCOURT: Yes, I do indeed, Mr. Speaker. Impugning motives on why I am here is really a shameful statement by the Attorney-General. For his information, I'd like him to know that this flower was given to me by the Victoria Chamber of Commerce today at noon.

MR. SPEAKER: As Speaker of this Legislature, I also have the integrity of hundreds of years of parliaments to uphold, and I would suggest that the Leader of the Opposition withdraw his remark, and so should the Attorney-General. If the members do not wish to do so, they can both leave the House for the rest of the day.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Naturally I would not do anything to offend the House, and I know that the Leader of the Opposition would join with me in supporting you in supporting a hundred years of integrity of this parliament. I certainly will withdraw my comment, and I have no doubt that the Leader of the Opposition will as well.

MR. HARCOURT: I am proud of my 20 years of involvement as a public leader in this province. I do not say nor take these actions or these words lightly. I, with regret, will not withdraw those remarks.

[2:30]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I've withheld my comments until the conclusion of the discussion we've just heard, but 47A(a) of our standing orders as they apply to oral question period suggests that "only questions that are urgent and important shall be permitted." May we ask the Speaker to please review this section in an attempt to determine whether or not we can continually deal with subjects which in some cases are up to a year old?

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the member for her comments.

Hon. Mrs. Johnston tabled the British Columbia Transit report on conflict of interest and use of confidential information, prepared by Thorne Ernst and Whinney.

Mr. Speaker tabled the 1988 annual report of the ombudsman.

Hon. Mr. Parker tabled the 1987-88 annual report of the Ministry of Forests.

Orders of the Day

HON. S. HAGEN: I call second reading of Bill 22.

HOME MORTGAGE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM ACT

HON. MR. COUVELIER: This bill establishes the B.C. home mortgage assistance program. The intent of this program is to help eligible British Columbians purchase modestly priced homes. Under the program a home can mean a house, condominium, strata title or mobile home.

The intent to create the home mortgage assistance program was announced in the budget as part of the provincial housing action plan. The program demonstrates the government's continued commitment to address housing issues and overcome housing problems. The home mortgage assistance program supersedes and substantially improves upon the existing B.C. second mortgage program. Second mortgage loans will be replaced by provincial government loan guarantees.

In addition, the level of assistance available will increase. The maximum house price eligible for the program will be raised to $100,000 from the present $85,000, and the maximum value of assistance will rise from $10,000 to $12,000. This increased assistance will be of particular benefit to British Columbians outside the metropolitan Vancouver and Victoria areas. The target group for the new program is all British Columbia residents who have not received previous assistance from the home mortgage assistance program or its predecessor programs.

One of the most attractive features of the home mortgage assistance program is that it generally permits 95 percent financing. Even with mortgage insurance, the highest rate of financing usually available is 90 percent. Through the home mortgage assistance program, eligible purchasers will be able to apply for a mortgage with as little as 5 percent down payment. This low down payment requirement is particularly attractive to first-time home-buyers.

[ Page 7103 ]

In the case of high-ratio financing or where the lender insists on insurance, the guarantee will also have the additional benefit of reducing mortgage insurance costs. I should also point out that a high ratio mortgage with a provincial government guarantee attached will qualify for property purchase tax relief, announced in the budget speech.

This bill will permit the new program to be delivered to the public by provincially approved mortgage lenders. Eligible B.C. residents can apply for the program when they apply for their first mortgage or mobile home security instrument. Guarantees for second mortgages will also be available under some circumstances.

Private sector delivery of the program will greatly improve the application and approval process for mortgage assistance. Borrowers can apply for the guarantee when they arrange their first mortgage or second mortgage financing. This considerably improves an individual's access to the program. Financial institutions will be able to obtain initial approval for an application by telephone. Mortgage lenders will be responsible for the basic administration of the program. This reduces the cost to government.

Unlike the second mortgage program, the new mortgage assistance program will also permit loan guarantee assumptions in the case where both the buyer and the house are eligible for the program. Alternatively, should the buyer wish to assume a first mortgage that is not partially guaranteed by the government, it will be possible to obtain a government loan guarantee for a second mortgage.

Mr. Speaker, the new B.C. home mortgage assistance program has many advantages over the existing second mortgage program. The levels of assistance have been substantially increased. The program will be delivered locally throughout the province. The application process will be simpler and quicker, and there will be no delay in receiving assistance. The guarantee will be attached to a mortgage.

This bill also seeks to facilitate the transition between the B.C. second mortgage and home mortgage assistance programs. For this reason, an administrative amendment measure is introduced by this bill. Individuals who purchase a home before the new program comes into effect will be permitted three months to apply for a second mortgage. This change should not create a hardship for second mortgage applicants. Transactions closing on or after June 15, 1989, will be eligible for the new program.

In addition to establishing the new program, the Home Mortgage Assistance Program Act also authorizes the disposal of the existing B.C. second mortgage loan portfolio. The portfolio consists of loans made under the second mortgage and similar programs. As a result of an extensive tendering process, the second mortgage loan portfolio is being sold to the Bank of Montreal for approximately $275 million The completion date of the sale is June 22 this year The major impact of the sale will be that the government's administration costs will decline. With the exception that loan payments will now be made to the Bank of Montreal, there will be no impact on individual mortgagees. In order to retain control of debt collection decisions, the province will not transfer title to the mortgages and loans to the Bank of Montreal; instead, they will remain with the province. Additionally, the province will repurchase loans that later go into default, and undertake collection activities in its own right.

This bill demonstrates the government's continuing commitment to encouraging home-ownership, without abdicating our fiscal responsibilities. The program is aimed at moderately priced housing and is particularly beneficial to individuals who cannot easily amass large down payments. This would include first-time home-buyers.

Mr. Speaker, I move the bill now be read a second time.

MR. CLARK: In the absence of the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe), who would normally respond to what is arguably a housing issue as opposed to a finance issue, I'll stand in his stead.

It appears to me that this is a very, very, very modest "modest proposal." The housing crisis — and there really is one — is in the lower mainland, and this bill does nothing to deal with the housing crisis in the lower mainland. I understand that the ceiling for access to funds is for homes that are less than $100,000, and my information is that in March the average single-family home in Vancouver sold for $215,812. I think you'd be hard pressed to find even a condominium under $100,000. The crisis is in the lower mainland, and people outside the lower mainland can take advantage of this program. As I say, it's a very modest improvement. I have no problems supporting it, but it doesn't deal with the area where the housing crisis is, which is the lower mainland. It perhaps gives the appearance of some action on the part of the government. There is some action for some people in modest homes, but where the crisis is, in Vancouver and some other areas of the lower mainland, there are almost no homes, even condominiums, that would be eligible for this program.

In addition, it appears, in looking at the bill and listening to the minister, that there is some discrepancy. The bill talks about allowing the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council to make regulations. It's the regulations — the $100,000 maximum — that the minister alludes to, but the $100,000 figure is not in the bill, and I understand that. One doesn't want to enshrine in legislation a dollar figure which would be outdated at some time. Nevertheless, the bill is really an enabling bill which appears to me to imply that the work really hasn't been done yet. The bill just enables the government to do something, and most of the comments of the Minister of Finance at first reading, and again today, relate to the regulations that are yet to be in place. They should be in place shortly, but they are not in the bill.

In addition to that, I do have some concerns about the privatization of loan portfolios of the government, but I will canvass those in estimates, which I assume we'll get to shortly. I have some concern about the fact that the government is going to give

[ Page 7104 ]

the loan guarantee but the private sector will be delivering the loan. It seems to me that the current practice, where the loan is given by the government and guaranteed by the government, gives the government more control over dealing with defaults. So now we're in a situation where some profits may accrue to the private sector, but it's really the government that's carrying the can for any defaults on the loan. So there's a philosophical difference I have with the Minister of Finance, and it's contained in this bill. I have some concerns about it, but I will raise those in committee.

As I said, on balance it's a very, very, very modest proposal, one which helps some residents of British Columbia outside the lower mainland. For that reason, I don't have any problem supporting it. But it really doesn't come to grips with the housing crisis that exists in the lower mainland and nowhere else in British Columbia.

With that, I think that on this side of the House we will be supporting the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, the minister closes debate.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I am very delighted, being a modest man, to be told we're very, very, very modest with the bill, and further delighted that the opposition are going to support it — as I suspected they would, in view of the fact that it is such an enlightened piece of legislation obviously designed to address a very real social problem we have in society today.

For that reason then, I'll move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 22, Home Mortgage Assistance Program 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. VANDER ZALM: I call committee on Bill 18.

INTERNATIONAL TRUSTS ACT

The House in committee on Bill 18; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Schedule approved.

Title approved.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 18, International Trusts Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

[2:45]

HON. MR. REE: I call second reading of Bill 23.

SUPREME COURT ACT

HON. S.D. SMITH: It's a pleasure for me to rise and move second reading of Bill 23. This bill flows out of the Justice Reform Committee's terms of reference, which, among other things, were to determine the most appropriate court structure to meet the needs of this province now and in the future; and in particular, the relationship between the County and Supreme Courts and the delivery of court services outside our major population centres.

The question of merger of the Supreme and County Courts has been debated many times over the years in this province. Only British Columbia, Ontario and Nova Scotia still retain both their County and Supreme Courts or the equivalent of those County and Supreme Courts. Ontario itself recently announced a process that might end up with the merger of their courts.

The problem in British Columbia that we seek to address through this merger is that we have had an overflowing trial list in Vancouver, which in turn has led to pressure on court lists in the rest of the province and created an inequity in access to justice at that level outside Vancouver and Victoria. The Justice Reform Committee sought a compromise to address that backlog and those access problems as well as to increase access. It recommended a decentralization of the Supreme Court, with resident judges and increased jurisdiction of the County Court.

The response from the public and the bar — when I toured the province — was that many members of the judiciary found the compromise resolution to be less than satisfactory. Therefore I made a decision to go further than that recommended by the Justice Reform Committee report and to go ahead with a full merger at this time. I want to advise the House that I have been assured of the cooperation of all the Supreme and County Court judges to achieve merger by July 1, 1990, as is contemplated in the bill — or sooner, should that be possible as a result of the activities that are now taking place.

Judges of the new Supreme Court will be resident in every region, and they will travel throughout the regions. I believe that the benefits that will flow from this will be to provide better service for all British Columbians, to provide lower costs — or at least a cap on the costs — and less travel for litigants and lawyers. I believe we will see a smoother administration of justice and less confusion thereby for the public.

More importantly — indeed, most importantly — it is my view that this will increase access for citizens throughout our province. We have had, as I've said, many proposals from many people with respect to

[ Page 7105 ]

the merger of these courts. We have seen a bill before this House in 1969 to do just that.

I am pleased that the decision was left to me to merge these courts, because it is time that in fact that debate end, so that we can have Supreme Court service in the county of Prince Rupert, of Kootenay and of Yale. I'm particularly pleased that I received support for that decision from members of the bar, from members of the judiciary, from members of this House — including the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, who supported the decision to go ahead with this merger — as well as from members of the public and municipalities around the province.

With that, I move second reading of this bill.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to thank the Attorney-General for taking a few minutes out of his leadership campaign to show up in the House today. More importantly, I want to thank the Attorney-General for moving on a New Democrat initiative. As the Attorney-General knows, I was proud to sponsor a private member's bill on this matter some weeks before the Attorney-General saw fit to introduce the Supreme Court Act calling for a merger.

During the time of the introduction of our private member's bill, I was hopeful that we would have merger in our courts in British Columbia, that merger was an important step, and that provision for merger of our courts would take us beyond what the Hughes commission recommended. In my view, it was a prudent time to move with respect to merger of our courts.

I know that there was hesitation from the Attorney-General with respect to introducing this type of legislation. At the time we introduced our private member's bill, I encouraged him to follow our lead and to introduce this legislation. I'm relieved to know that the Attorney-General saw the wisdom of our ways and finally took the advice of members of the opposition.

Mr. Speaker, this is good legislation. It means that individuals in all portions of the province will have access to our Supreme Court — our highest court, barring the Court of Appeal in British Columbia. It means that people in all parts of the province — whether they reside in Kamloops, Prince George or the Kootenays — will have access to what in the past has been described as the Vancouver court of appeal. It's appropriate that they have the same accessibility to the courts as people in the more urban portions of the province do.

I want to also say, in relation to the Attorney-General's comments, that this legislation is one piece in ensuring that there is access to the courts — an equality of access throughout the province. The Supreme Court Act, through the initiative of merger and the spreading of Supreme Court judges throughout the province, certainly makes sure that the vehicle of the courts is available to the people of this province. Fundamental problems remain, however, the most fundamental being the matter of affordability, which of course limits access simply because people cannot afford the opportunity to resolve their disputes in court. A number of other initiatives are necessary to deal with the element of access. Some of those factors are evident in other legislation, which we will be talking about later this afternoon.

I remain deeply disappointed that inadequate measures are being taken to deal with access to the courts through the vehicle of legal aid. I'm disappointed that more affirmative actions weren't taken in that regard, particularly with respect to people who need access to resolve family disputes, to resolve matters of nominal monetary value; who need access in terms of assisting them as victims and in dealing with rules established by administrative tribunals, such as the Workers' Compensation Board, which may indeed be questionable and worthy of challenge in the courts.

