[ Page 10537 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Guide Animal Act (Bill 47). Hon. Mr. Jacobsen

Introduction and first reading –– 10537

Family and Child Service Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 45).

Hon. Mr. Jacobsen

Introduction and first reading –– 10538

Ministerial Statement

Meech Lake accord. Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 10538

Mr. Rose

Oral Questions

Sovereignty-association. Mr. Gabelmann –– 10540

Aboriginal self-government. Mr. Gabelmann –– 10541

Private Post-Secondary Education Act (Bill 24). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Strachan)

Mr. Blencoe –– 10542

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 10543

Engineers Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 27). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Strachan)

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 10544

Mr. D'Arcy –– 10544

Mr. Jones –– 10544

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 10544

Accountants (Certified General) Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 42).

Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Strachan)

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 10545

Mr. Jones –– 10545

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 10545

Science and Technology Fund Act (Bill 18). , Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Strachan)

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 10545

Mr. Clark –– 10546

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 10547

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Attorney-General estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Smith)

On vote 12: minister's office –– 10548

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Clark

Mr. Peterson

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Ms. Smallwood

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege today of introducing to the House Mr. Balram Jakhar, who was the Speaker of the Lok Sabha — the Indian parliament — for over ten years. He's here visiting Victoria today. I'd ask all members to give him a warm welcome.

Accompanying Mr. Jakhar in the gallery today is his party: Mr. Surinder Gill, Mr. Paul Brar, Mr. Bhinder Mandi and Mr. Khushpal Singh Gill. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government I would also like to welcome Mr. Jakhar and to bring back some recollections of a very nice meeting the Speaker and I had with him some years ago in the grand riding of Vancouver South. From this side of the House, welcome.

MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, today in the House we have representatives from the Canadian Jewish Congress who are visiting both the Social Credit caucus and the NDP caucus. I would like the House to give a warm welcome to the following: Mr. Erwin Nest, executive director; Dr. Michael Elterman, chairman; Marvin Stark, vice-chairman; Dr. Bernardo Berdichewsky, chairman of the ethnoculture subcommittee; Mrs. Ronnie Tessler, secretary; Irvine E. Epstein, past vice-president of the Canadian Jewish Congress; Dr. Robert Krell, vice-president of the Canadian Jewish Congress; and Herb Silber, vice-president, Pacific region, of the political liaison committee of the Canadian Jewish Congress. I'm sure all members of the House would want to give them a warm welcome. We look forward to our deliberations with them.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to join me in welcoming some very special guests who are in the galleries this afternoon. From Los Angeles is Anne Boullon, my mother. From Portland, Oregon, are: Ethel Williams, my sister; Anita Williams, my niece; Sheila Williams, another niece; Delbert Williams, a nephew; Elneta Woods, a girlfriend of my nephew; Jamecia Jackson, one of my great-nieces. Also here is my wife Janet Barnes. Would the House please make them welcome.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: As Premier and on behalf of the other member for Richmond (Mr. Loenen), it's my pleasure to introduce to the House approximately 25 grade 10 students and a few adults from Hugh Boyd Junior Secondary School in sunny Richmond. I would ask the House to join me in extending a warm welcome to this very fine group who are visiting our beautiful capital city today.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I was delighted today to have lunch with and to host two visitors to our gallery: Mr. Stephen Daub, vice-president of M.T. Associates and Mr. Jonathan Stewart, senior portfolio manager of M.T. Associates. This is one of the firms which are investment advisers to the province of British Columbia. Would the House please join me in welcoming them.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Here today is a group of Young Socreds from the Tri-Cities Club, which includes the ridings of New Westminster, Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain, Coquitlam-Maillardville and Port Coquitlam: Ken Frost, Lisa Rainbird, Tony Oljacka, Trenton Poy, Richard Merritt, Howard Dahl, Jeff Moss and others. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

Yesterday on the grounds of the 100-year-old South Cowichan Lawn Tennis Club, an event of particular interest to the Speaker of this assembly took place — the annual contest between the press gallery and the Legislative Assembly for the coveted Speaker's trophy. You will be pleased to hear that the Legislative Assembly tennis team acquitted themselves on the lawn courts with honour, and the trophy which carries your name remains firmly in the possession of the Legislative Assembly. Since the contest of last year, which I think I can state in all candor amounted to the humiliation of the press gallery — considerable improvement has occurred in this enthusiastic team, and only an innate sense of fairness and modesty prevents me from giving you the score in the final event of yesterday's contest. Finally, for those whose curiosity transcends their sense of fairness, we have posted the actual scores for the final event in the Speaker's corridor just outside the chamber.

MR. SPEAKER: I will see the matter is circulated to all members.

MR. RABBITT: It is with great pleasure today that I welcome an old friend and colleague on his return to the Social Credit caucus. I would ask the House to give the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) a warm welcome.

Introduction of Bills

GUIDE ANIMAL ACT

Hon. Mr. Jacobsen presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Guide Animal Act.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Bill 47 replaces the Blind Persons Rights Act. The bill extends the legislative protection now enjoyed by people with visual impairment who use seeing-eye dogs to others who use guide animals for assistance. This will include people with hearing impairment who use hearing-ear dogs, people with wheelchairs who use dog assistants and

[ Page 10538 ]

other people with disabilities who may use other animals for assistance.

Bill 47 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

FAMILY AND CHILD SERVICE
AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Hon. Mr. Jacobsen presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill Intituled Family and Child Service Amendment Act, 1990.

HON. MIL JACOBSEN: Bill 45 addresses recommendations 25 and 26 of the justice Reform Committee's report of 1989. The bill requires the superintendent of family and child service to provide parents of an apprehended child with a copy of the report to court, and particulars, if requested in writing.

The bill was first tabled in the Legislature as a White Paper on July 10, 1989, to allow public input. Input received was positive about the intent, but some concerns were identified. Concerns included potential delays in hearings and clearly defining particulars. On the latter point, it was essential to strike a balance between the parents' right to information and the child's right to protection. Bill 45 provides this balance.

The importance and timeliness of Bill 76 is underscored by the fact that cases directly related to the issues addressed in the bill are referenced in the ombudsman's 1989 annual report. Child welfare legislation in other jurisdictions — including Alberta, Saskatchewan and the Yukon — includes provisions for parents to know particulars of their child's apprehension.

The following are details of the changes made by Bill 45. When a child is apprehended for neglect or abuse, the superintendent must present a written report to the court within seven days. Bill 45 would require the superintendent to provide a copy of that report to the parents before the report is presented to court. After presentation of the report to court, the court may fix a date for a hearing to determine if the child is in need of protection. Bill 45 would allow a parent of the child to make a written request of the superintendent for particulars. The superintendent would be required to provide particulars within 14 days. Particulars would....

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. minister. Your time under standing orders has expired.

Bill 45 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Ministerial Statement

MEECH LAKE ACCORD

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I rise today with respect to the situation we now face as Canadians as a result of last week's events. The Meech Lake accord was approved by this Legislature two years ago this week with support from both sides of the House. On the weekend the deadline for the accord ran out, with the legislatures of Manitoba and Newfoundland not having decided on their positions. Many things were said about the accord in the three years since it was signed in Ottawa. Many concerns were raised from a variety of quite different perspectives.

[2:15]

At the meetings that took place in Ottawa between June 3 and June 9 a great many of those concerns were addressed and an agreement reached among first ministers as to how they might be resolved.

Neither Meech Lake nor the agreement of June 9 were perfect solutions, as I said in the House two weeks ago. The government supported the accord and worked hard to shape the agreement that was reached on June 9. We did this because it was our view that the most effective way to ensure the continued unity and stability of the Canadian federation and at the same time to allow for progress to be made on the institutional and economic concerns of great importance to British Columbians and the west was to complete the Meech Lake round and marshal support in other provinces for an agenda which had western concerns at the top.