Finally, of course, there's the failure of the government to introduce a fund to finance Charter cases so that people in this province have equal opportunity to utilize the Charter in front of the courts. That simply is not there right now, and it causes me some concern. Based on the study that I quoted earlier during estimates, of the 600 cases that have come before the courts with respect to Charter litigation, 66 have been commenced by groups that one would expect — in other words, women, native groups, groups asking for the assertion of equality of rights. The vast majority have really been triggered by corporate interests trying to deal with such things as Sunday-shopping legislation.

This legislation takes a significant step, I would say, towards bringing about access to the courts. By and in itself it does not provide the answer, and there have to be other initiatives on the part of government to deal with impediments to access to the courts. We'll be referring to a number of technical matters during the course of debate on this bill at committee stage, and I'll leave those comments until that time. Suffice it to say that in keeping with the introduction of our private member's bill, we will be supporting this act in its travels through this chamber, and we look forward to the speedy implementation of the legislation, preferably in advance of the July 1, 1990 date, if that can be achieved.

HON. S.D. SMITH: At this time I would like to move that the bill be read a second time and also give notice to the House that I will be making some floor amendments to the bill, the subject matter of which I will provide to the Clerk later today. Those amendments deal with a number of issues, clarifications and suggestions that have been made by members of the judiciary since this bill was introduced to the House. I've had tremendous cooperation from members of the judiciary through a very extensive consultative process, which does indeed continue.

The amendments relate to section 2 with respect to the notion of associate chief justices and the number of judges as a consequence of that, as well as dealing with sections 4, 6, 7, 12 and 49, which are to some extent consequential, with the exception of 12, which makes clear that a master will be a member in good standing of the Law Society.

[ Page 7106 ]

In closing debate on second reading, I want to reiterate that this legislation is long overdue. It will enhance the accessibility for people of their justice system in British Columbia and, most importantly, on the question of merger, it will bring the debate to a close once and for all in this province and let us get on with the more important business of trying to build the best Supreme Court of British Columbia that we can.

I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House.

Motion approved.

Bill 23, Supreme Court 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. S. HAGEN: I call second reading of Bill 24, Mr. Speaker.

COURT RULES ACT

HON. S.D. SMITH: This is the second bill in the package of bills that deal with the question of justice reform in the province. It is my pleasure to begin debate on Bill 24 by moving second reading.

[3:00]

This bill deals with the question of the court rules that are found in a number of statutes throughout our statute law. The power to make court rules in British Columbia now rests in nine different statutes. The purpose and principle of this bill is to consolidate rule-making power under a single act. We believe that doing that, we will move some way to simplify the law and make it more understandable, which is a stated intention of our reform package.

We also note that this bill, Bill 24, if passed by this House, will create the opportunity for us to build the economical litigation program, which I think members will find will be one of the more beneficial programs for their constituents throughout the province. It will provide an opportunity for persons to attend in court on their own in a regime of rules that will be substantially modified in terms of pre-trial activity, so that individuals may go forward themselves or, perhaps more importantly, they will be able to afford to retain counsel at a price that will be somewhat more consistent with the amount in dispute.

We think that it will help to treat those cases of $20,000 or less much more simply and therefore much more helpfully. That will provide us with a less expensive program and one in which there will be far greater access to the courts. That will also ensure that, for matters above the new outer limits that are proposed for the small-claims court, there will be a continuum of economical litigation opportunities as well as, in plain language, reduced procedures and enhanced access for individuals in our society.

It is my pleasure, as I say, to move second reading of this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Attorney-General seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, on your behalf it is indeed my pleasure to introduce a municipal representative from your community of West Vancouver, an alderman and a good friend of mine and many members in this House. Would the House please join me in welcoming Mr. Mark Sager.

MR. SIHOTA: Again, we will be supporting this legislation. It flows from the recommendations of the Hughes commission, recommendations which we endorse. Certainly, again, it is long overdue. I've often wondered, as someone who has practised law in this province, why it was that we didn't have one enactment to consolidate court rules. Certainly it's a long time coming. It was a much-welcomed recommendation within the Hughes report, and I can be confident that this legislation will get not only our support but our speedy passage.

I want to comment on one aspect of this legislation in general — and more specifically when we get into the next stage of debate — and that is this matter of economical litigation. The Attorney-General talks in fairly glowing terms about the concept of economical litigation. I really hope he is right, because what really is proposed here with respect to economical litigation is quite an experiment, and a bit of a unique experiment. It's going to be a real challenge over the years to develop a set of rules with respect to economical litigation that remain simple. I look forward to the rules and procedures that are drafted, because I think one has to walk a very fine line when drafting the rules with respect to economical litigation.

I can think of my experience, and my experience is mostly in the area of civil litigation and more specifically in the area of personal injury litigation. I, as counsel, would feel a little uncomfortable about giving up too much in terms of discoveries and some of the pre-trial mechanisms and interlocutory applications which exist to benefit counsel, to prepare you for trial and allow you to make informed decisions as to whether or not it would be wise to proceed to trial, and also to advise your client as to whether the chances of success are as great as one would believe at the beginning of litigation.

It's also going to be delicate to draft the regulations in such a fashion as to reduce court time. You don't want court time to be eaten up in activity that would normally be the purview of discoveries, so that you can reduce the time of fishing expeditions, which are perhaps more appropriate in discovery than in court. The purpose of all this is to accelerate people into getting in front of a court and reduce the amount of time they have before a court.

On one hand you've got this problem about people in the bar — people like me who do a lot of civil litigation practice — who are nervous about giving up some of those benefits that we have under

[ Page 7107 ]

the current rules, and on the other hand, oversimplifying the procedure. If you make it too simple, people are going to opt to go through the normal process as opposed to economical litigation — if, indeed, there is an option.

I'm really looking forward to the experiment that is going to be taking place here. It's going to be quite a fascinating experiment. I do hope that we can fine-tune the rules so as to ensure that economical litigation serves as an incentive and that it is worthwhile to proceed with the more expeditious form of litigation, through economical litigation. It will be fascinating, and we'll see how it works. I hope it works out well. I wouldn't want to oversell it at this stage of the game until I saw the rules, the reaction of the bar to it, and then the experience of the economical litigation program in terms of how many people are prepared to exercise that option and put aside some of the traditional mechanisms that they have.

In part, I think that the success of this program is going to be consumer-driven. It's really important that clients be aware of the benefits of an economical litigation program, so they can push their counsel to do more economical litigation work than I think counsel would be willing to do. We're very comfortable with the rules as they exist now and with the provisions that we have. One can always find downsides as to why you would want to deviate from what's there.

I think that the real trick of the matter will lie in the rules. This legislation will allow us to proceed with the drafting of the rules, and let's hope that that aspect of it works out well.

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Government Management Services seeks leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I would like the House to make welcome a group of students accompanied by their teacher, from Falkland. Falkland is a small community in my constituency best known for the fact that a community of about 400 or 500 people sponsors the famous Falkland Stampede — a three-day stampede that always takes place on the three-day weekend. It is a community with a great deal of community spirit. I would ask the House to make them all welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, I advise the House that the minister closes debate.

HON. S.D. SMITH: This bill, particularly the economical litigation portion of it, will not only simplify but also, we are hopeful, address a substantial problem in our system. Information has come to us over and over again that in that area between the small-claims limits and $20,000, more and more frequently these matters simply are not going to court. What that means is that individuals are not seeking to have issues addressed and to have justice served because of the imputed cost of doing that. Mr. Speaker, certainly in the area where there is already a matter of liquidated damages and perhaps much further than that, the rules committee under this new proposal in the court rules in Bill 24 will be able to come up with a process that really addresses that problem in a very meaningful way.

That said, Mr. Speaker, I now move that the bill be read a second time.

Motion approved.

Bill 24, Court Rules 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. S. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 25.

SMALL CLAIMS ACT

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I again have the pleasure to rise to move second reading of a bill, this being Bill 25, to deal with the small-claims court. I want to say at the beginning that we'll be moving a floor amendment to sections 17 and 19.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, the small-claims court is known properly and frequently as the people's court. It is one where citizens who are not lawyers frequently go to have their problems addressed and issues resolved. It is one where there has always been a minimum of rule binding: that is to say, of rules that kind of bind the sorts of things that people are able to do and thereby create a greater sense of formality. This people's court, the small-claims court in British Columbia, has been one where there has been a minimum of formality, although there has always been, in my view, a significant amount of quality procedural consistency throughout the province so that people can benefit from those kinds of procedures that ensure that justice is done. It is a court in which we seek to avoid the high cost of litigation in the superior courts.

One of the most important features of this piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, is to raise the limits of this court from $3,000 to $5,000. I would remind the House that two years ago this House entertained a proposal, indeed enacted it, to raise the limits from $2,000 to $3,000 in the small-claims court. At that time it was recommended by many people, including members of the staff of the ministry, that those limits be raised beyond $3,000. Mr. Speaker, a decision was taken by politicians at that time not to raise the limits beyond $3,000 as was recommended.

We are going to propose to raise the limits to $5,000, and although there has been considerable suggestion that we go beyond that, we are not proposing to go beyond that at this time. It is our concern that there will be — or could be — a change

[ Page 7108 ]

in the character of that court if you move too quickly, particularly in some of the outer areas of the province where the monetary jurisdiction may have greater significance on the matters at hand; that, coupled with the notion that is contained in the bill that we have previously dealt with with respect to the economical litigation program, we think will address the basic issues that are there.

There is no question that this House will be visited again, it is my view, with the proposition that the small-claims jurisdiction ought to be raised further. But it is our view that on balance, at this time, following from the recommendations contained in the "Access to Justice" report, that movement to $5,000 is sufficient. As I say, two years ago we went from $2,000 to $3,000, and although it was recommended to go higher, I believe the Attorney-General of the day was concerned about the possibilities of some constitutional impediment and other concerns, so the decision was taken not to go beyond the $3,000 amount.

[3:15]

Further, Mr. Speaker, we will increase access to this court, we believe, by greater utilization of plain language in the act, in the rules that will be developed and in the forms that will be used. Disputed security deposit cases are going to be moved to the residential tenancy branch of the Ministry of Labour, which were previously heard by this court. Mr. Speaker, it can take up to nine months, for instance, in the city of Vancouver, to get such cases to trial, and there's no question that there have been incidents of unscrupulous landlords taking advantage of that and in fact imposing themselves, thereby, on tenants who are not able to afford that kind of a money-whipping. So we're going to be moving those sorts of disputes to another system of adjudication from this structure.

Mr. Speaker, the act provides for improved enforcement by giving the option for a judgment summons hearing immediately following a decision to determine when and how judgments will be paid. For those who are familiar with the Small Claims Act as it now is constructed, they will note when they reference this bill that there is a whole pot-pourri of sections that aren't in here that relate to the old judgment summons provisions that ultimately resulted in a debtor being able to be thrown in the jug. That is no longer in this act — or at least in this legislation proposed for this House — and I think the section in there is a vast improvement, not only to the extent that it eliminates a great deal of verbiage, but it also is a more sensible and more reasonable way of dealing with that issue.

I am pleased to be able to take my place in moving second reading of this bill.

MR. SIHOTA: Once again I'd like to congratulate the Attorney-General on following an initiative by New Democrats. It was two years ago in this House that I suggested to the then Attorney-General that he should raise the limit to $5,000. Again, I'm just glad to see it.

It obviously gives the Premier some delight to know that his government is beginning to become very receptive to ideas, is listening to all those positive suggestions made by the opposition and knows that what we say actually is often wise, and that one ought not to dismiss it in the rather cavalier fashion as the Premier has in the past.

It's interesting that the Attorney-General — of course, he was trying for the Premier's job — took a minute or two out of his comments to slap the wrists of the former Attorney-General, the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head (Mr. B.R. Smith). He criticized him — if I heard him correctly — for not moving with respect to the appropriate increase to $5,000 several years ago. He said at one point: "...in relation to constitutional considerations." At another point he said that "simply a political decision was made." With respect to the latter, I guess it's open season for people on that side to take shots at one another. I'd be most interested in knowing what the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head has to say with respect to the Attorney-General's comments that a political decision was made at that time.

It's also interesting to hear what the Attorney-General had to say about security deposits, because during the course of estimates, we raised the matter of security deposits. The Attorney-General pointed out with pride — and I would refer him back to Hansard — that the matter had been referred to the small claims, where he suggested it was more appropriate. Now it's moved right back to residential tenancy. In the past, the experience has not been good in that venue, and unless there are some very expeditious rules to deal with security deposits under the realm of residential tenancy, that won't do much good. I think the Attorney-General quoted from a press release from the Ministry of Labour in December of last year.

There are a number of other comments that should be made in general terms with respect to small claims. It seems to me that if you're going to raise the limit to $5,000, then on one hand you're going to — quite correctly — invite litigation in an area which in the past has not been litigated in. On the other side of the coin, it's going to involve more cases in front of the small claims court. That means more work for provincial court judges in terms of cases and time, and I think there's an administrative issue as to whether or not the Attorney-General's department has calculated out the time and resources it requires to deal with the increase in jurisdiction and the demands that are going to be placed on judges.

On the matter of access, small claims fees were raised last year from $10 to $25. I think it would be appreciated if, in keeping with the general tenor of the Attorney-General's comments with respect to access, we went back to where we were instead of increasing them in the way we have.

Apart from that, I think it's fair to say again that we'll look at the amendments we now have before us. But we will be supporting the legislation, and I appreciate the fact that efforts were made in this legislation in particular to use plain language. I

[ Page 7109 ]

understand that the forms being developed are also being tested out in the market to make sure they comply with the plain language sentiment expressed in Mr. Hughes' report. I think all that is good.

Again, the bill will receive our blessing, and we look forward to its speedy passage.

HON. S.D. SMITH: In closing debate, I just want to say to the House that when I referred to the decision to raise the limits two years ago as a political decision, I made it very clear that what I was saying, and indeed did say, was that it was a decision taken by politicians, which are, by definition, political decisions. Any nuances imputed by the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) may serve his own oddball interests, but I don't think they will do a great deal to serve this House.

It has been said that with this issue we will have to deal with the question of more time and consideration for more judges. I don't think that it necessary follows like night follows day. Indeed, we have just had a report, which has been considered by this House and by committees thereof, in which it has been clearly set out that there's an opportunity for us to increase the number of sitting hours undertaken by judges of the Provincial Court of British Columbia as well as to reduce the number of what we call judgment days to a standard that would be more consistent with the norm across our country and would undoubtedly provide people with more frequent access to their courts.

From the discussions through my ministry with the chief judge of that court, I'm sure that the judges of the Provincial Court will want to work together with us to ensure that it indeed happens and that we all thereby better serve the people of British Columbia. I move that the bill be now read a second time.

Motion approved.

Bill 25, Small Claims 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. REE: I call second reading of Bill 26, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if I can withdraw that and instead go on to second reading of Bill 12, we'll come back to Bill 26 later.

SOCIAL SERVICE TAX
AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I thank the members opposite for this small change in the order of procedure here. It's obliging my interest in terms of attending another meeting in half an hour.

Bill 12 contains a number of amendments to the Social Service Tax Act. Two amendments will improve the equitable application of the tax and simplify compliance for the mining industry. An exemption will be provided for magnetite, a mineral used in coal-processing, which has a comparable function to supplies and materials used in mineral extraction by other sectors of the mining industry which are currently exempt.

A second amendment will replace the present tax refund provision for explosive supplies used by the mining industry with a point of sale exemption. Other amendments will improve the equitable application of the tax in other areas, simplify compliance procedures for taxpayers and clarify administrative practices. The definition of "lease" is clarified to remove the ability of lessors to structure agreements as licences or other rights to avoid the payment of social service tax.

Concurrently, the application of tax to the use of films shown in movie theatres is clarified to remove taxpayer uncertainty.

At present, tax is required to be collected and remitted on the selling price of liquor. This requirement applies to liquor sold at licensed premises and at events for which a special occasion licence has been issued. Holders of special occasion licences, many of whom are not familiar with tax collection and remittance procedures, often find this requirement difficult to comply with and, in fact, many do not comply. In order to improve compliance procedures and ensure more equitable application of the tax, an applicant for a special occasion licence will prepay an amount equal to the tax on the estimated resale value of liquor at the time of application.

The application of tax during a voyage between ports within and outside B.C.'s jurisdictional boundaries has posed problems of practicality and equity for taxpayers and tax authorities. So to provide consistency with foreign-based cruise vessels which are not subject to tax, a vendor on a scheduled, commercial passenger-carrying vessel which sails between B.C. and foreign ports will not be required to collect tax on sales.

The determination of tax on used equipment in certain situations will be clarified. Property converted from an exempt use to a taxable use or brought into B.C. for use in the province is subject to sales tax. Amendments to the act will clarify that for used equipment in these situations — taxes based on depreciated value rather than original value.

Finally, the bill contains a number of administrative amendments which will clarify the assessment of interest, penalties and applications for refund. I move this bill be read a second time.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

MR. CLARK: I have a few problems with this little bill. I know it's not a radical step; in some ways, it's housekeeping. It seems to me that one argument would be to extend the sales tax to cover everything. In other words, there should be no favoured treatment. This bill goes some way to doing that by taxing movie admissions, which I think is a bit chippy.

Let's say that the philosophical move was to tax everything — the bean-counters in the Finance department want to tax everything — and extend the

[ Page 7110 ]

sales tax. But the same bill exempts explosives for mineral exploration and exempts magnetite, so it's philosophically inconsistent. It says on the one hand, "Well, we should tax movie theatres because some other provinces do it"— not every province, but some provinces do it — "and they shouldn't get special treatment. It raises a lot of money and I'm sure there's a reason for doing it." It essentially implies that there's an argument that we should tax it and we should be consistent and everything should be taxed. Then the same bill makes exemptions for the mining industry.

[3:30]

We can argue, Mr. Premier, for exemptions for certain things, and that might be fair enough, but I think it's inconsistent to extend the tax to moviegoers and in the same bill remove the tax from certain other items. I think it passes a kind of moral judgment which I don't really agree with. I think we would be better off with a genuine housekeeping bill, rather than one which attempts to gain more revenue for the Crown by taxing something which is a pursuit — going to movies — which many people like. Clearly people with less income might go to a movie.

So it extends the tax there and remits it somewhere else, and on that basis I really have some problems with it. It's a chippy kind of extension of the sales tax to certain areas, under the guise of philosophical consistency, but at the same time it removes the tax from certain other little things. So there's a conscious decision on the part of the government to tax movies and not to tax explosives used in general exploration, all in the same bill and all under the guise of housekeeping. I think it's really a little more than that; it's a philosophical statement by the government and it's one which I don't support.

While it's a small move and while I don't want to play politics on a relatively housekeeping bill, I do find it offensive that they would tax the theatre and not tax mineral explosives and magnetite used in coal production. So on that basis, Mr. Speaker, I will be opposing this bill.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: We will get into some details, I suspect, during the committee stage. I won't waste the legislators' valuable time by responding with the credible arguments that prompted us to make these changes in the first place. I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 12, Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 1989, 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. REE: I call second reading of Bill 11.

PUBLIC TRUSTEE AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

HON. MR. COUVELIER: This bill creates a special account in the consolidated revenue fund of the province. The account will record all revenues from service fees and commissions received by the office of the public trustee from its clients and provide statutory authority to spend an equivalent amount in providing services to those clients.

The office of the public trustee is responsible for managing and protecting the estates and financial interests of minors and mentally disordered persons, and also for settling the estates of deceased and missing persons where no other person is willing or competent to act.

While the creation of the special account will not directly affect the operations of the office of the public trustee, it will provide a greater measure of flexibility and independence from budgetary restrictions. The account will also provide the office of the public trustee with the opportunity to enhance services to its clients based on any increase in available revenue. The creation of this new special account will therefore insulate this important service from fluctuations in the provincial economy, and provide enhanced service to clients in the years to come.

I move the bill now be read a second time.

MR. SIHOTA: This is a radical piece of legislation and we'll be making more comments during the course of the committee stage on this.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: It's very pleasant to finally receive the attention of the hon. members opposite with some of our forward-thinking legislation.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 11, Public Trustee Amendment Act, 1989, 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. REE: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 13.

TOBACCO TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, this bill contains four amendments to the Tobacco Tax Act. The first amendment increases the tax rate on loose tobacco products to reduce the tax rate differential between loose tobacco and manufactured cigarettes. Prior to this amendment, the tax on loose tobacco was 1.9 cents per gram, compared to 5 cents per gram for the same amount of tobacco in the form of manufactured cigarettes. The truth of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, pipe-smokers for years have been receiving a tax benefit as compared to cigarette smokers, and this government decided it was time to clarify and bring those discrepancies to public attention.

[ Page 7111 ]

This tax rate differential resulted in an increase in loose tobacco consumption from 5 percent of the B.C. tobacco market in '81 to 15 percent in '88. In addition, the much lower tax rate on loose tobacco has resulted in the development of new tobacco products designed specifically to take advantage of the lower rate of tax. This amendment will bring more equity to the treatment of all tobacco products in B.C. and is consistent with government policy to have those using products whose consumption results in social costs pay a larger proportion of those costs.

Secondly, concurrent with this amendment, the method of calculating the tax payable on loose tobacco products is changed to remove an inequity. Prior to this change, tax was payable on the basis of tax per 25 grams of tobacco or any portion thereof; thus, a 40-gram package of loose tobacco was taxed as if it contained 50 grams. The tax will now be calculated on a per-gram basis, to ensure that tax payable is not distorted by consumers' preference for package size.

The third amendment is to ensure that tax is remitted on all taxable tobacco products sold in B.C. Prior to this amendment, wholesale dealers were not required to remit tax on tobacco which was intended for sale outside of the province. This amendment will require wholesale dealers to remit that amount and claim a refund, or request approval from the director not to remit that amount. With this amendment the government will be better able to verify that tobacco on which provincial tax is not paid is not sold in B.C.

The final amendment provides authority to implement the tax-paid marking system for tobacco products sold in B.C. in the event that it is required in the future. This amendment will ensure that if tobacco smuggling into B.C. becomes a problem, as it currently is in Ontario and Quebec, the government will have the necessary authority to deal with the problem.

I move the bill now be read a second time.

MR. CLARK: The Premier says it's a chippy bill; it clearly is.

There are some things in it that are good, I think, particularly the last amendment, which deals with the possibility of smuggling. But the increased tax on loose tobacco.... It's unpopular to oppose a tax on tobacco, and I know that....

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: The Premier is helping me. I think we should call for a vote on this one.

I'm sure most of my colleagues would support these kinds of taxes — the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) was our Health critic. But I must say I do have a bit of a problem with that kind of mentality of the Finance ministry. I'm sure it's a staff thing; I called them bean-counters — I mean that. How much of a tax break was it? The Premier knows.

I want to tell the minister that I've had three letters from very poor constituents who smoke. They roll their own to save a little money. So what happens? The sort of long arm of the tax department of the government moves an amendment in this House....

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: That's a lot of letters, Madam Member. That is a lot on this kind of issue. Mr. Speaker, three letters on this kind of issue, I think, is astounding from my constituency — and I mean that seriously.

So here they are, rolling their own cigarettes to get a break, and the government moves to close this tiny loophole, which surely can't raise any money. The Premier agrees with me, I know. And I know it's not popular to oppose these kinds of tax. I know the conventional wisdom is that sin taxes you can keep increasing, because people are supposed to feel guilty because they smoke or they drink. I have some problems with that, I'll be quite frank with you. But I'm not going to take the time here in the Legislature to fight this act. I understand the rationale for it: so that loose tobacco is now taxed at the same rate that tobacco that comes in cigarette form is. It makes perfect sense from that kind of administrative point of view. But I think it's a chippy tax. Quite frankly, I think it's disproportionate and affects the poor more than other people. So I personally oppose it, but I won't be fighting that cause in here, Mr. Speaker. So with that, I'll move on.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House is advised that the Minister of Finance will close the debate.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed in front of the committee....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: First of all you must move second reading, before we go to committee.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move second reading.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be referred to the standing committee of the House at the next sitting of the House after today.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The actual motion is that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Assuming that the minister had made that motion, may I now call that motion.

Motion approved.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members who believe that these motions do not need to be put in the correct order need only refer to Hansard from 1979 to find a very lengthy debate that the then Minister of Municipal Affairs went through for having failed to move second reading.

[ Page 7112 ]

HON. MR. REE: I call second reading of Bill 26.

JUSTICE REFORM STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, it's again my pleasure to rise and speak to a motion on second reading of this bill, which is a package of legislation that deals with the various aspects of the justice reform package before us — being the legislators — today in the form of bills and in terms of Green Paper activity that will be undertaken in due time.

This bill seeks to amend various acts, that would include, among others, the Family Relations Act, the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act, the Victims' Rights and Services Act, the Municipal Act and the Vancouver Charter. It thereby deals in a fairly significant way with family law, which is a complex area of our law, not only in terms of the law, but in terms of the relationships that family law seeks to provide some substantive regulatory cloth for.

The Justice Reform Committee, when it dealt with this area, focused significantly on the problems of the jurisdictional overlap between the Supreme and the Provincial courts. They came up with a pretty innovative solution: namely, that one would have the Supreme Court retain or obtain exclusive jurisdiction in the area, and that we would seek to make Provincial Court judges masters — and I use the word in italics — of the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

Thereby we would try to draw together the jurisdictional separation that now occurs, but maintain the same system that is there so that largely provincial court judges would hear the bulk of the issues. Indeed, it would expand that. In doing that and in fleshing out that process as we did, we found that there were constitutional concerns posed and raised that were of significant proportion.

[3:45]

We've done a great deal of consultation in that regard over the last five months. Some of it has involved members of the judiciary as well as members of the larger community in the practising bar. As a result of that, we will be providing and releasing a Green Paper later on this summer. Following that, we will have another round of the same process we have for implementation with a vast number of people with input in a consultative way. We hope to be able to recommend legislation in that area to this House in the spring of 1989.

There has been some thoughtless criticism in that regard — that it was undue delay. I would simply point out to the House that among others who have been involved in this consultative process is the former Chief justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia — now a justice of the Supreme Court of Canada — whose consideration was that this process of consultation ought to go on, and that we ought not to force something into a legislative package just for the sake of doing so.