We have been witness to some remarkable events in Canada in recent days and weeks, and today we should be under no illusions, Mr. Speaker: the situation we face is serious. Whatever the views of British Columbians on the merits of Meech Lake or the value of the agreement of June 9 or the process by which those agreements were reached, I know I can say without contradiction that all British Columbians are strong Canadians. We love Canada. We want Canada to stay united, and we want Canadians to work together to make a better, stronger country for our children and for their children. Despite the outcome of the discussions on Meech Lake, and despite the sometimes destructive tone of the debate that has taken place in recent months in all parts of our land, that love remains strong. Whatever the difficulties we may have to go through in the coming days and months, that dedication to building a stronger, better place for our children and grandchildren remains.

Right now I believe most British Columbians would agree that we need to set aside our differences over constitutional matters for just a while, to allow for time to think, to reflect and to heal the wounds that exist today. There are economic, environmental and social problems to address, and we must get down to work on them. These issues are of daily concern to the people we represent here in this House, and they are of concern to Canadians from

[ Page 10539 ]

Newfoundland to Vancouver Island, from Baffin Island to southern Ontario.

The people who have done us the honour of selecting us to serve them expect us to keep our eye on the ball. They expect us to focus clearly on the issues that matter to them and to their children. They expect us to work with them in solving the problems we all face as British Columbians and as Canadians. They deserve nothing less from us, and they will get nothing less.

We all have our frustrations with some people and some circumstances or events. We have already seen fingers pointed in blame and in anger over the situation we must now face. I see no use in finger pointing, Mr. Speaker, and I have no patience for it. We are still all Canadians, and the things we share in common far outweigh in importance the things over which we may be divided from time to time.

We are among the most fortunate and blessed people on earth to live in this land, to share in its treasures and to benefit from the boundless opportunities it offers. In the coming months and years we must, as British Columbians and as Canadians, consider what lessons we should take from our recent experience.

There's a saying to the effect that the only constant we can count on in modern times is change. We must consider what changes we will want to make to the way we govern ourselves in order to best reflect the values we share together, while allowing room for the diverse characteristics, aspirations and goals which distinguish us as parts of Canada and which enrich us all as Canadians together.

This Canada of ours has undergone many changes since we came together 123 years ago. That is as it should be and must be. We must change to respond to change all around us, and we will have to change some more to reflect the changes we see in the world around us today. This is not a reason for concern; it is to be welcomed.

The world around us is changing as never before. Dramatic political changes are occurring in eastern and western Europe. The changes brought to our workplaces and our homes by technology are shrinking the world and providing us with unprecedented challenges and opportunities. The need to safeguard our very planet from environmental threats requires us to focus our minds and concert our efforts in new ways.

As Canadians we have gone through difficult and challenging times before. We have not only survived them, we have been strengthened by them. We are the envy of the world for the wonderful and enduring accomplishments we have achieved together. There is every reason to believe that in the future, we will continue to respond to the challenges we face with the same determination, imagination and generosity of spirit that has marked our history together.

While we cannot foresee in detail the precise shape of things to come, we do know that the Canada of ten years from now must differ from the Canada of today. In this regard, it is my firm intention to work hard to create a Canada in which the institutional and economic framework has changed so as to better and more effectively reflect the needs and the interests of the west.

Mr. Speaker, from time to time there are differences in view across this aisle as to the best course to follow on particular issues. I believe I can speak for all members, however, in saying that we stand together today and we'll stand together tomorrow and in the days to come in our determination to help us through this period of uncertainty and confusion.

British Columbians are strong Canadians and will remain so. British Columbia is not giving up on Canada — quite the opposite. This government, this House and all British Columbians will rededicate themselves to playing an active and constructive role in shaping the changes we need and will have to face in the future.

It should be recognized also that Quebec will begin bilateral negotiations with respect to jurisdiction and responsibility. We too should be prepared to similarly approach Ottawa on issues where such negotiations may be of benefit to British Columbians.

I am confident that our love of Canada, our appreciation of what we have here and what we cart do in the world will lead us to redouble our efforts to meet these challenges and to take advantage of these opportunities to reassure Canadians and those millions of others in the world who look to Canada as a beacon of hope and inspiration.

We as a country and as a people are strengthened by our diversity, and treasure all the more the history, culture and geography we are blessed enough in Canada to share in common. As British Columbians and Canadians, we know that it is by acting together that we can pursue and realize our common goals and dreams.

MR. ROSE: We on this side of the House have never felt that constitutional development was a highly partisan issue. We would have preferred, however, to have had an opportunity to view the Premier's statement somewhat in advance of when we were given notice of it at 1:45 p.m. I think it would have made our responses perhaps a little bit more complete and perhaps even a little bit more literary. However, that might be questionable.

I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that in view of the events of last weekend, today is hardly a day for jubilation. It's hardly a day, though, of mourning necessarily, and it's certainly not a day for finger-pointing.

Despite the efforts by all the Premiers to enhance Canadian unity and to bring Quebec to the constitutional table, perhaps Meech was doomed from the beginning. It didn't seem that way three years ago, but subsequent events indicated that might happen, and we have to ask ourselves: why has it happened this way? I think it's too simple to say that it was for one simple reason alone.

I think a lot of people dislike and distrust the Prime Minister. I'm sorry to say that, but I think it's true. They objected to his pressure tactics and his brinkmanship and manipulation of the Premiers that

[ Page 10540 ]

weekend, summarized by his glib "roll of the dice" statement the following Monday.

Others objected to the process in which the constitutional future of our people was decided behind closed doors by 11 men, regardless of how objective they were and able to keep the nation intact. Anyway, these views were imposed on 26 million citizens without any real input from the people to be affected. We all know that now; perhaps we didn't all know that then.

Others in Canada, notably English Canada, are still smarting about the French-only sign law, and feel that Quebec always gets too much and didn't give an inch. On the other hand, Quebec signed a deal three years ago — a national deal, a federal deal — and the nationalists in that province wouldn't tolerate any further Bourassa compromises. The minimal deal, therefore, was what Mr. Bourassa had to stand upon.

When you add the worries about women, the questionable supremacy of Quebec's distinct-society clause over the Charter of Rights, native people, who sense they're being ignored once again, disappointment by the triple-E Senate reformers, and millions of others in the multicultural community who were dejected by the failure of Manitoba's Filmon's proposed Canada clause, it's a wonder that two weeks ago Meech squeaked by with the grudging approval it got during the Premiers' meeting.

Mr. Speaker, as I sense it, the mood is more one of sorrow than of anger or even vengeance. That has been expressed by the principal players. No threats have emanated from or been expressed by Premier Bourassa. He has to consider his position. He's been reasoned and moderate, despite his obvious disappointment. I think we have to be extremely careful — all of us — because one careless word from him or others on St-Jean-Baptiste Day could ignite the tinderbox of emotions and, because of nationalistic sentiments, cause riots In the streets of Montreal and Quebec City. Let's hope that doesn't happen.

I think — and I agree with the Premier on this point — that it's time for calm and reasoned reassessment of a flawed Meech process, which has excluded major groups in Canada and led to the failure of Meech. After a breather — perhaps a prolonged one — it will be time to try again, I think, for Canada, the envy of the rest of the world. Canada is too great a place to give up on. Whatever happens, Canada will never be the same again. There's no doubt in my mind that our future Canada will be one of greater regional, economic and cultural autonomy for the west and for the Atlantic provinces, and will be a far less centralized nation than we presently enjoy at the moment.