Sometimes I think it's safe to say that daring is dumb and rapid is ruinous. While we listen to those who suggest we ought to press on instantaneously, and who say they have instant solutions to this, more thoughtful people in our community — who, after all, would be charged with administering these issues — have raised the flag of caution to make sure that we do it properly, rather than rapidly.

That's what we will be doing in that regard. We are proceeding now with some important amendments to the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act — to accept maintenance orders under the Divorce Act that are made in another province, where the creditor resides in the province of British Columbia; and to the Family Relations Act — to strengthen provisions with respect to the freezing of assets, to put a clear statement in law that arrears of maintenance can be cancelled only in exceptional circumstances, to provide the authority to file separation agreements in the Supreme Court for their enforcement.

I believe that's one of the more important provisions in this piece of legislation, because when separation agreements are entered into, it necessarily follows that they were done somewhat more voluntarily than when you have to go to court. The parties presumably were ad idem about what they wished to have in that agreement, and sometimes it is done at a time before the relationship has descended into an exacerbated situation where the problems are so extreme they cannot agree to anything. If we can provide for the filing of that kind of agreement when people are ad idem, and it takes on the force of a Supreme Court order, I think we probably will have served ourselves and our society reasonably well.

We'll also seek to broaden powers to make attachment orders, to make more timely investigative reports with respect to custody and access, and to provide for new rules with regard to the disclosure of financial information during the period when one is dealing with the issues of family breakup and the consequences that flow from that.

Mr. Speaker, we are looking, through this legislative package, at recommendations respecting the apprehension of children, to be addressed by the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) — as I have said previously, specifically to change the responsibility and onus for when a child is apprehended, so that there is available to the parents in a timely way notice and information about what kinds of charges they face.

As well, this bill seeks to address the question of legal fees. The government and the Law Society are concerned to ensure that the public is protected from excesses in the provision of legal services and in the costs that may be imposed upon the public. We are therefore proposing amendments to the Legal Profession Act that will permit the Law Society to establish a system for a sliding scale of maximum contingency fees and enshrine in law the principles to be used by a registrar in reviewing a lawyer's bill: a provision known as Yule v. the City of Saskatoon. We have worked with the Law Society very closely on this, and we have, I am pleased to say, their concurrence with what we are doing, because they are charged primarily with the responsibility for undertaking

[ Page 7113 ]

these issues and it is for us to provide them with the enabling authority to do that.

I might also take the opportunity at this time to say that it might behoove other professions in our society to incorporate the principles of Yule v. the City of Saskatoon into their processes, if they have any, for reviewing their own bills. Perhaps the accountants, dentists, podiatrists, architects, doctors and others, to the extent that they provide services outside of the medical profession as experts — reports — would do the same thing and follow the lead of the legal community to provide for a system whereby people can review their accounts against a predetermined set of rules and a predetermined consideration and standard, in that there is a system by which a citizen can have them reviewed and indeed lowered.

We're also looking at amendments to the Municipal Act. Because of the increased volume of criminal prosecutions, many municipalities have been led to be frustrated by the apparently low priority assigned to bylaw enforcement. Bylaw enforcement is very important to the quality of life in our community Sometimes people tend to sneer at the sorts of things that are undertaken by municipal bylaw, because they're talking about issues that in a relative sense don't seem to be all that important compared to others that are under the Criminal Code. But in terms of the people who live in the community and who have an expectation that.... When their municipal leaders create bylaws to provide for noise or for some standards of community life, they want to be certain that there's a mechanism by which those bylaws and laws will be enforced.

We'll seek through this legislation to provide that enabling power and amendments to the Municipal Act and the Vancouver Charter to provide for a bylaw ticket system similar to the ticket information now used for provincial statute offences. The provisions will allow for the voluntary payment of fines if a person does not wish to dispute the allegation that is made against them and, if there is a refusal to pay or if a dispute results, for a deemed conviction.

We'll be looking for support for amendments to the Provincial Court Act to clarify the status and the authority of bylaw and traffic adjudicators, formerly referred to as sitting justices of the peace, to enable them to hear provincial statute and bylaw matters as well. We are also going to ask for support to address a concern for the resulting amendment to the Offence Act to deal with the issue of unpaid fines and to provide for an early fine payment incentive program, so that people who are issuing these tickets that we're developing.... We'll be able to ensure that the cost of collecting does not outweigh the benefit of what they're producing here.

Among other important amendments to acts contemplated by this bill now before the House is one to the Court of Appeal Act, so that we may introduce new technologies, allowing for filing in either the Vancouver or the Victoria registry. Essentially what we're doing is merging those two registries, which is going to enhance access here on Vancouver Island. Amendments to the Evidence Act will allow administrative tribunals to make their own rules with regard to filing of expert evidence and filing of expert evidence in court through changes as well to the rules of court. You will be asked as well, as a matter of principle in this bill, to seek to support amendments to the Victims' Rights and Services Act to clarify that the victim fine surcharges apply to ticket information fines under the Offence Act.

I know there's a kind of pot-pourri of acts that are being asked to be amended, but the cumulative effect of them is to be able to provide me with the ability to fulfil a commitment I made last November when I released the Justice Reform Committee report, which was to have before this House during the month of May, and hopefully passed before the end of the session, a series of legislative changes to the extent that legislation was necessary to fulfil the commitment to implement that report.

I'm pleased that we have been able to do that in such a timely way, after perhaps the most extensive consultative process ever undertaken in this province with respect to justice reform; indeed, the most extensive consultative process ever undertaken. I know, Mr. Speaker, when looking at other jurisdictions that are taking two, three and four years to accomplish the same thing, that legislators in this province have many reasons to be pleased with the way this has been developed and the support that is being gained because we are drawing people into the process who are coming together in a positive way and providing input that is useful.

Particularly, I want to extend my gratitude to the members of the judiciary, who have been most supportive in doing this. It is a difficult thing for them to provide us with that kind of support and clarity from all levels of the court. They have done that, and they've been most helpful.

Especially in the area of the Green Paper proposal I mentioned earlier, it is very important that we do it right, rather than to do it rapidly to fulfil some urgency that those who are without knowledge and information have in that regard.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

MR. SIHOTA: I'd like to congratulate the Attorney-General on filibustering his own bill, but I know that there was good reason for doing so.

I will be supporting this legislation as well. It's good legislation in terms of the amendments it makes, I would take issue with some of the comments the Attorney-General makes about the Green Paper and the delay consequent, but that's probably reserved for another time and place.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I want to let the Attorney-General know that I am most disturbed over his decision to place in this legislation a provision which allows for changes with respect to contingency fee agreements. I don't think that that was necessary. I don't think that that's what

[ Page 7114 ]

the bench wanted in British Columbia. I must say, as someone who practices — and I think someone suggested I practice criminal law; the Attorney-General should know full well that I practice in the area of personal injury litigation — that I don't know why the government sees a need to try to fix something that isn't broken. Those agreements work well. They've traditionally worked well. There have been no complaints to the Law Society over the years with respect to contingency fee agreements, and there is no reason for the government to intervene on that issue where, indeed, the consumer of those legal services has a right, statutorily, and is notified of that right upon signing those agreements, as to what they can do to challenge the account that is rendered at the end of the day.

Those are my comments, and we look forward to debate at committee stage on this matter, Mr. Speaker.

HON. S.D. SMITH: In closing debate on this bill, I simply want to say that there are many worthy amendments to legislation and acts of this House to be considered here, and I hope the House will give it timely and full consideration. One of them, of course, is the important Legal Profession Act. We all have a responsibility. The primary responsibility rests with the Law Society of British Columbia to ensure that there is fairness and there is seen to be fairness and that abuses don't take place in any of these matters. But the ultimate responsibility rests with us in this House to ensure that the public interest is served.

I am pleased to report that I have had great cooperation from the benches of the Law Society, and what is here contained are matters which have been undertaken as a result of consultation with them. I am pleased, as well, to stand without any self-interest in this matter whatsoever in terms of the contingency fee arrangements.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

Motion approved.

Bill 26, justice Reform Statutes Amendment Act, 1989, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill PR401.

SEMINARY OF CHRIST THE KING
AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

MR. JACOBSEN: The purpose of this act is to remove the requirement of two semesters of theological study for students obtaining a bachelor of arts degree. I understand that the bill has been unanimously approved by the private bills committee.

I move second reading of Bill PR401.

Motion approved.

Bill PR401, Seminary of Christ the King Amendment Act, 1989, 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. REE: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 15.

CONTINUING CARE ACT

The House in committee on Bill 15; Mr. Peterson in the chair.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

On section 1.

HON. MR. DUECK: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

On the amendment.

[Section 1., in the proposed definition of "continuing care" by adding ", or to a person with a frailty" at the end.]

MS. A. HAGEN: I want to acknowledge the action of the minister in bringing in this particular amendment to the definition of "continuing care." Interestingly enough, I think it came about as a result of a number of submissions to the minister, including one from myself, that the definition recognize frailty — in an older person most likely — as a cause or condition for continuing care to be available. It's a welcome amendment. The minister has, I think, listened and responded, as he often does when there is an opportunity for that dialogue to take place.

I want to ask a couple of questions in respect to the definitions in section 1. The definition of an operator will be seen to apply to someone providing facility care. I just want to confirm that "operator" involves an agency providing home support, facility care or anything under that broad rubric.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we proceed, the Minister of Transportation and Highways asks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. VANT: This afternoon it gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House Mr. Bob Hatton, the brother of my executive assistant, and his wife Doe, visiting Victoria all the way from Midway, B.C. Bob is in Victoria attending the fiftieth Municipal Officers' Association convention. I know the House will give them a warm welcome.

HON. MR. DUECK: Yes, the operator is the individual or society or corporation that contracts with the ministry to provide continuing care.

MS. A. HAGEN: I'm never quite sure whether to discuss the whole section or just the amendment. With your indulgence I've really broadened this to

[ Page 7115 ]

deal with the whole section, and then we can deal with the procedural things.

Let me ask this specifically of the minister: "operator" here is the operator of a home support society as well as a continuing care facility; is that encompassed in the definition?

HON. MR. DUECK: It's my understanding that this is so.

MS. A. HAGEN: With that response from the minister, then, I think we understand that as we go through committee stage of this bill we will be talking about continuing care as it applies to the whole continuum of care: home support services, intermediate care facilities and, where applicable, personal care facilities. That's the compass, if you like, of the bill.

[4:00]

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

On section 2.

MS. A. HAGEN: This is the section that deals with the scope of the agreement which the ministry can enter into on behalf of the government. First of all, I note again that for the first time since continuing care was formalized as a program within the Ministry of Health, this is a statute dealing with the right of the ministry to enter into such contractual arrangements. As we noted in second reading and as the minister himself acknowledged, this particular act, long called for, is a direct outcome of the recommendation of the auditor-general that there be a statute.

It's interesting — and I know we've had some discussions about this — that there is no broad mandate for this act. So when we look at the agreement section, we're beginning to look at the substance of the bill. I regret that there is not a mandate statement with this act. The minister has responded to some earlier discussions which I've had with his officials in respect to this by stating — and I'd just like to note his comment for the record:

"Firstly, with respect to "a mission-mandate statement," this is something that, like a preamble, is not customarily used in legislation today. There are two basic reasons I would not be inclined to include such a statement in Bill 15. One, significant developments in continuing care from time to time are likely to lead to changes in the mandate. This would mean we would be likely to 'outgrow' the statutory references at some point in the future. Two, we would like to retain as much flexibility as possible to apply the principles of this act to other programs that may not fall strictly within the realm of 'continuing care.'"

I think if we look at agreements, it would be helpful for us to understand what indeed the principles of these agreements are, and how those contracts will evolve. Perhaps the best way for me to deal with this is to ask what mandate he sees within these agreements as forming the basis for the agreements that he will be now entering into with continuing care operators. What are the basic principles of these contractual arrangements that are encompassed by the various clauses of section 2 of this statute?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. Before we proceed, the member for Burnaby North has asked leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, those of you who have looked at electoral boundaries realize that Burnaby North is one of the larger ridings in this province. One of the reasons for that is the tremendous growth in a beautiful area of my riding on the south slope of Burnaby Mountain called Forest Grove. In that area is a lovely young school that was opened by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) only a couple of years ago, which has since undergone tremendous growth and is looking to further expansion.

Visiting us today in the gallery from that school are 48 grade 5 students accompanied by their teacher Mrs. Wong and their principal Mr. Carter. They have done a super job in preparing for this visit. They were well informed about the buildings and the operation of the Legislature. I would like members of both sides of the House to join me in welcoming these grade 5 students.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, we were talking about mandate, and I explained that we needed some flexibility, or we'll still be working to enhance or to perhaps develop a mandate that is more than what we have at this time. Currently we say: "...to provide an efficient, effective and affordable range of health care and health care support services for persons who have, or are at risk of having, chronic disabilities that are primarily physical in nature, and persons with acute-care needs who do not require care in an institution."

MS. A. HAGEN: Could I ask the minister the source of that particular statement, Mr. Chairman?

HON. MR. DUECK: It's the provisional mandate that's been adopted up to this point in time, and it is being developed to perhaps be more encompassing. But normally this is not part of legislation. It is my understanding that it would constrain us in certain ways, so we're leaving it out of the legislation itself.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, I am really pleased that there is a statement even if it is, as the minister notes, in an evolutionary stage. I'm glad that it's a part of our record of debate.