In conclusion, other countries have gone through excessive strains and stresses. The U.S. had a civil war; they were divided, yet they survived. Revolutions and civil wars are not the Canadian way, Mr. Speaker, Meech or no Meech. Its failure is evident, but I would like to leave by saying that the failure of Meech is not a requiem for the country. But it may be a requiem for the Prime Minister, and it's certainly a requiem for the process.

[2:30]

Oral Questions

SOVEREIGNTY-ASSOCIATION

MR. GABELMANN: I want to address a question or two to the Premier on the same topic, if I may, just briefly. I want to be careful in my questioning, to choose words carefully and to try as far as possible to offer these questions in a non-partisan way. We have gone through a very difficult and traumatic weekend in the history of this country, and we all need to be careful.

Today in the House and earlier, in particular on May 29, the Premier's comments have been moderate, measured and appropriate. On May 29 he said: "Right now, we need courage, political will and, above all, nation-builders." I must ask the Premier how he squares those comments and today's ministerial statement with his comments in the interview with various members of the media on the weekend in Richmond.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I said in my statement today — and I heard it from the opposition House Leader, and I think we can all agree — that we do face a different Canada. As a matter of fact, negotiations may already be taking place between Quebec and Ottawa on a reassignment of jurisdictions and responsibilities. It may be that these negotiations will go on quietly.

In the final analysis, I would expect that we will see — as some people would call it — sovereignty-association. Quite frankly, I don't really know what the term "sovereignty-association" means, in that it has different meanings depending on whom you speak to or where the question is asked. But I would guess that in the view of Quebec it means assuming more responsibilities over some of those things that they believe will be of a particular benefit culturally and economically.

I would suggest — and hopefully the opposition may be of a similar mind — that if, for example, Quebec decides to quietly negotiate an immigration agreement whereby they'll have greater input, this could be of benefit to us as well. We know, for example, that there are particular skills we need in our province that may not be needed in Ontario, let alone within 25 or 50 miles of Ottawa. Therefore, we could, by having much more input, serve the people of the province more effectively.

Likewise, if there is some agreement reached between Quebec and Ottawa about federal spending in an area of provincial jurisdiction, I think we should be ready to see what the meaning of this is, and whether British Columbians might not be better served with a similar agreement. When it comes to an agreement whereby Quebec as a province is able to take greater economic initiatives to benefit their

[ Page 10541 ]

particular region or province especially, we might want similar things.

I will be recommending to government that we consider seeking as much expert advice as possible from constitutional people in the province to see what the options are and to try, in some respects, to second-guess what Quebec could or might be doing, so that we could be similarly prepared. We might be somewhat proactive as opposed to reactive.

I think we should also develop a process — which has been lacking, and we all agree on that — by which we could seek more timely and effective public input into that whole process, so that when there is an attempt to negotiate a bilateral agreement, we will know that this is what the people will support, and that it will be of benefit to them and will be seen as such. I think that's really what we're talking about here. I think that's timely, rational and a benefit not just to British Columbians but to Canada.

MR. GABELMANN: Incidentally, Quebec has operated under the Cullen-Couture immigration agreement since 1979, and B.C. is one of only three provinces in this country without an immigration agreement — for the Premier's information.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier of Quebec has been careful and measured, and he has not — as far as I'm aware — used the term "sovereignty-association" in these last few days to describe what he may be thinking about or imagining. He has been very concerned about impact on investment, very concerned about future negotiations and very concerned about the possible future of this country, and he has chosen not to use inflammatory words of that kind. Why has the Premier chosen to do that?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I think the member for North Island is assuming that I've used that term.

MR. D'ARCY: They've reported it.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I think we'll forgive the member for Rossland-Trail for his naivety. But certainly the question has been posed as a result of the article, and frankly....

MR. SIHOTA: You just said it.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: And I'll say again, as I said in those interviews which took place just before I entered the House, that I don't, quite frankly, know what exactly may be meant by sovereignty-association — I use the term again — particularly since oftentimes things get lost in translation when expressed in Quebec, as opposed to what might be said about it here or how it gets reported here. That's fair enough. I don't fault anyone by that.

In answer to your question, I think it's prudent on the part of the government of British Columbia to do as much work in advance as possible, realizing and recognizing, as I think we all do, that there will be changes, many changes, taking place over the next number of months. That's not bad. As a matter of fact, it could be that in the final analysis much of what takes place over the next months or year could be of tremendous benefit to the country if we come at it rationally and with an open mind.

MR. GABELMANN: The Premier talks of changes. Clearly that's in the cards. The Premier talked earlier of process. The Premier talked of bringing in experts to help with this process. The Premier and I, coincidentally, both came to Canada as immigrants in 1947. Tens of thousands of our citizens in this province have lived here for at least 10,000 years; many other citizens of this province have lived here for generations. Has the Premier decided on the process of public involvement and public consultation that will be followed in order to arrive at a genuinely supported public position in British Columbia on our constitutional and other arrangements with the rest of this country?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: First, before I answer that question — and as a part of the question, perhaps, as well — let me reiterate that we on this side of the House stand for one united, strong Canada. Let me add to this that if bilateral negotiations about change take place between Canada and Quebec, then we ought to be there on behalf of B.C.

In the subsequent agreement that was negotiated between June 3 and June 9, there was the provision for us to develop nationally a process to allow for appropriate public input. They didn't spell out in that agreement what it ought to be, because I think we perhaps need some feedback on that as well. We will be developing a public process. As a matter of fact, I would invite the opposition to submit to me, preferably in writing, so we could have it available for consideration — some ideas on public process that you think to be most effective. I think we could both work that out, and I would certainly be open to ideas as to what process might best serve the people of all parts of this province.

ABORIGINAL SELF-GOVERNMENT

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, Canadians of all persuasions were in awe of the performance of Elijah Harper this last few days. It was a remarkable performance on behalf of remarkable people. That performance would not have been necessary had the '83-87 discussions about entrenching aboriginal rights in the constitution been successful. The Premier was one of three Premiers who refused to agree to that entrenchment. Does the Premier now regret having taken that position back then?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Again, Mr. Speaker, I was not there between '83 and '87, except in the spring of '87, when we had a first ministers' meeting to deal specifically with self-government. For those who have a transcript of the meeting, and for those who taped it or have some other record of all of the things said at the conference, which lasted several days, there's one thing that all will recognize: no-

[ Page 10542 ]

where, during the whole of that two days, was there anyone who could give us an explanation of what self-government meant.

MR. CLARK: Sort of like sovereignty-association.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Perhaps. The member for Vancouver East says: "Sort of like sovereignty-association." It was a suggestion or a name put forth or a proposal made without an explanation of what it meant, and it meant different things to different people. We tried to get an explanation of it. We didn't want to buy something, on behalf of British Columbians, that we didn't know the meaning of. It meant more to British Columbians than it did to Prince Edward Island, because after all we do have a much larger native community in this province.

So I don't apologize for that. I regret it was such. Perhaps a number of people might have failed in properly preparing for that conference. But better we deal with it properly than deal with it in some way and find we made a mistake or went too far or not far enough. I'm not sorry that it went the way it did, given the little information available. I'm hopeful, however, that we can get back to it and be better prepared at that time.

[2:45]

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 24.

PRIVATE POST-SECONDARY
EDUCATION ACT
(continued)

MR. BLENCOE: When we adjourned on Friday, I was reading into the record my experiences with a Victoria school of business, CompuCollege. I had said that, like my colleagues, I was most concerned that basically what we were doing in this legislation was eliminating the public scrutiny and monitoring of such private institutions, of which there are 450 in the province. Indeed, most of these institutions, by inference in their advertising, show prospective students that they have the seal of approval of the province of British Columbia. But when it really comes down to it, the supervision and monitoring of such institutions is minimal. Yet the expectations and the fees are enormous, and many students are often shortchanged. In the experience I had through extensive investigation of CompuCollege in Victoria, I found that to be quite accurate.

For the record, some of the concerns I turned up about this institution in Victoria are really symptomatic of the problems we have with this kind of private institution. Students complained that they were not told that the Society of Management Accountants of B.C., the Certified General Accountants' Association of B.C. and the Institute of Chartered Accountants of B.C. do not recognize CompuCollege diplomas. Yet business students were given that impression and pay up to $3,500 for a diploma in such an area.

CompuCollege claimed: "The courses are recognized programs in accounting, and graduates will be equipped for a career in accounting." That was a statement by the person formerly in charge of admissions. In the course outlines they also noted that "qualified and experienced chartered accountants will be teaching," and it's quite evident that no such thing was happening at CompuCollege in Victoria. I have also put on the record that the admissions department of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of B.C. evaluated CompuCollege courses and did not recognize them.

There is a serious situation happening with this private institution, and I am not convinced.... Indeed, I think we're going to have a continuation of the same kinds of problems. Under the legislation we have before us, where a private commission is basically going to administer these institutions, such things are going to continue to happen in British Columbia.

I found a number of other things that were glaring omissions and problems with this institution. Students found that they were not being well served; indeed, they were clearly being taken advantage of. Some students, for instance, told me that they had been granted diplomas without completing the required courses. The medical secretary course was cited as an example of such an allegation. Students claim that they were often left on their own, due to instructor absence or lack of instructors, and that the school lacked sufficient equipment and materials to meet course outlines.

I understand that some of these things have been corrected today, not because the ministry was doing the investigation but only because I, my staff and a number of other people took the time to do the investigation. The college does not provide students with the hours of training instruction promised on some equipment such as computer terminals. I don't want to go through any more of what I discovered with this institution, but I want to table this information for the minister.

A number of things have been corrected, but a number of things have been left outstanding. The issue of fees is still outstanding. There still is no published fee schedule. Allegations continue that fees for many students were determined by how much they could obtain in student loans from the province. Many students that they clearly couldn't accept were accepted into the college without the prior course work to handle college courses. I could go on and on.

The evidence was there that we had an institution that wasn't being monitored or supervised. Yet many students were paying extreme amounts of money for diplomas that were virtually worthless. As I say, a number of these things have been corrected. My major concern is that when we have so many private institutions like this in British Columbia, rather than ensuring public accountability and scrutiny, we are moving in the opposite direction.

[ Page 10543 ]

It's very much tied into the fact that there's greater pressure on the public institutions. Many students cannot gain access or get the courses they want, so they turn to the private colleges. But without making sure those private colleges are monitored and supervised properly and that students are getting what they're told they are getting when they enrol, I think we are doing great disservice to the young people of the province.

Like my colleagues, I think this bill is moving in the wrong direction. I think we need greater accountability by the public sector in this area, and I, like my colleagues, intend to vote against this legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, the House is advised that the minister terminates debate.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I found it curious through this whole second reading debate that members continually brought examples of abuses in the private post-secondary system, yet still say they are going to vote against this legislation. The reason I find it curious is because if the members would read this legislation, they would understand it's this bill that's going to stop those abuses.

The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr Sihota) discussed at length the Easy Way Training School. I'd like to briefly go over that example of how things can go wrong and then deal with the remedies that are in this bill to stop that from happening again

The Easy Way Training School was operating briefly as an unregistered private training institution in Esquimalt. The operator of this institution had never contacted the private institutions office of this ministry regarding the registration requirements under the Apprenticeship Act. A few weeks ago our staff and the private training institutions received word from a registered private training institution that an institution known as the Easy Way Training School was operating in Esquimalt. The manager of private training institutions then communicated with the alleged owner of Easy Way, who denied operating a private training institution.

As a precaution, staff from the ministry sent the alleged owner an information package on the registration requirements and procedures for private training institutions. The manager of the private training institutions also telephoned the licensing branch of the municipality of Esquimalt, who informed him that no business licence had been granted the Easy Way Training School to operate as a school. Apparently the alleged owner of Easy Way Training School had applied for a licence under the name of City Business Consulting to operate a résumé-writing service, but the cheque for his licence was found to be NSF. The private training institutions office received no communication from dissatisfied students or the Better Business Bureau regarding this matter.

During the second reading of this bill, opposition members raised this example to question the efficiency of our legislation, and I want to point out now that this legislation will stop those and many other abuses.

The evidence given by the second member for Victoria with respect to CompuCollege is also interesting. If he reads the bill closely and does as much investigation with respect to this legislation as he did supposedly with CompuCollege, he would know that the checks, balances and controls are clearly in this legislation,

I would like to point out the essence of this bill and what it really does. This act is designed to regulate an industry which contributes much to the education system in British Columbia, and as the member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) pointed out in her comments, there are some very good private training institutions in the province. I thank the member for those comments, because generally the industry has a very good reputation.

But like any other industry and any other situation, there are always some apples in the basket that aren't totally fresh, and it does attract some unscrupulous individuals whose actions have a deleterious effect on the whole industry. It is equally unfortunate that the Legislature cannot legislate against breaking the law, because there will always be corrupt individuals who will find ways to circumvent the law.

The Private Post-Secondary Education Act, however, contains many deterrents to would-be lawbreakers. The executive director may suspend, revoke or refuse to register an institution which is in breach of the act, the regulations or a directive of the commission. This means that an institution whose registration has been refused or revoked could be prevented from operating in British Columbia.

Secondly, institutions which contravene critical sections of the act such as the requirement to register and post a bond are liable to fines of up to $25,000. The commission may apply to the Supreme Court for an injunction restraining a person or institution from contravening this act. For example, if an institution operates or continues to operate without being registered, then an injunction can be sought.

Section 28 of the new legislation empowers students who paid money to an unregistered institution to demand and receive a refund of total fees paid with no questions asked. These refunds are recoverable as a simple contract debt.

There is not much more I want to say at this point. We have had an awful lot of not relevant debate from members opposite on second reading of this bill. It's clear to me, in all the argument I've heard over the weeks now on Bill 24, that the members clearly have not read the bill. Nor do they understand what it says. We can probably make more of those specific points about the legislation— the strength of the legislation — as we move to the committee stage.

But let me just summarize, in closing this debate, by saying that under this new act a greater range of private post-secondary institutions will be required to register. Each registered institution will post a bond to protect students against financial failure; thus Alpha College situations will be avoided. Consumers will receive greater protection in other ways

[ Page 10544 ]

under the new legislation. For example, restrictions are placed on advertising. Regulations are being developed to ensure that potential students are fully informed about an institution's programs or courses. And although accreditation may be voluntary for some institutions, for a significant number of institutions accreditation will be compulsory.

Accreditation will be required in areas especially vulnerable to the unscrupulous practices of a few institutions; foreign-language students would be a good example of that. Reputable institutions in the same area who desire recognition of their excellence will receive it. Institutions seeking designation to participate in government program purchasing, nonrepayable students' assistance and enrolment of visa students will be required to be accredited. With this new bill our government is advancing its constitutional responsibilities for post-secondary education. The checks and balances built into the new system will ensure that accountability continues for the public.

There's one more concern that has been expressed by some of the excellent private institutions in our province. The second member for Langley (Mr. Peterson) has presented a concern to me with respect to Trinity Western and how they're going to be accommodated in this legislation. When we get to committee stage, Mr. Speaker, the member will be proposing an amendment, which I'm sure we will adopt. It will reflect the concerns of Trinity Western and other schools that are in the same category: that is, they are accredited under the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada and therefore will be exempt. So I thank the second member for Langley for his contribution to forming this bill, and we will be seeing amendments coming to the bill in committee stage With that said, I move second reading of Bill 24, Mr Speaker.