I question the leaving out of the mandate. I want to make this statement, if I may, before we proceed with some further questions, Mr. Chairman. I recognize that there is an evolution. We've waited 10 years for the evolution of this act, and I'm sorry that the minister hasn't risked; his counterpart in the Minis-

[ Page 7116 ]

try of Education has risked. There is a proposed preamble in a draft school act, and that preamble is reflected in the actual body of the act to give it status. I would hope that should the minister still be the Minister of Health when we next sit and debate some bills, he might be prepared to risk including that mandate in the bill.

I want to just question a couple of things in respect to it. The purpose of this questioning is to get to some aspects of the agreement that are in the clause we are now discussing. I note that the minister — and I didn't get all the words — referred to the "physical health" of persons. Does that limit the definition of health? Does it perhaps exclude the mental health of patients, clients, residents and people who are being served?

HON. MR. DUECK: No, it does not exclude it. I think the wording is "primarily physical in nature, " but certainly we have the other as well.

MS. A. HAGEN: One of the largest groups of people in need, particularly of facility care, is a group of mostly older people who are often called "psycho-geriatric" in respect to their needs. Although we don't necessarily know the cause of their disability, the very fact that they are defined as psycho-geriatric would suggest some degree of mental disability. I wonder if the minister could perhaps comment on why there isn't some reference in the draft working mandate statement to that particular group of older people.

[4:15]

HON. MR. DUECK: It's probably a valid point. We could probably include that. I don't have any argument with that, because we are, in fact, including those people but it doesn't specifically say that.

MS. A. HAGEN: This is one of the reasons why doing things in committee can be productive. I think it would be very important to include that, and let me just provide a bit of further rationale for that statement. One of the areas we discussed during the minister's estimates in which there was a deficiency in the support service available for continuing care was what's called intermediate care 3: the person who has psycho-geriatric needs, the person who has some neurological disability. It's often umbrellaed under the term Alzheimer's, but more broadly deals with anything that disables that person.

We do know that continuing-care facilities at the present time, for example, have been talking to the minister and his officials about deficits in the quality of care they are able to offer, from the point of view of development of services. I think that whole area is one which has been identified as having a high level of need.

If we want to go into the community and talk about people staying in the community independently, one of the areas of greatest need is mental health resources for older people. Geriatric social workers, for example, are in short supply. In my community of New Westminster we have one geriatric social worker for a population of 7,000 older people, which is clearly inadequate to provide for their needs. I hear constantly from people in my community about how they struggle to deal with that deficit in resources, to work with families and to work with people in the community who have those needs. I hope there would be reference in the mandate statement.

One final comment. I am not sure I got the wording. It was in the last part of the statement, and the minister made some reference to, I think, community support services or home support services for those people who may be in need of acute care. Perhaps it would be helpful if I asked the minister to read that last section, because I don't have the wording clearly in my mind; therefore it is difficult to frame a question intelligently.

HON. MR. DUECK: That particular section is: "...to provide an efficient, effective and affordable range of health care and health care support services for persons who have, or are at risk of having, chronic disabilities that are primarily physical in nature" — that's where that amendment would come in — "and persons with acute-care needs who do not require care in an institution."

MS. A. HAGEN: That clarifies it. I commend the minister for that last statement, because what he is really saying is that if we can care for people in their homes, we will do so. That's a plus and an excellent clause in that working mandate statement.

If I may turn to some of the specifics in clause 2, it specifies that the agreements will include an obligation for the operator to comply with any applicable standards, guidelines or directives issued by the minister. I think most of us are more familiar with the umbrella word "regulations" in respect to the details, if you like, of the agreement. One of the things about regulations is that they are available. They usually go through an order-in-council process; people know the kinds of guidelines they must follow, and they have considerable force, by virtue of being printed and available.

I'd like the minister to expand a bit on what is meant by this terminology: standards, guidelines, directives. I want to know how people will know what they are, what the standards, guidelines and directives are, and whether there's any difference in the meanings of those three words. There must be some reason for all three of them to be used. How are they known? To whom are they known? And what does each of these words mean when we're talking about the outcome that we would want to see from all this — that is, quality of care in the facility that is contracted with the ministry to provide for the needs of a certain population?

HON. MR. DUECK: Under section 2(2), then 2(3) and 2(4), "standards" refers to care standards to be met by operators, for example, expecting nursing levels corresponding to care needs of a client.

[ Page 7117 ]

"Guidelines" and "directives" refer more to operational requirements. An example would be what forms to use, methods of handling clients, assets in trust, etc.

MS. A. HAGEN: If I heard the minister correctly, Mr. Chairman, the minister would have the authority under this clause to deal with any aspect of the operation of a facility, from health care standards to standards for the recreational needs of the residents to directives for custodial trust relationships. Is that the scope? Is that what the minister is suggesting?

HON. MR. DUECK: Yes, that's true.

MS. A. HAGEN: Could I ask the minister if encompassed in that brief definition there's anything new in what he proposes to require in the way of standards, guidelines, directives? Is there anything new that the ministry will be requiring of the operators as a result of this particular statute?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, the standards that we're speaking of are in use and have been in use for ten years. We're following through with the same ones, although we're constantly reviewing and improving where necessary. But there's nothing new from what we've had before, except that this is new legislation, and we're certainly trying to improve the whole area of long-term care. So as we're moving along, we'll probably make some changes. But we're not introducing anything different in that area or anything that people in continuing care should be afraid of.

MS. A. HAGEN: I want to note, Mr. Chairman, that my line of questioning has to do with being concerned about the quality of care that will be, I hope, guaranteed by this statute, and also about the people's right to know about what those standards are, both the people within facilities and us as the public.

Let me ask the second question; I phrased it a moment ago, but let me repeat it. We don't have regulations. We don't have something printed that says that these are the standards. If I want to know what the standards of care or guidelines are that an operator must follow in the care facility in my community, we don't have that written down, as I understand it, or available. I want to know if the minister can advise how the public can get information about what standards — to just use the code word — are encompassed in the language of this agreement. How do we know what we have a right to expect in a care facility in the way of standards for leading to good, quality care for residents?

HON. MR. DUECK: Of course, we have a provider's handbook, which I'm sure you're aware of, and we're carrying on with that. But with this new regulation, I hope that the care that we will be providing and be able to control and police, if you will, will be better than what we've had before, with no legislation. As I said, we will constantly improve and provide more information to operators and people who inquire of the kind of service they can expect in these facilities.

MS. A. HAGEN: Two brief questions to the minister, and then I think we can probably move on to the next clause.

Could I ask the minister if one of the guidelines he might be considering, and might be prepared to fund adequately, would be that all care facilities would have activity staff for the residents within that facility — not just nursing staff and housekeeping staff but staff specifically charged with the responsibility of organizing and providing for appropriate activities for the residents of that facility. Let me just leave it with that one, and I'll ask the other question after the minister has responded.

HON. MR. DUECK: Up to this point in time no, we do not specify exactly what staff the facility operator must have in his facility.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

MS. A. HAGEN: Is the minister considering that being one of his guidelines?

HON. MR. DUECK: I certainly wouldn't want to make a statement in the House that it will be provided for at a certain date. But I must say that we travelled throughout Europe, and when we looked at some of the facilities there, activity time for every facility resident was one of their main objectives. They found that it was very important. Certainly, as time goes on and we can improve on looking after seniors in particular, and others too, this is very important.

MS. A. HAGEN: I hope that travel has broadened the minister's mind and that he will in fact be enlightened and push for that initiative. It's just one, but in terms of quality care the fact that it made that impression on the minister I think simply demonstrates how very significant and important that particular funding and that particular requirement is.

There's one other thing I'd like to ask about. It's one I can't really examine very thoroughly in the time we have available, but I want to flag it because I think it is increasingly a matter of concern.

The minister made some reference earlier on when he described the scope of the guidelines for operation to trust relationships, the handling of money and things of that nature. I have long been very concerned about the inadequacy of the public trustee and guidelines for operators in the matter of client affairs.

[4:30]

I won't take the time of the House, but I have some horror stories in my own experience around what I would consider to be elder-abuse in that regard by some facility operators. The problem is that there has been, in fact, no clout and no way for the continuing care people who are responsible for moni-

[ Page 7118 ]

toring the standards within facilities. There has really been no way for us to deal with that. There has been no way for a third party to deal with some kind of initiation of an investigation. It's a very vulnerable area, particularly for people who are perhaps in some interim stage in being able to manage all aspects of their financial and personal affairs.

Again, I want to ask the minister the status of current guidelines in that area and whether he is in fact looking at that particular area for some good, tight, regulated and clear guidelines for operators, families and staff, who might be whistle-blowers when they're seeing that kind of thing happening and are concerned but fearful. It's very much the case with many people who work in care facilities who are often minimally trained and underpaid. There has to be something there that protects people and encourages those who are concerned about the well-being of people who are at risk and vulnerable that they can be advocates, take action and have something occur.

HON. MR. DUECK: Back to the other question of activity and recreation people to assist patients in these facilities. I don't have to tell you, because I think you're as familiar with some of these facilities as I am, that many of them have those people in place now. I didn't want to leave the impression, or have it on the record, that we don't have those people in facilities at this time. The question was whether we would ensure that every facility, regardless of size, would have that. Just so that is clear.

However, when we're talking about specific problems, we do have a quality assurance program now in place, and we certainly have the continuing care licensing staff that continually would be concerned. I myself and my ministry, of course, would be very much concerned if anyone.... These complaints come to us from time to time, and we investigate every single incident. I don't think we just have them operating these facilities and they carry on regardless.

Yes, there have been complaints coming to my office. You mentioned horror stories; they sometimes have been described as horror stories, and often they turned out to be a complaint and a concern, but it wasn't necessarily a horror story. But if you know of any instance like that, I would certainly like to hear from you later, anytime, and let's correct it.

MS. A. HAGEN: I certainly would let the minister know, but what I'm looking for is something that is preventive: something that provides some guidelines within the care facilities themselves so that there are clear directives.

I'm not sure that the minister really answered the question about whether he's satisfied that in the current standards and guidelines there is sufficient protection against a form of elder abuse that can occur. The problem with this, Mr. Minister, is that if the guidelines aren't there and we don't know what the guidelines are, then it's more difficult to uncover this. It's not something that those people who are doing the abusing let us know about. It's something that goes on, if you like, in secret or behind closed doors, and with people who aren't protected.

Neither of us is saying that we don't have excellent facilities and that this is prevalent; but it shouldn't happen at all. There should be, within your guidelines, very clear stipulations about what trust relationships the operator may enter into and how that operator is in fact accountable for those trust relationships. I'm not satisfied that the minister has indeed answered that those exist within the present guidelines that are operational; if they do not exist, that it's his intention that they shall be included.

HON. MR. DUECK: Quality assurance, of course, is one area that would be certainly concerned, with respect to the question you asked. I don't disagree in concept. As you know, this is new legislation, and maybe we will evolve into that, because I don't disagree, when we talk about people who are perhaps less than capable of looking after themselves, that there should be some guidelines that would assist the operators and assist people who perhaps have relatives or friends in a facility like that.

MS. A. HAGEN: I'm going to conclude on the section with this comment. I take it that as a result of this discussion we have highlighted what is in fact a deficit, a less than adequate guideline in the present state of the manual that the minister mentioned, and that this need will perhaps get some attention. I recognize that the minister and his officials are saying at this time that they are working at improving the calibre or the quality of care, and what we're talking about is this act as a means for providing the minister with the tools to do the job. I would hope that it is not just a codifying but something that is going to produce ongoing action and improvements in quality care issues as they relate to the 20,000 or 25,000 people in facilities.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

MS. A. HAGEN: This clause, as I understand it, makes the minister responsible for determining who is eligible to receive continuing care paid for under this act. Obviously, there are people who get continuing care in facilities which are not in a contract with the ministry. It also states that the minister may issue guidelines respecting the eligibility for payment, and that the minister's determination, his decision, is final and binding.

Something that comes to MLAs quite often is the concern about a decision of the ministry's representative, the long-term-care office, in all of our various communities and constituencies. As I understand it, the present method of dealing with any concern and appeal of that decision is that it goes back to the administrator of the long-term-care office, whose staff has made the initial decision on behalf of the ministry. If there is a further inquiry, it goes to the head of the continuing care division.

[ Page 7119 ]

I don't think that people have a very clear knowledge of what right they have to question the decision of the minister. I know — again, in letter form — the minister has replied to me in my earlier inquiry about this in preparation for this debate. I would like the minister to perhaps outline briefly what happens if a senior or a senior's family is not satisfied with the decision that is taken for the care plan of a person who is covered under this act. Could the minister please give us a brief idea of how that would work?

HON. MR. DUECK: Just to shed a little light on this, as far as the assessment is concerned, it is the minister or his designate, and it would always be the assessment people. Just to give you an idea: there were 14,697 new assessments for benefits under the long-term-care program. Of those, 395 were determined to be not eligible. Then they have an appeals process, and of these, 44 appeals.... If they're not satisfied with that, they can go one step further and appeal to a committee.

So I think the system is working fairly well when you have that many assessments and of the 14,000 plus, only 394 were considered not eligible and then there were only 44 appeals. I think that's a fairly good record. It can always be improved, but I don't think you can improve it by much.