Motion approved.

Bill 24, Private Post-Secondary Education 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. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 27, Engineers Amendment Act, 1990.

ENGINEERS AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

HON. MR. STRACHAN: In speaking to and in moving second reading of this legislation, I'll point out to the House that the main purpose of this amendment is to incorporate geoscientists under the Engineers Act. This amendment has come forward at the request of the Association of Professional Engineers and is supported by geoscientists in the province, the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and the superintendent of brokers and the Vancouver Stock Exchange.

[3:00]

The incorporation of geoscientists in the Engineers Act is critical for the recognition of a significant professional group of approximately 1 200 geoscientists in the province. They contribute greatly through their expertise to the economic development of our province.

Membership in the Association of Professional Engineers is necessary for geoscientists to gain the professional status required for the signing of qualifying documents, prospectuses and other documents. This amendment of the Engineers Act is well supported and appears to be a logical solution.

Members will note that a number of miscellaneous housekeeping amendments are included in this legislative package. We can discuss those housekeeping items when we get into committee stage, because they are specific to sections and specific to some housekeeping items of the Engineers Act.

So with that said, Mr. Speaker, I'll move second reading and take my place and listen to whatever response there might be.

MR. D'ARCY: I would agree with the minister. It essentially is a housekeeping bill that does indeed incorporate changes that both groups have asked for, as well as other elements. In many respects it gives the engineers the ability to take advantage of some of the things the geoscientists could do, and the geoscientists at the same time are incorporated and receive some of the abilities to act as engineers.

So we have no objections to the bill and will be supporting it at this time.

MR. JONES: I just want to second what my colleague from Rossland-Trail has indicated is our position with respect to the amendment to the Engineers Act. We have met with the engineers regularly, and this is one of the amendments that they have long called for.

I guess the only criticism they would have, and we would have on their behalf, is that this process has been a very slow one for this group. It's been well over a year now that they have been seeking these kinds of amendments.

It makes sense because no organization in B.C. licenses these geoscientists, comprised of geologists, geophysicists and geochemists. Many practise in our province in areas that are common to geological engineers, so it follows and is appropriate that they be licensed by the professional engineers' association.

This happens in other provinces. There would certainly be no negative impact in the province of British Columbia. To my knowledge, all the affected groups that would be concerned by this legislation have been contacted and are supportive of this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I will certainly add our agreement to support this bill and give it speedy passage.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I thank both members of the opposition for their comments. Their points are well taken. I'm sure that if there is any further

[ Page 10545 ]

detailed discussion, we can do it during committee stage. With that said, I'll move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill 27, Engineers Amendment Act, 1990, 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. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 42.

ACCOUNTANTS (CERTIFIED GENERAL)
AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, the Accountants (Certified General) Amendment Act, 1990, is essentially a bill that brings the CGAs into practice compliance, discipline compliance or similarity with the chartered accountants. They had been seeking these amendments.

The amendments are specific in detail. They are modern in the sense that they allow for some modem appeal purposes and the ability to discipline their members. With that said, I welcome further debate, either in second reading or in committee stage.

MR. JONES: Mr. Speaker, we also wish to support this particular amendment act. We understand as well that this has been a request of the CGAs. Their desire to have greater powers to establish and enforce professional standards for CGAs is laudable and commendable. We want to encourage them in that process. That process will produce a more responsive professional body. As such, consumers of their services will be better protected. We wholeheartedly support that.

We have some minor reservations that we could deal with in committee stage, but in terms of the principle of the bill and the motives and goals of the certified general accountants, we support their desire to improve their ability to regulate their profession.

With that, we add our support to this bill and look forward to some discussion in committee stage on it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Once again I'll thank the member for Burnaby North for his comments and his input into this debate, as brief as it was both from his point of view and from mine.

Perhaps before I take my place in second reading, I'll point out that certified general accountants are a significant group in British Columbia. I think their membership now is 7,000 people. They practise throughout the length and breadth of our province They have a very good practice. They function very well in terms of assisting the community and assisting society in terms of their accounting practice. I didn't want to take my place at second reading without mentioning the fact that they are a significant association in our province, bringing us many good people doing many good things. I'm sure all of us in this House are pleased to quickly and expediently pass these amendments.

With that said, I'll move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 42, Accountants (Certified General) Amendment Act, 1990, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 18 in the name of the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology, and I will now begin to speak to it.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FUND ACT

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Members will know that this was a feature of our budget. I can assure the House that it was met with some considerable enthusiasm by the science and technology community. It raised the amount of funding from the provincial government considerably.

I have so many bills here — I'm awash in paper. Well, when you're from Prince George, it's a good sign to have a lot of paper around. We like to see that.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. ROSE: What's that got to do with the bill?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Lots. It's written on paper.

Through this fund the provincial government is committed to increased spending of $420 million on science and technology over the next five years. This is an increase of $300 million over the 1989-90 spending level. The science and technology fund will consolidate all Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology science and technology programs under one umbrella and provide funding for new provincial science and technology activities. The annual allocation to the fund will increase by $122.6 million by the fifth year of the fund.

Essentially the act states that the fund will provide financial assistance for scientific and technological research and development; promote public awareness of science and technology; ensure the availability of trained personnel and facilities that are necessary to provide an infrastructure conducive to the conduct of scientific and technological research; provide funding for programs to encourage the growth of advanced technology in British Columbia; and provide funding for major projects leading to greater economic diversification and increased industrial competitiveness in British Columbia.

This fund has been recognized now as being able to contribute a commitment of $20 million to the centres of excellence; that was a commitment I made last week at the University of Victoria. That's what the centres of excellence required for their program, and we were able to commit from this fund that

[ Page 10546 ]

spending for our three excellent universities and the work they're going to be doing.

I'd also like to point out one more comment in second reading. I had the good fortune about three weeks ago to attend in Edmonton the National Forum of Science and Technology Advisory Councils from across the province. All of the councils were there, 11 in total, the ten provinces and of course the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology. It was a very pleasant position to be in, because all the scientists and members of advisory committees from across Canada had by this time heard of our legislation. They were pleased that we had this money committed and that we were committing to a longterm funding arrangement, one that just wouldn't die on the next budget but in fact was a solid commitment from the government, in statute form, that there would be funding of a specified amount and term. British Columbia's commitment to science and technology was seen as very positive by scientists, government officials and administrators from across Canada.

We really do see the fund benefiting all British Columbians. We know it will assist in provincial economic diversification. We know that we can enhance industrial competitiveness in new technologies in traditional industries. We know we can assist in the creation of new export industries. We know that this funding will emphasize technologies that promote a clean environment and quality of life.

This fund represents an exciting departure in provincial funding strategies. It is a recognition of the unique needs of the science and technology community. The purpose of the bill and the purpose of what we're doing as a ministry is to establish a framework of principles and processes by which the fund will be managed and observed. Our aim is to ensure that the fund will serve the objectives and purposes laid out in the act and in the British Columbia science and technology policy.

That is the essence of what I wanted to say during second reading. I know there will be some response from members opposite, but I do commend this bill to the Legislative Assembly. It's positive. It certainly gives the science and technology community a knowledge of where they're going. They have a clear blueprint of the term and of the funding that's going to be made available to them.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 18.

MR. CLARK: This is one of those political bills. Far be it from me to discuss politics in this chamber; we don't want to have that rear its ugly head in here. But this is one of those particularly political bills: you know, those try-to-get-elected bills. We saw special accounts for different.... Special account for education. We've got that Freedom to Move account — the highways one.