MS. A. HAGEN: I thank the minister for that information.

Given the fact that long-term-care nurses work with incredible workloads — the auditor-general says 400 to 800 per nurse; I know in my district it's 400 per nurse — that is a good record, and it speaks highly of that dedicated and incredibly overworked staff.

However, I am still not clear that people know how to appeal. While I don't want to question whether the record is good and adequate, I want to know if there is information available and what information is available and perhaps have a brief outline of what that appeal procedure is. The minister mentions 44 appeals, and if they're not satisfied, there is another step to a committee. What's the committee? So just very briefly, let us know what processes are available. It should be information that the community has, just as it has information about the standards that we were talking about a few minutes ago.

HON. MR. DUECK: Of course, the process is all in the long-term-care program policy manual. When the assessments are made, it's explained clearly to the individuals requesting to be assessed. I think the system is working very well. I don't think there are too many people out there who are not aware that they can appeal.

MS. A. HAGEN: That's an important part of the answer: that they are in fact made aware that there is a process available to them.

I wonder if the minister could let me know, for my own information, what the committee is that he spoke about?

HON. MR. DUECK: It's the assessment appeal committee from within the ministry; it's an interdisciplinary committee appointed by the executive director of the continuing care division. So it's from within the ministry; it's not lay people or a committee made up of outside people.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

MS. A. HAGEN: This is an interesting clause — given some discussions we have had in this House around long-term-care fees — because this states that, by order-in-council, rates that the operator may charge the client for continuing care will be set, and that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may prescribe different rates for different classes of clients.

There are two ways of reading this. One is that there might be different rates for different classes of clients — namely, those receiving homemakers' services under this act; that's a class different from those receiving care in a facility.

[4:45]

But we might also read this clause as the kind of thing that gives the minister and the government of the day the opportunity to set different rates based on needs assessment, means test and user-pay different from the present system, which in the long-term care facility has a standard rate for everyone.

My question to the minister is: does section 4(1) give the minister the authority to do what he was proposing to do last year, and that is to have a differential rate based on an income test? Does it give the minister the authority to set different rates based on an income test for people who are resident in long-term-care facilities?

HON. MR. DUECK: I suppose the minister always has that authority by legislation otherwise to change what has from time to time happened. It's not the intent to change. When we talk about cabinet or order-in-council, it is to establish the daily user charges that an operator is permitted. There may be different rates for different classes of client. The example would be two married persons sharing the same room. We made an exception last year. I have the authority to do so. It was to make it more equitable.

This arrangement parallels the present system for setting user fees under the Hospital Insurance Act and the Mental Health Act. It's really to be in tandem with what is in place with those two acts.

MS. A. HAGEN: The minister didn't need an act, in fact, to move to a different classification of fees last year. In fact, it was proposed. I think I heard the minister say that he would have the authority to take

[ Page 7120 ]

that kind of action under this clause. It's not his intent to do so. I want to be sure.

I understand the minister is responding to my question — does this give him the authority to do so? — with a yes. I think that's what was there. But he's qualifying that by saying: "It is not our intent to do that." It has the other interpretation, which is that there are different classifications within the fees that are presently charged. That's where we intend to leave it at this time.

HON. MR. DUECK: Yes, that's correct; though in the absence of this, I would still have the authority.

MS. A. HAGEN: That means he's got it both ways. I don't know whether that leaves people who are worried about that particular policy and fee-paying shift feeling any more comfortable. I accept the minister's interpretation, and it helps to clarify it.

Section 4(2) says: "An operator shall not charge a client an amount exceeding the rate prescribed under subsection (1) except in accordance with directives issued by the minister or as permitted in an agreement...." Another major issue last year as we were dealing with the increase in the base rate from 75 percent to 85 percent of a senior's fundamental income was the question of additional charges for a whole range of things that were a part of care. I still hear that there are problems with that, although there have been ministry directives about what may or may not be charged for by the operator.

Perhaps we could start with just a quick look at this by the minister outlining the kinds of directives he might presently have in place that either allows or disallows an operator from charging anything over the per diem rate that is presently in effect?

HON. MR. DUECK: The directives are in place. We have communicated this to the operators. In most cases, we've been successful, but as you mentioned, there could be some that are still in contravention. This section will eliminate that, because it's intended to eliminate the overcharging by some operators who attempt to force payments from clients for items that are deemed to be included, like tissues, bandages and incontinent supplies. This will give us that authority to make it an offence. It's for the protection of the client. That's why this section is in there.

MS. A. HAGEN: I think that's a good move. I would hope that there is some latitude in the directives that the minister does issue in respect to this. There are different qualities of supplies; there are different needs; I recognize it gets quite complex. Those additional charges, for many clients who are on a very tight budget as a result of the per diem rate, are often the straw that breaks people's backs. It's the little things which add up that really do affect the quality of life that people have: their opportunity to have some money for recreation, for a gift for a grandchild or for stamps to keep in touch with distant relatives, and all those things that we would think are so small that surely people are going to have the money for that.

When those additional charges are there, and if they find ways and means, I hope that the minister will — I don't like to use the word "police" — be monitoring and be very firm on those issues. I am glad that that clause is there, and I commend the minister for it.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

MS. A. HAGEN: I've had some communication, more particularly with home-support organizations than with facilities, on this clause, which deals with the right of the ministry to inspect for the adherence to these standards which have been set by contract and by the various manuals which go along with that.

The word "inspector" conjures up a sort of official person. I can remember when I was a schoolteacher that one of the things we used to know — in those days we had inspectors — was when the inspector was coming. We used to know what page of the school text you were working on, and you knew how the inspector liked to have the windows open or shut, and how he liked to have the room arranged — it was always a he. It was a very mechanistic sort of thing, and the whole school was a model of some kind of decorum on that particular day.

With the deinstitutionalization of Woodlands students, there is an auditing process — and I am not sure of the most appropriate terminology — which is designed not just to deal with compliance. It's a process that also deals with working with the operator towards the enhancement of care. Quite honestly, I don't see any of the spirit of that kind of approach in this particular clause. I think it's a missing aspect of the bill. It would be helpful and useful to have in place some kind of process where the ministry is working in a cooperative way with the operators, with the agency, toward something I think we could all agree we are looking for: the most effective, efficient and — to use the minister's words — cost-effective system we can have.

How does the minister see the role of the inspector in relation to that more quality-assurance-related type of approach, and how does he see the inspector really dealing with some of those more long-term and gradual changes that involve education, a little bit of support and nudging that's different from making certain that we follow a rigid set of guidelines and a checklist?

HON. MR. DUECK: Of course, we have the quality assurance, which I mentioned before, and which is certainly part of the ongoing concern of the ministry, to make sure that these places not only are operated efficiently and effectively but that they look after their clients or residents well.

When we talk about helpful spirit, I suppose that's something you can't really legislate. The legislation is here to make sure they comply with certain guide-

[ Page 7121 ]

lines, to make sure that the operations are financially sound and that they comply with the rules that are laid down, and — as far as the helpful spirit is concerned — to make sure that they are good operators. I suppose you can't really legislate to that end and say you must smile in the morning. These are things that we hope operators will do. The legislation will certainly provide us the authority to make sure certain parameters of the operations are met. The other is something I suppose good operators will do. One good operator will do more than another. I think what you are getting at is really that they look after their residents well, in a proper manner. How you would legislate that I am not quite sure.

The quality assurance, of course, is part of that. It's the same as hospitals. You can legislate many things, but quality assurance is part of their operations, to make sure that what they do is proper and that they meet that standard; otherwise they can't get that certification.

MS. A. HAGEN: Perhaps the minister could tell the House how the quality assurance program is administered. Is it a self-regulating process where the operator has a set of standards — accreditation is the word we often use; I don't mean that in the formal sense of the accreditation — or process that he or she follows? How does the ministry know about that quality assurance?

It's my understanding, with the Social Services and Housing deinstitutionalization, that there are people who are directly involved with that aspect of it. I know you can't legislate it, but I know, too, that having people who arrive on your doorstep and spend some time with you can certainly be a powerful influence.

While I am on my feet, may I also ask how many inspectors the minister currently has or foresees having to implement this clause.

HON. MR. DUECK: We haven't got inspectors per se, but people who are designated for that purpose when required. The quality assurance guidelines have been developed with the full cooperation of the operators, so it wasn't something that we came up with. They helped us to draw up these guidelines.

MS. A. HAGEN: The minister hasn't answered my question, but I'll perhaps pursue that with him at another time.

I want to raise one other point. I'm not quite sure where to bring this up, Mr. Chairman, and perhaps you'll indulge me just for a moment. Perhaps it comes in here: "No person shall obstruct an inspector in the performance of his duties." I also want to note, just for the record, that I've had some discussions with ministry people in respect to standards for professionals who will have access to facilities. I've had some concerns raised. Again, we're dealing with a special clientele, often people who are alone without any support.

[5:00]

This facility has health standards. Health professionals come into the facility, most of whom operate with very high standards. But health professionals in the facilities have had some questions about some of the people who come into the facility to treat clients. It's a very sensitive and difficult issue, because we're talking about a privileged relationship between a client and perhaps a doctor — most likely a doctor — where other health professionals in the hospital may have some concern about the standards of that doctor who is practising. He or she may no longer have hospital privileges, for example.

The minister, in his letter to me in respect of this, said:

"The matter of standards for access to facilities by health professionals is now being reviewed by the ministry. I believe that there are some standards needed in this regard, but we need to be cautious about the type of arrangements that are established. For example, the patient has a basic entitlement to choose his or her own preferred practitioner."

I concur with the minister's perspective there, but the issue is that concerns have been raised by competent, qualified health professionals in care facilities about the standards of some of the people who come into the hospital to provide health services. There is no peer review available to them.

I think the question to the minister at this time would simply be: what progress are you making in respect to this issue, and do you indeed intend to have some kind of a process where there can be some peer review or some question legitimately asked if there is concern about the status or standards of health practice of a person who is caring for a client in a facility?

HON. MR. DUECK: You're correct that this is being reviewed. It's one of the major focus issues brought forward at the long-term-care annual general meeting just recently. I cannot give you any definitive answer on that at this time, because we are reviewing it in cooperation with the operators. It is a complex issue. Up to this point an individual has had the opportunity to call in their own practitioner, professional. At the same time, as you say, the privileges are not the same as in a hospital, where they must meet certain standards. So this whole area is being reviewed, and hopefully we'll be able to come up with something that we can then announce and give you the information on.

MS. A. HAGEN: If an inspector finds that staffing levels at a care facility are below guidelines and that these levels are below guidelines because the facility operator lacks sufficient money through the contract with the government to pay that staff, what does the minister do?

HON. MR. DUECK: An interesting question. It's hypothetical, of course. I suppose we would have to deal with it when we come across the situation.

MS. A. HAGEN: The minister is setting standards through clause 2, the quality assurance program, and

[ Page 7122 ]

a number of other vehicles he has available to him to deal with quality care. Earlier during his estimates we discussed some serious deficits which were also brought out by the auditor-general in his evaluation of the continuing-care program this year, deficits that have been documented by the ministry and that the Long Term Care Association has brought to the attention of the minister over and over again.

I'll tell you how it's described to me. It's described to me by residents or families who talk about a long-term-care facility with one nurse on duty, two floors, a night shift; with one ward that's a psycho-geriatric ward and one ward that is intermediate care too; with one registered nurse on duty, and at times up to 120 residents, and perhaps one or two other people available. If the RN is called away to one floor, there can be very serious staffing implications for all of the rest of the residents. I consider that to be a situation that somebody's got to be accountable for: a serious deficiency in staffing.

I know the minister can say to this House that the operator is responsible to staff that facility at an adequate level. But I find it really disturbing to hear from facility after facility, and the picture is uniform enough to tell me that operators are having a lot of difficulty in maintaining staffing levels throughout the day. I'm particularly concerned about what happens with those night staffing levels, where they are cut to the bone.

I don't know what the minister's standards are in respect to the ratio of RNs to clients or support worker aides to residents. I don't know what those standards are, but to my mind, if you're looking at a facility that has two storeys and one RN on duty for those two storeys, and you're looking at a very limited support staff, then there's a clientele at risk. If all goes well, we're fine. But remember, in many of these intermediate-care facilities we're dealing with psycho-geriatric patients who need very heavy care. We talked about the fact that the ministry wasn't funding to those guidelines, but the minister has assured us that he intends to this year.

Interjection.

MS. A. HAGEN: It's not hypothetical.

If an inspector goes in with the ministry's book of guidelines on the ratios of staff and he or she finds that that staffing is not available — let's just look at the worst-case scenario, which is overnight staffing — and the issue is one of money, what does the minister do about that? Does the minister throw it back onto the shoulders of the operator and say: "You've got to staff that place to a standard that ensures the safety not only of the residents but of the workers in that place"? Or does the minister deal with it as his problem, not just the operator's problem?

HON. MR. DUECK: First of all, I should say that it is up to the facility, with the budgets that they receive, provided they are correct.... And if they aren't, they will from time to time be reviewed. But just because someone is a poor operator and runs a deficit, we're not going to come in and say: "Well, I'm sorry you've run a deficit. Here's some more money." Of course you wouldn't expect us to do that.

We have an increase again this year, and I mentioned earlier that we're trying to address some of the deficiencies. But we expect the operators of the facilities, the same as hospitals, to function with the budget they have received — and it's in a global form. We must do that. We cannot have it open-ended, and say: "Whatever money you require.... And if you spent money foolishly, there will be more money to take up the slack." That cannot be done. We expect them to meet the guidelines. Where in fact there is a deficit due to an error or due to looking at the total funding again, adjustments will be made and are made from time to time.

I hope that this year, with an increase of over 20 percent in the long-term-care budget, we will be able to address some of those inequities even further. We have the option, of course, if it's an operator who's spending money, whether foolishly or because he's got some other area of interest and is funnelling money off into some other area, which has happened.... We can come in and close the operation, I suppose, and move clients elsewhere, or have our people help them to address that issue, and say: "Well, these are some of the areas where you're not being careful, and perhaps we can help you to come back and operate efficiently." We do this from time to time. As a matter of fact, not only from time to time; we're constantly looking at and giving suggestions, advice and information to operators so they can operate within the budget. But I must say we do not — and we say this to every operator — go in and say: "You have a deficit; therefore how many dollars do you need?" It's impossible, and I'll go on record and say that we will not finance deficits. However, we will look at the operation, and there may be times, and there have been times, when we have to correct an inefficiency that's due to some error that we didn't recognize maybe at the beginning of the year.

MS. A. HAGEN: That's a disappointing answer, because it's based on a premise that the only reason this happens is that the operator is a poor manager. Yet we know over the last two or three years, from records that are not my analysis and obviously not the minister's analysis, that one of the reasons these health and safety situations have developed is that there hasn't been enough money in the contract for operators to meet the standards we're talking about, and it is because the global contract funding is not based on the actual costs of operation.

I don't want to get into the business of "This is a poor operator because somehow or other they're not cutting those costs of operation." They are cutting them by cutting staff; that's how they do it. But when the funding doesn't include contractual arrangements, when it doesn't include the benefits.... I've talked to boards who've been struggling with balancing their budgets with a grant or contractual global

[ Page 7123 ]

budget that doesn't address the real costs of doing business.

In spite of what the minister continues to say, it's a simple, fundamental fact repeated over and over again by good, qualified, caring people who are not trying to do anything but run the very best facility they possibly can with the dollars available. It's a fundamental fact that the government has not been providing in those global budgets the money they require to pay their staffs, which is the largest part of their budget.

I don't want to canvass again what we went over in the estimates, but the point I want to make to the minister is that if we're going to look at the goal of this act, which the minister and I both agree is quality care, then there is that fundamental premise of adequate funding. I share with the minister the concern that we don't want to reward poor operators; we want to help them be better operators. All that is a part of the ministry's function, and I know ministry staff people do a lot of work in that regard. But there's a responsibility that lies with the minister here, and only the minister can really deal with the issue. When it comes to the minister saying he can close a facility, I want it to be a situation where that occurs only because the operator of the facility has not been doing his or her job, not because the operator is placed in a really difficult and impossible situation — I'm not talking about closing, but taking over and administering a facility.

Let me conclude by saying that I know this minister has done a good deal of work in cooperation with the industry and out of his own commitment to try to improve that funding situation. He came into a deficit situation, and he faced it for a couple of years. It's still got some way to go. I'm going to be monitoring, particularly, the business of health and safety in respect to staffing, because it's not a tolerable situation to put people into. I don't want to hear, and I'm sure the minister doesn't want to hear, people talking about their concern for the safety of residents and their concern for their own safety in really difficult situations because we're lacking a few dollars to ensure that the situation just does not occur in this province.

[5:15]

HON. MR. DUECK: I certainly don't want to go through my estimates again. I was 18 hours, and I don't want to add to that.

I just want to say that I agree wholeheartedly, and I don't want to lead this House to think that I said that anyone who runs a deficit is a poor operator. I didn't say that.

I travel the province — and I should — more than anyone when it comes to long-term-care facilities. I get around, and I hear the concerns as well as the member opposite who just spoke. I have a concern, of course. When I see operations that are run in a deficit position through no fault of their own, then we have to look at it, and we do. Certainly we wouldn't close a facility that ran a deficit and can't manage, nor would we go in and say: 'Please leave, and we will now take over."

I was referring to a facility that perhaps due to their carelessness.... We've had some, and you would be the first one to recognize that you wouldn't want that kind of an operator out there. So with this authority that we have, we're going to make sure that they're good operators. At the same time, that's why I'm so happy we have this increase in funding for long-term care so that we can perhaps address some of these concerns you have. As I said, I don't want to go into the estimates, because I had 18 hours, and I thought it was over.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

MS. A. HAGEN: Could I ask the minister if this clause — which allows the minister to appoint an administrator where the health or safety of clients in a facility is at risk because of an act or omission of the operator or his staff or the condition of the facility — applies to all facilities: those operated by a non-profit society and board, as well as those that have a proprietary operator who owns and operates the facility for profit?

HON. MR. DUECK: Yes, it applies to both.

MS. A. HAGEN: I have one further question. Does the minister envisage any occasion where he might need to take a similar course of action in respect to the operations of a home support organization? It's a hypothetical question. I want to know whether this enables an action in respect to a home support organization.

HON. MR. DUECK: Yes, it does, and it's possible.

Sections 6 to 11 inclusive approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the title pass?

MS. A. HAGEN: I can't resist a final word, to say that in respect to this particular act we have had a cooperative working relationship with the Minister of Health, in that we on this side, through my initiative, made some inquiries and had some meetings with the ministry before the act was first tabled in the House and before we got to second reading. I found that to be a very useful process.

I want to just note again that one of the things we are all concerned about in this House is to have some joint responsibility for the passage of good legislation. I want to thank the minister for his openness and responsiveness to the concerns we raised and to thank his officials who assisted in that process. I feel that, both in the substance of the act and in some of the intentions, it has enabled us to have a good debate both in second reading and today. I want to acknowledge that on behalf of this side of the House.

[ Page 7124 ]

HON. MR. DUECK: I appreciate those words. I could sit down and you could give me some more compliments, but I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I have to call the motion on the title first, Mr. Minister.

Title approved.

HON. MR. DUECK: Sorry, Mr. Chairman, I thought you had asked that question. I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 15, Continuing Care Act, reported complete with amendments.

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

HON. S. HAGEN: With leave, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 15, Continuing Care Act, read a third time and passed.

HON. S. HAGEN: I call second reading of Bill 28.

PERSONAL PROPERTY SECURITY ACT

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, the Personal Property Security Act is a thorough reform of personal property security law in British Columbia. This act will improve the manner in which personal property is used as security for loans by establishing an integrated code of law for secured transactions.

A code of law contained in this bill will facilitate investment and business activity in this province. It will provide benefits for both lenders and borrowers and for both consumers and the business sector.

This bill is a result of many years of discussion in B.C., culminating in detailed consultations based on a draft act released in July of 1988. This legislation has benefited from the comments of representatives of the bar, financial institutions, lenders, borrowers and consumers. I'd like to take this opportunity to sincerely thank all those who have participated and helped to finally bring this legislation before the House. I believe I can safely say that this legislation enjoys broadly based support.

The act will change the basic principles of using personal property as collateral and will make a number of specific improvements. This bill will establish a comprehensive registry for security agreements, set out clear, consistent methods for determining the priority of loans, introduce a number of innovative features designed to make securing credit easier for borrowers and provide an explicit set of rules for enforcing loan agreements.

Currently, personal property law is governed by five separate statutes: the Book Accounts Assignment Act, the Chattel Mortgage Act, the Sale of Goods on Condition Act, and parts of the Company Act and the Mobile Home Act. Most of these statutes are based on Victorian legislation and rely on the concept of legal title. These statutes have evolved in an incremental and unsystematic fashion. Each act regulates one distinct form of security agreement and has separate requirements for filing and registration. The reason for these separate statutes and the distinction between the forms of security agreements are based largely on legal theories concerning legal title, and have no commercial significance. These distinctions are important only in legal theory.

The Personal Property Security Act replaces the different forms of security agreements by adopting the single concept of security interests. All forms of security and personal property, such as chattel mortgages and conditional sales agreements, are regarded as security interests. All security interests, regardless of their effect on legal title, are regulated by one set of commercially reasonable rules. Having one comprehensive set of rules will result in a simpler, easier system for granting security over personal property. In addition, it will facilitate types of security interests which were previously not registrable, because they were not contemplated by the existing law.

One example of the improvements the act makes is in the registration of security agreements. Under the Personal Property Security Act, a lender will file a notice setting out the essential elements of the agreement, rather than the agreement itself. This notice can be filed at any time, including before the loan is finalized between the borrower and the lender. Furthermore, one notice may cover a number of loans entered into over a period of time. These provisions are designed to simplify commercial transactions, avoid delay in the lending process and lessen the expense of registration. The ease of registration is specifically balanced by protections for the public in the form of a right to have unwarranted registrations removed.

The act will also improve the ability to search for encumbrances. Replacing the various forms of security agreements with the concept of a security interest allows this act to establish a single comprehensive registry: the personal property registry. This registry will combine the three registries that currently exist and will make it easier to search for an encumbrance over a particular asset. All current encumbrances charging the property of an individual or a specific item of collateral will be revealed through a single registry search.

The Personal Property Security Act will also establish a clear, consistent set of rules to determine the priority of loans. Under the current system, the priority of a lender depends on the state of legal title, which is often a difficult and expensive issue to determine. This act will establish priority using a clear set of explicit rules. As a general rule, priority

[ Page 7125 ]

between competing interests will be determined by the order of registration. The first to register will usually win, as he has provided other parties with warning of his security interest. However, there are a number of exceptions dealing with special circumstances where the general rule would have inappropriate consequences.

The act tailors the priority rules to accommodate different commercial situations. These rules will eliminate uncertainty in determining the priority position of competing interests. Of necessity, the detailed priority rules are complex. However, in the vast majority of cases the simple rule will be all that is necessary.

The act introduces a number of innovations which will make it easier for certain borrowers to obtain financing. Under the PPS Act, crops, industrial inputs, fixtures on land and separate parts of collateral may be used as security for a loan. Under existing law the borrower could not pledge this type of property.

Financing inventory will also be simplified by allowing the borrower to pledge property which he does not yet own but which he will acquire in the future. The PPSA will set out special rules dealing with these forms of collateral to ensure the rules are fair and consistent.

This act contains a complete code for enforcing security interests in collateral. The act balances the rights of lenders to realize on the security with the rights of borrowers to protect their property. Clear rules specify when collateral may be repossessed, sold or redeemed. Furthermore, the courts are to be given broad powers to ensure that the security agreements are fairly enforced.

The PPSA also contains a number of specific provisions designed to protect consumers and other borrowers. The ability of lenders to demand early repayment of loans and seize goods that have been sold is curtailed. Borrowers have enhanced powers to demand that registrations in the personal property registry be discharged.

Finally, the PPSA provides a set of rules for determining when security interests of out-of-province lenders are valid. In general, these lenders are given a short period of time to re-register their interests in the personal property registry.

I believe the PPSA will provide British Columbians with one of the most modern and progressive laws regulating security interests in personal property. This act will lower costs to both borrowers and lenders and make it easier to arrange secured financing. These benefits will further enhance the business and investment climate of British Columbia.

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. CLARK: These kinds of bills are the most difficult for the opposition in some respects, because they are very complex bills that amalgamate a whole series of existing acts. They are essentially administrative, with some improvements. It is extremely difficult to do a critique with any certainty.

I had a briefing from the ministry staff, and I thank the minister for that offer. The complex legislation is clearer to me now than it was before the briefing. It clearly appears to be an improvement. It brings the law into the twentieth century. I think the single registry has a lot of merits. There are one or two tiny questions which I will raise in committee stage if I can find the appropriate section, but on balance it seems that when we look at PPSA legislation around North America we are coming up equivalent and, in fact, improving upon legislation that exists, I gather, in Ontario and a few other provinces.

[5:30]

So on balance, I must say that this appears to be a good piece of legislation. Clearly the people have participated in amending it since your bill was brought in. I have looked at those amendments, and they appear to be responding genuinely to concerns. This slightly enhances the security for loans and for lenders, so we have no problem supporting it.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 28, Personal Property Security 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. REE: Committee on Bill 5, Mr. Speaker.

BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1989

The House in committee on Bill 5; Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. CLARK: I wonder if the minister could just explain what section 1 remedies.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Section 1 amends the B.C. Transit Act to allow municipalities and regional transit commissions, which are required to share the cost of operating public transportation systems, to impose the fuel tax on just gasoline, on diesel fuel or on both gasoline and diesel fuel, at their discretion.

MR. CLARK: Can the minister explain what the current status is that we're changing from? It appears to me that regional transit authorities can currently tax gasoline. I wonder what this changes.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: This is to clarify that municipalities and regional transit commissions are responsible for imposing the tax on all or any of these fuels. This is an issue that was raised by one of the associations connected with the transportation industry. It's a clarification.

Section 1 approved.

[ Page 7126 ]

On section 2.

MR. CLARK: This deals with the budget stabilization fund — the BS Fund. I'll probably canvass this with the minister in his estimates, so I won't spend a lot of time on it today. I thought maybe we could ask a few questions about it.