[3:15]

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: The Premier says: "What's wrong with freedom to move?" Nothing wrong with it, but we thought it was meant for commuters. Now we know it's just Social Credit cabinet ministers who have the freedom to move around British Columbia. We didn't realize that. We thought the government was talking about how to commute — the problems of congestion in communities like Maple Ridge, Mr. Speaker; I know it is a real problem in your constituency. But we didn't know it was really for cabinet ministers to commute back and forth.

Now this is a bill like that bill. This is the Science and Technology Fund Act, which sets up a separate account. I have several concerns about this. No one is opposed to science and technology. No one is opposed to research and development. Everybody knows that we are not doing enough in British Columbia. In some ways that's a criticism of corporations, and in some ways it's a criticism of the government. The government comes along with a separate bill to try to remedy that problem. No one can be opposed to that. No one can be opposed to more funding for science and technology — or long-term funding.

However, I'm a bit concerned about several things. One is the whole question of accountability in our parliamentary system. This bill says we're going to dedicate a certain amount of money for this fund and if it's not spent this year, it can be spent next year. The problem with that, first of all, is that no government can bind any future government. We saw under Social Credit previously a huge commitment to reforestation which was never kept. In fairness, it wasn't kept because we went into a very deep recession and the government of the day decided to use the money for other things. That's what governments are elected to do: to decide where taxes are raised and where money is spent.

It is folly to suggest to people that this money necessarily will continue on year in and year out. If it did continue on year in and year out, the problem with that, again, is this whole question of accountability in this chamber. What we do on this side of the House is debate the spending and priorities of the government on certain issues. If we debate a certain amount of money this year for science and technology, and the House agrees on it, then next year we go through that exercise again. To say that that money can carry forward is really against the parliamentary tradition. It has to be debated every year in any event.

I understand the politics of saying that there is long-term funding. I understand the politics of having a bill specifically for a science and technology fund. But it's simply not true to say that this money will continue over next year if it's not spent, because it still has to come before the House and it still has to be debated. And so it should; if that's not the case, then I really have concerns about it. But I'm sure that if there's money next year that hasn't been spent in this fund and they want to spend it in the next fiscal year, then that will have to come before the House for debate. It maybe gives some greater degree of certainty to those who are concerned about long-term funding — and we support that — but it does not, by

[ Page 10547 ]

its nature, actually give more money to science and technology next year and the year after. That's a decision to be made in this House at that time.

The other thing I'm concerned about is the potential for pork-barrelling, the potential for spending the money willy-nilly. We've seen in science and technology some interesting things with Social Credit. We saw Moli Energy. Do you remember that firm? It might even be in your constituency, Mr. Speaker. We know they have very good technology, but we also know that the government of the day, Social Credit, and this administration spent something like $40 million gambling with public money on that private venture. It has subsequently failed and been picked up for peanuts by offshore interests for the technology — there might be something of that yet; I won't be too critical of an interesting and innovative advance.

Is it the role of government to give that kind of money to the private sector? Maybe it is, but if we're to give money in science and technology, we have to be careful. There are lots of exciting high-tech firms operating today in British Columbia; indeed, there are hundreds of them. It's very exciting. Yet many of them — the vast majority of them — do not have any government money, and then one company can pick up $30 or $40 million. Is that the best use of the taxpayers' dollars? It clearly wasn't in this case, because we've lost it all. That's easy to say in hindsight, I suppose.

There has to be a process so that all high-tech companies, all science and technology companies, are dealt with equally, and so there are some criteria some rational decision-making. If there is government money to be handed out in this very risky venture in order to promote diversification, then it should be done in such a way that everybody can compete equally, not just one company getting a huge amount of government money.

I understand that this bill may in fact have some review process for the awarding of money, but when you look at it, it says: "the written authorization of the minister." So the minister of the day has discretion over millions of dollars to give away to high-tech companies, and that concerns me. It should concern all members of the House, in terms of the accountability that we like to see and that should be in place for the spending of all tax dollars. Never again should one company, as in the case of Moli Energy, receive that kind of money without peer review, without good scientific review, without the processes in place that ensure that that is the best way, the biggest bang we can get for public money.

I suspect that if you look around the province and see the kinds of exciting high-tech developments we have, there were other maybe more worthy — or at least as worthy — ventures which could have tremendous spinoffs for British Columbia. Take the minister's riding of Prince George. There is clearly the potential there, especially with the university, to so some exciting things in terms of forestry technology We have in British Columbia — in Salmon Arm, of all places, for example — Newnes Machine, which develops the top-quality lumber sorters in British Columbia — some of the best in the world, right in Salmon Arm. It's an exciting and excellent unionized company, I might say, Mr. Speaker.

That's the kind of company which, with some research — even though they do lots of that now.... There may be a case for the government to look at that company, which clearly is a winner, and build on that strength, to take Prince George and make it a forestry technology capital of British Columbia and maybe even of the world, and to build on the natural strengths we have and to move them in a high-tech direction.

Clearly that makes a lot of sense. But rather, in British Columbia, we've seen grants given to some companies without any apparent strategy. Again, $30 million or $40 million to Moli Energy for a battery which may or may not have been worth.... It has failed, so clearly we've lost a lot of money in that venture. But batteries— is that the area where we should be competing?

Hopefully we can compete in a range of areas, but clearly we have a comparative advantage in our natural resource sector. We are importing 50 to 75 percent of our logging and sawmill equipment and 75 percent of our mining equipment in British Columbia. That's not good enough. If we want to diversify British Columbia and if we want to build on our strengths, we should use this kind of money to build on those strengths.

Nothing prevents that in this bill, and I acknowledge that. But what I would like to see is a little tighter rein on this government's ability to dole out that kind of money; rational, thoughtful analysis on where we're going in British Columbia; and some checks and balances built in to this legislation so that we can proceed in a rational way to build up our high technology sector and build in our comparative advantages in the natural resource sector. That's not really in this bill.

This bill is a political bill, as I started out saying. It's a bill to try to show that the government is interested in certain areas— to flag it for electoral purposes. It's open to pork-barrel abuse and that concerns me greatly.

Having said that, we have no problem supporting the bill because we can see some exciting possibilities in this sector for British Columbia. If we had that kind of planning, if we had the peer review and if we had a strategy for developing British Columbia in this sector, particularly as it relates to our forest, natural resource or environmental sector — which is an exciting area of new development in British Columbia — it would be much more useful and we could support it even more strongly than we are today.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members are advised, pursuant to standing order 42, that the minister closes debate.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't share the member's pessimistic view of this legislation or its intent.

[ Page 10548 ]

I'll admit Moli wasn't the cheeriest note in British Columbia's scientific history, but I will advise the House that we have in place now a body that we will be using with respect to this bill, the Premier's Advisory Council on Science and Technology. That's a blue-ribbon board of members chaired by Bob Alexander, formerly of Microtel, who is now doing the major telecommunications for the Commonwealth Games.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I know, but I'm responding. You made your comments so I'm going to respond with mine just to get it on the record.

It's an excellent body, and we have, by legislation, another body called the Science Council of British Columbia. So we do peer review. As a matter of fact, the first item that I mentioned receiving funding was the British Columbia network of centres of excellence. They were established by an international body that looked at 14 major networks — actually, it came out to be 15; one was added a little later — and centres of excellence throughout Canada. British Columbia did very well in that review. As a matter of fact, on a per capita basis, we clearly have the best university system In Canada with respect to that type of science work that's being done.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: In the free world. On a per capita basis we came up well ahead of Ontario and any other province in that centres of excellence international peer review.

I accept what the member is saying, and I accept his concern. I don't agree with him, but I want to put on the record that we have established an account, the size and term of that account, and we clearly want to deliver this in the best fashion we can and be as open and accountable as we can.