When you look at Public Accounts, there are three sets of financial statements. One, of course, is the combined financial statements; that's what we've always had in British Columbia. One is the consolidated financial statements; that's what the auditor-general recommends we use. Then there's a new one that this minister and this government have created, called the "General Fund and Special Funds Converted to Special Accounts." We'll get into this detail in estimates, but I wonder if the minister could tell me what impact there will be on the combined financial statements of the province after we remove $500 million from the BS fund?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The province will be in sound financial health as a consequence of this innovative measure.

MR. CLARK: I just wonder whether we could get a specific answer. Now that the minister's staff are here, maybe he could help. I'm just curious. We're taking $500 million, theoretically, out of this theoretical account, the budget stabilization fund, and I just wonder what impact that will have on the two other sets of financial statements that the province produced, the combined financial statements of the province. What will happen to the bottom line of the combined financial statements of the province when we remove $500 million from the BS fund? It's a very simple question, it seems to me.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I'm not quite sure what the hon. member is getting at. This is not expected to have any change on the other statements, other than as they reflect the BS fund itself — or, pardon me, the budget stabilization fund itself.

MR. CLARK: That was the correct answer; that's really what I was trying to elicit.

In fact, in the combined financial statements there will be no change to the balance, the bottom line, in British Columbia, because the BS fund cancels out in the combined financial statements. It's really an IOU, an asset and a liability that are taken into account in both the combined financial statements and the consolidated financial statements. So only the general fund is impacted by this manoeuvre and not the other two financial statements. But we'll get into that in estimates.

Maybe the minister can tell me how much of the $500 million we actually have to go out and borrow to make up for it, because presumably you're putting it into revenue to, theoretically, balance the budget. How much of that $500 million do we actually have to go and borrow?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Zero.

MR. CLARK: Be careful with that answer, Mr. Minister. I know we can get into this debate, and we will in estimates, but I wonder if, on reflection, the minister would like to review that. We're spending $500 million more than we're taking in this year, and this money — or this transfer — is theoretically to make up for that shortfall. How much money will you have to borrow on the open market in the current fiscal year to make up for the shortfall that we're going to have in income and expenditures?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Zero.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

On section 4.

MR. CLARK: Again, I just want to ask the minister what section 4 remedies.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: As a consequence of a court challenge dealing with an issue involving the social service tax, it was necessary for us to clarify the legislation. This clarification amendment is intended to indicate that interest charges may be assessed on outstanding tax liabilities regardless of whether a penalty has also been imposed. There was a judgment which appeared to dance on the head of a pin, and we thought we would clarify the matter.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

MR. CLARK: I know that the move from special funds to special accounts in the general fund is a general one that's being applied, and I gather that the auditor-general has reviewed this and has no real problem with it. The general premise about whether special accounts in general funds can be moved around between each other or whether it's really just a housekeeping measure.... Is changing it from a special fund to a special account an accounting question, or does it have a practical implication in this regard or in any other of these changes?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: There's no substantive change. This amendment deals with the Industrial Relations Act by changing the productivity fund from a special fund to a special account. This is achieved by changing all existing references to special funds in that act to read "special accounts." As part of our '88 budget, all special funds existing at March 1, 1988, were converted to special accounts by a special act, the Special Accounts Appropriation and Control Act. To ensure consistency of reporting, it is also necessary to convert the productivity fund from a special fund to a special account. The hon. member and I had great fun with this same basic issue last year, and this particular amendment merely brings the IRA into line with the other acts.

[ Page 7127 ]

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

MR. CLARK: This is the establishment of the social housing special account, another one of the accounts as opposed to funds. This is a special account in the general fund as opposed to a special fund. But this deals with Crown land special accounts, and it transfers funds to a social housing special account. Could the minister explain what can be done now under the social housing special account that couldn't be done under the Crown land special account, or whether it's essentially a political move — I don't mean that in a negative way, but it's a way to highlight the political decision of the government — or whether it has any significance. It seems to me that it does not make any change whatsoever.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The changes of title, of course, are more housekeeping in nature, in the sense that the title of the ministry and the responsibilities of the function have been transferred. At least in the earlier sections, that's the explanation for the changes. I'm not sure if the member had a reference to a specific section. It might help me give him comfort, and I'm here to provide comfort, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CLARK: No, we had the Crown land special account and now we have a piece of it going to the social housing special account, but it has no practical implication. I guess it does only in the sense that the Crown land special account is administered by the Minister of Crown Lands (Hon. Mr. Dirks), and the social housing special account is administered by the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond). Beyond that, there is nothing in this that allows any change that deals with it any differently; it's simply that a piece of money that was in the Crown land account moves to a social housing special account. But nothing can be done with it now differently than could be done with it by the Minister of Crown Lands; it's simply a removing of some money — and no authority — from the Minister of Crown Lands to the Minister of Social Services and Housing. Is that correct? Is there anything in this section or the creation of this account that enables the Minister of Social Services and Housing to do something that could not have been done by the Minister of Crown Lands?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The hon. member is correct in the sense that many of these powers already exist under legislation which created the Crown lands special account. But I think I should advise that the subsection also specifically provides the minister with the power to dispose of land and improvements, which is restricted by the Land Act. The thinking here is that the minister must have that authority, and it would improve our ability to deal with the problems associated with developing that new imaginative program designed to meet the needs of British Columbians to whom the act is reaching.

MR. CLARK: I wonder if the minister could say what it is in the Land Act that needs circumventing or the power to circumvent. It says: "...may, notwithstanding the Land Act, dispose of land so acquired...."

Secondly, I wonder whether the balance in the fund consists of money or can be drawn upon in the form of money from the general fund or something, or whether there's any Crown land that's been transferred up to the equivalent of $20 million. I wonder if that's one way of doing it.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I don't think there's money at stake here, Mr. Chairman. It's a question of disposing of land and improvements only. There's no unique flexibility given in terms of administering funds.

[5:45]

MR. CLARK: I don't want to be picky, but it says the initial balance in the account is $20 million, and it can be used for the purposes of purchasing land to build, presumably, social housing. There's nothing wrong with that. But the government owns a lot of land — 90 percent of British Columbia, as a matter of fact, although lots of it is tied up in various manners or forms. I wonder whether any of the balance in the account is in the form of Crown land or whether it's in the form of money to be used to purchase what will be Crown land, essentially.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The member is referring to subsection (2), I take it. That $20 million is not creating any new spending authority, because section 9 of this bill reduces the balance of the Crown lands special account by the same amount.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

On section 8.

MR. MILLER: I want to ask a number of questions relative to the bill, which basically does away with a piece of legislation that we no longer require because we have brought in replacement measures; that is, a new stumpage regime to....

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Hear, hear!

MR. MILLER: You might not be saying "Hear, hear!" too long, Mr. Minister of Finance. I understand that some of the independent lumber producers in this province are struggling mightily under the weight of that regime. I have also said on a number of occasions that I'm not pleased or proud as a British Columbian to have had to wait for the bill, which did introduce the new stumpage regime to this province, but which had to be taken down to Washington, D.C., to be given a stamp of approval by the U.S. lumber

[ Page 7128 ]

producers before it could be introduced in this House. That certainly is not anything to be proud of.

Nonetheless, the bill is required; I don't argue that point. It was originally brought in to compensate lumber producers who were in fact double-taxed. There was a period of time when lumber producers were paying the 15 percent export tax while the province was negotiating the new stumpage system. During that period, the bill was brought in to compensate producers who ended up paying double taxation.

I noted in the original debate on the bill that it was designed to keep revenue for the province, because the 15 percent tax started on October 1, 1987. The replacement measures came in — and I'll ask this question subsequently — either the 1st or the 15th of November. The bill was deliberately designed to scoop the revenue for the month of October. In other words, there was no refund due....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I remind the member that we are debating section 8 and not the previous bill. If you could just tie it all together and get on with the debate.

MR. MILLER: The bill was originally designed to scoop this one month of revenue. I estimated at the time, looking back in Hansard, that we were dealing with perhaps $20 million. That itself was unfortunate.

In speaking to the bill, the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) said on December 9, 1987, quoting Hansard: "The objective of the bill is to provide the legislative framework for a program to compensate the forest industry in situations where British Columbia softwood lumber is subject to both higher stumpage and a federal export charge." He goes on to say further on, again quoting from Hansard, page 2938: "Compensation will be paid in cases where softwood lumber has been subject to the higher stumpage and the export charge."

Finally, just one further quote, Mr. Chairman, on page 2939, again the same day, December 9, 1987: "The intent of the program is to refund the export tax paid on lumber exported on or after November 1, 1987. A definition of softwood lumber shipments entitled to compensation under the program will be included in the regulations." In addition to the scoop of perhaps $20 million or whatever it might have been for the month of October, the intent of the bill then was to rebate back to producers . . . .

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't wish to interrupt, hon. member, but again, we're debating section 8, which is the repeal of the act. If the member is so opposed, I fail to see how the argument he is putting forward is in order. Keeping that in mind, I would ask the member to proceed.

MR. MILLER: The questions I have for the minister are these. I can give you a series of questions, if you like, or we can do them one at a time. How many rebates were made under the provisions of the bill, and in what amounts? When did the need to do away with the bill come into force: November 1 or November 15? In other words, what date did the replacement measures become effective? It was a point of negotiation with the U.S. Continuing, was the appeal mechanism that was supposed to be attendant to the bill ever used by a producer in claiming a rebate? The amount of money remaining: perhaps the minister could advise what that is. And could he differentiate between the amount that was collected for the month of October and subsequent amounts?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: First of all, the hon. member opposite had a number of questions. Some answers, of course, we don't have with us today; we're going to have to provide them separately by letter or something. He wanted numbers by month, for some reason.

In any event, the total numbers paid under the claim were 71; total claims submitted were 87....

Interjection.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Submitted, 87; approved and paid, 71; value of those approved and paid is $983,318.

In terms of the date of the program, I'm not sure that that's too relevant, in the sense that we did consider all appeals; we did visit them. If the member has some new issue going back into the '87 year that in his judgment hasn't been adequately addressed, I would be pleased to address it — on the provision of adequate information, of course. If the member has a hang-up there, let us know and we will oblige.

I think the last question was the sum of money by month. That's the issue on which we'll have to provide answers later. We don't have that kind of data here, going back to that period of time.

MR. MILLER: Perhaps the minister was confused by my questions; maybe I didn't put them straightforwardly enough. The reason I separate by month is that I was pointing out that the original bill was deliberately designed for the Crown to keep the revenue — the double taxation, or at least one portion of it — for the entire month of October. That's why I made the differentiation. I asked the minister specifically what date the replacement measures became effective on: whether it was November 1 or November 15. That's the significance of splitting those months.

I also asked the minister how much money was paid into the fund and how much remains in the fund. It seems to me it's fairly significant in terms of those dates and those amounts.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Of necessity, the rollover or the merging of the two initiatives means there is a convergence of dates. We specifically allowed an appeal process to make sure that any double-taxing would be rebated, and to the best of our knowledge we have dealt satisfactorily with every one of those instances. If the hon. member has any evidence which would merit a re-examination of that historical ac-

[ Page 7129 ]

tion, then we would be very pleased to look at it. But if we're just on a fishing expedition to consume time, I don't quite know where we're going.

To the best of our knowledge, we have dealt with every one of those situations that might have been abused or double-taxed. If there are any other illustrations that you're aware of, sir, I would be delighted to deal with them.

MR. MILLER: I noted that when the minister was dealing with the previous bill his colleagues were waving white pieces of paper. I assume they meant he was taking too much time of the House. I'm not here to offend the minister, and any suggestions that I'm simply asking questions to take time, I do take offence at. I'm not. I pointed out what I thought was the unfairness of the Crown simply reaping the benefit of this difficult period of time. I also pointed out in my opening remarks that some independent lumber producers in this province are in grave danger of closing down because of this stumpage regime.

I'm trying to ascertain how much money was received. If the minister could simply give me some straightforward answers it would be relatively simple. I'll ask him more straightforwardly: how much money was received from the federal government for the month of November, and how much was paid out? That would allow us to judge whether or not all of the moneys that should have been paid out in fact were paid out.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with a 1987 event, which is two years ago. In the name of sanity, one would expect that the hon. member would be satisfied with my assurance that we'll provide the information later. I don't have it here. But to the suggestion that the Crown has been guilty of double-taxing, I say it again, sir: we have not; we have dealt with applications for refund, and we have adjudicated those applications. Where they had merit, we rebated; where they did not have merit, we did not rebate. Therefore your argument is unsubstantiated. If you do have substantiation, for the third time in the last five minutes, I make the offer: let us have it, so that we can deal with it, even though it is two years old, and even though the events described do not deal with the particular piece of legislation before us.

MR. MILLER: Would the minister please advise me how much remains in the fund? It seems to me that's the ultimate test. If the moneys received from the federal government were the 15 percent export tax, and the new stumpage regime came in, how much remains in the fund? It seems to me the government admitted in debate that it was double taxation, Mr. Minister. I'll send you the Hansard if you want to read that. Just tell me how much is left in there. How much is the Crown going to put in their coffers that perhaps should have gone to the producers of this province?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The sum in the fund is zero, Mr. Chairman.

Sections 8 to 10 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 5, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1989, reported complete without amendment.

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

HON. S. HAGEN: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 5, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1989, read a third time and passed.

Hon. S. Hagen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.