As I said in my first comment, the scientists from across Canada that I met in Edmonton three weeks ago applauded this bill. They said: "This is exactly what we need in our province." They said British Columbia is really leading the field in terms of R and D. There's excellent R and D being done. The second member for Vancouver East pointed out Newnes Machine in Salmon Arm — a first-class outfit. They used to be in Prince George, as a matter of fact — or they had an operation there — and they still sell a lot of sawmill material in Prince George.

One of the best R and D companies in British Columbia — not too many people realize this — is MacMillan Bloedel. They do first-class research. Their Parallam product is an example of the type of research they do. There's a lot of good in industry, doing some very good R and D. I should point out — you speak of Prince George — that PAPRICAN is in Prince George, and B.C. Chemicals, which is doing some excellent R and D.

AN HON. MEMBER: PAPRICAN?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, they've got four scientists there. I think the only people located outside of Montreal in that organization are in Prince George.

B.C. Chemicals at Prince George has developed some very interesting chemical re-refining processes from the pulping process and are into a world-class market now with some of the chemicals they can produce.

We're seeing an awful lot of good science being done. We're seeing good science being done by the universities, by small researchers and by large companies. In this bill we want to indicate to Canada and to the international science community that British Columbia is a province that strongly supports the industry we have here. We want to see it grow and flourish, and that is the reason for this bill. With that said, I move second reading of Bill 18.

Motion approved.

Bill 18, Science and Technology Fund 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.

[3:30]

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. De Jong in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ATTORNEY-GENERAL

On vote 12: minister's office, $267,471 (continued).

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, we get into the debate around the Attorney-General's ministry and the estimates of that ministry, although I kind of get the feeling that we're filler. Just the other day we went on for about two hours, and I take it that today we're going on, and who knows what's going to happen tomorrow in terms of the ministry.

Where we left off last time, I guess, events have transpired with respect to the abortion legislation, although I want to ask some questions later on of the minister around that legislation.

I just want to start by asking the minister a general question. Could he tell the House what conflict-of-interest rules govern employees within his ministry?

HON. MR. SMITH: The rules that govern all civil servants, from government personnel services; there is a big manual of rules.

MR. SIHOTA: Could the Attorney-General confirm that there is a provision in those rules that requires those engaged in his ministry to disclose all of their financial interests? Is that the way it works?

HON. MR. SMITH: If the member wants, I'll get the manual down. I don't think that's required, but I'll get it down.

[ Page 10549 ]

MR. SIHOTA: Does the minister know to what extent, then, if it's not all? Is there a percentage in terms of, let's say, a shareholder interest in a corporation? Is there a minimal percentage that's required?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I'll have someone bring the manual down so I can read the specifics out of it to save him time.

MR. SIHOTA: We'll come back to that line of questioning when the minister has had an opportunity to acquire the information that he has asked for. I'll defer to my colleague for Vancouver East.

MR. CLARK: Maybe we could just talk for a bit about a subject which I guess the minister knows a lot more about now. I gather he just came back from a conference on youth gangs. I wonder if the minister could take the opportunity to brief us a little bit on what transpired at that conference. As he knows, every year I've raised this question—- I hope sensitively and not in any alarming way — in the House. I would like to ask maybe a few questions on that, but I don't want to pre-empt what comments the minister may have.

Perhaps if he wants a specific question he could give us a sense of whether there is some move in a national way to coordinate policies with respect to other attorneys-general, or perhaps I am ill-advised as to the nature of the minister's recent conference. I was under the impression that it was on youth gangs or related matters.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I have not been at a conference on youth gangs. You may be referring to the annual meeting of attorneys-general last week or the week before in St. Catherines that dealt with the Young Offenders Act. Canada had been asked at the Charlottetown conference to make certain changes which we talked about here last year. Canada reported back on where they were with those legislative changes.

MR. CLARK: My apologies then. My information was that it was a conference specifically to deal with youth-related problems. Maybe I made an incorrect assumption.

Perhaps the minister could give us some indication.... He knows about the range of initiatives on this question, which are very important to people particularly in Vancouver and elsewhere. They cross ministerial boundaries. We have policing questions which are very important, and I'll quite properly address those to the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr Fraser). We have problems with English as a second language, which is a very serious problem; in fact, probably the principal problem with respect to the kinds of youth gangs we're getting in Vancouver. I know that's not in the minister's purview.

However, I know that the minister's purview is the question of prosecution. Perhaps he could give us a bit of an update on the functioning and effectiveness of the special prosecutor who I think his predecessor started in order to deal specifically with youth gangs and youth-related criminal problems in Vancouver.

HON. MR SMITH: There are a number of initiatives relative to youth gangs and to criminal gangs generally. There is a crossover, unfortunately, between youth gangs and organized criminal activity.

First of all, youth gangs themselves are, by definition, organized criminal activity. But I think there's also a crossover — between that and youth gangs — to some of the more traditional notions of organized criminal activity.

I can refer you to a number of initiatives that are underway. With regard to the prosecution process, we have a system of hierarchical prosecution for young offenders — for youth gang offenders particularly — which relates to having those prosecutors appointed in a way that they keep conduct of the matter early on, in some instances at the investigation stage. Once there is a charge, then they have the matter through to completion.

So the gang prosecution unit monitors and undertakes those activities. There are some ten prosecutors now located throughout the regions of Vancouver, West Vancouver, Richmond, Sechelt, Squamish, Burnaby and Surrey. They are trained and familiar with involving themselves in those kinds of cases. I think they've had a pretty good record of success, if you measure success to the extent of successfully prosecuting matters that are brought before the courts.

In addition to that, the CLEU organization — of which we are a participant, at least in the policy end of it — is heavily into issues related to gang activity. We also have a substantial amount of education going on.

A number of initiatives, not only interministerially but interjurisdictionally, involve the Ministries of Education, Social Services, Solicitor-General and Attorney-General, the Vancouver School Board, the Vancouver city police, the RCMP and others.

We've developed a number of programs intended to impart information in the schools, as well as in the community at large. We've done things as novel -and I think as useful - as having a summer program of youth camps for new Canadians, particularly law camps.

I've attended two of their graduation ceremonies, and I've found them to be really very useful. The young people who go through those law camps in that way develop a different perspective. They come from different backgrounds and even have a different juridical system. They develop a different perspective. But most importantly, our follow-up has shown that they tend to become role models inside the schools themselves. It's nice to know that those going through the law camps have in their heads some ideas about our system of law in this country and then become role models in the school, rather than the other way around, as has sometimes been the case.

Those are the kinds of initiatives that we're doing.

[ Page 10550 ]

MR. CLARK: All those initiatives, of course, are worthwhile, and I certainly support the government's efforts in that regard. It's easy for me to say that it's not enough, and the minister would probably agree with me that this is a difficult problem.

It seems to me as a citizen in east Vancouver and with the kinds of calls and the like that I get, one of the things that would be interesting is the relative effectiveness. In other words, there seems to be.... Probably a great deal of blame for this goes to the media, because these crimes tend to be sensationalized by the press. Nevertheless there's a great deal of apprehension right now in east Vancouver and in southeast Vancouver in particular. Much of it is unwarranted, frankly, again overstated by the press, but nevertheless a serious problem. The minister agrees.

Perhaps he could give us some sense of the incidence of gang-related crime — whether it's declining over time or rising. One certainly gets the sense that it's still on the increase in spite of the very good efforts that the minister alluded to a minute ago. In spite of those efforts, one gets the sense it's still rising, and therefore the apprehension of the citizenry in my community and particularly south of my community is rising as well, which is not a healthy situation, I'm sure, and I know all members agree. While I know we all agree that more can be done, I think it heightens the awareness that more needs to be done, given that sense of tension. That's maybe too strong, but I think there's a growing concern which leads to all kinds of other potential problems — racially motivated problems and the like — that I have some real concern about. That's why I try to raise it in the House with other ministers at every opportunity.

I think that your ministry has done more than most of the other ministries, if I can say that, and I don't want to single you out for treatment. I'll be much more aggressive dealing with some other ministers who I think haven't done enough. But perhaps you could give us some statistical information about the incidence — whether it has declined or is still rising, as it would appear, and any projection as to how the ministry feels it is handling this question.

HON. MR. SMITH: I don't know that the statistical information I have at my fingertips is as useful in answering your question as what you would get from the police reports through the Solicitor-General, because that tends to show you how many incidents are taking place. Our stuff shows you what is into the system and is going on to court.

I should point out that there is indeed an interministerial committee working on this issue as well as some of the other things I referred to. While that may seem interesting, the fact is that the interministerial committee is working at the minister and deputy level, but most importantly is also working at the working level on an ongoing basis.

[3:45]

The issue I'm most concerned about is twofold.

First, there are a lot of resources in the community to bring to bear on the problem. The question, in my view, is to focus them in a way that they come to bear on the problem and don't get diffused through all sorts of activity that relates more to turf than to solving the problem.

The other thing I'm concerned about — and every chance I can get to do it.... I appreciate what you said earlier. There is a tendency, in the way some of this stuff is reported, to categorize people by place of origin. That's not correct, first of all and most importantly. But also I think it does a certain amount of damage because it masks the issue that youth gangs are more pervasive than simply matters relating to immigration or source of immigration. In fact I know they are, and they are for very complex social reasons, some relating to all the traditional issues that arise with people who are new to an area not being able to get into the mainstream of activity quickly enough and looking to role models who take advantage of that. Others, quite frankly, have to do with the increased use of drugs in this society. Where there is an increase in utilization of illicit drugs, there is also an increase in this being a transportation and entry point and an increase in the laundering that's going on in Vancouver. That means that there is also, in my view, an increase in the adult-organized activity finding it convenient to start to draw in some of the youth as their underlings. That has a whole different dimension to it.

But in terms of the convictions, we have had success, quite frankly, in knocking over a couple of fairly sizable gang interests. Right now it's kind of at a plateau in terms of arrests through to conviction and incarceration. I wouldn't want anyone to draw from that the conclusion that there's a diminution of gang activity. Neither would I want to be alarmist about it. It is growing as the population is growing. It is also growing to the extent that there is more organized and sophisticated criminal activity going on all across North America, and we're not immune to it.

MR. SIHOTA: I take it the Attorney-General now has the information with respect to conflict of interest in his possession. I'm wondering if he could just tell me, then, what is required of government employees in terms of disclosure. What are they required to disclose?

HON. MR. SMITH: The conflict of interest guidelines for employees are set out in this document. I'll table it — not right now because I have to use it; I don't have a second one with me. The document is "Standards of Conduct" for public service employees. The last one was published in 1987. With regard to conflicts of interest, the document says the following:

"The government recognizes the right of public service employees to be involved in activities as citizens of the community, but employees must keep their role as private citizen separate and distinct from their responsibilities as public service employees and they must avoid conflict-of-interest situations. Conflicts of interest include situations: (1) where an

[ Page 10551 ]

employee's private affairs or financial interests are in conflict with his or her duties, responsibilities and obligations or result in a public perception that a conflict exists; (2) which could impair" — or appear to impair — "the employee's ability to act in the public interest; or (3) where an employee's actions would compromise or undermine the trust which the public places in the public service."

MR. PETERSON: I'm pleased to take my place in the Attorney-General's debate on his estimates. I would like to spend a little time talking with the Attorney-General on the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act and the success of it. It was an act that I was very supportive of, because too often some members of our society tend to shirk their responsibilities, particularly when it comes to their own children. I've always felt that if two adults can't reconcile their differences, children shouldn't suffer at all. The least a parent can do is ensure that the financial well-being of their children is looked after. Accordingly, I was extremely pleased to see this government and the Attorney-General bring in that act and proclaim it.

I'd like to ask the Attorney-General if he could bring us up to date on the results of that act. For example, what sort of success story have we had? How many applications have we had? What has it resulted in? I'd be very interested in hearing his replies. I think it's most important that as parents you look after the well-being of your offspring, whether you be a single parent or whatever. I'd like to hear the minister's comments, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR SMITH: The family maintenance enforcement program has enjoyed much success in the province. It's a matter we discussed this past weekend at a conference of western attorneys-general Through the programs of reciprocity that we're initiating from this jurisdiction, as well as through some of the administrative procedures that have been developed in other jurisdictions, we will have the opportunity to expand the ambit of this program, both for people who move here and for people from here who move elsewhere and whose families may be split and whose children will be living in one area or another.

The program began in January 1989. It was up and running, but not quite in full.... The latest figures I can give you come from June 16, when the program was monitoring and enforcing 10,306 individual maintenance matters, of which about 30 percent are on social assistance. The program is in the process of registering or enrolling some 1,471 further applications. That's as of June 16 as well. Last year when I stood in this House there were about the opposite: 1,400 or 1,500 enrolled and another 6,000 or 7,000 waiting to be enrolled. A year later there are over 10,300 enrolled and some 1,400 in the process. We're getting applications at the rate of about 300 per month. Last year the program handled just over 100,000 telephone inquiries. It is my expectation that we'll be collecting, during the next twelve months from where we're speaking in the House, well in excess of $13 million — I would think even more for the children and single mothers of this province. Much of it, I might point out, would not be collected otherwise.

We keep track of the complaints, because the complaints that come in are very important to us, to help us to evaluate and improve the program. We know we can improve it. We also keep track of the disposition of the complaints. As of the end of March, for instance, we had 229 complaints, 24 of which were repeats. That would reflect about 2 percent of the filing kits then received. Of those complaints, 127 were verbal; 102 were written; 62 came through the Attorney-General's office or by the mail; 28 came through MLAs' offices.

The complaints range over a number of things, as you might expect. Enrolment delays accounted for 32 of the complaints; lack of enrolment, 51; lack of communication, 59; inappropriate communication — they didn't like the way they'd been spoken to; inappropriate enforcement, 15 — the person was complaining about the way the enforcement was taking place; program error, 16; legislative concerns, one; reciprocal enforcement matters, or a complaint about another jurisdiction, 11. Of those 229 complaints, 33 were outside the program's mandate. Increasingly that is a phenomenon that we run into, because the program is a bit of a lightning-rod for people who have all kinds of concerns about both the system and their own marital status or their own family status.

I sent a letter to all MLAs early this year asking them to provide me with the written complaints and concerns that people have. I've had response from three or four MLAs with some complaints that we've been able to resolve, and some very helpful suggestions that came with them. I will repeat again, as I have throughout, that if there are specific concerns, it's important that we get them and get the specifics, and we will deal with them.

I should also point out that there are a lot of anecdotal complaints that come up, and it's wonderful cannon-fodder for a headline or two in the Vancouver Province or BCTV or whatever one wants to do. It's a nice cheap way to get it. On each of those occasions in the past year when it came up and we followed it up, there was an explanation that made the complaint somewhat redundant. Likewise there are stories of great successes which, like the anecdotal complaints, are not indicative of the program. There have been some great successes. People have snapped $50,000 or $55,000 for people who hadn't had the money for ages. One success was $50,900, another $28,500. There are all kinds of those anecdotal success stories which would not be indicative of the mainstream of the program, which after all is a collection program.

Later this year we're going to introduce legislation for this House's consideration that will allow both sides of the story to be presented when any of that arises, so that in fairness it can be discussed immediately and openly in public.

[4:00]

[ Page 10552 ]

MR. PETERSON: I want to thank the Attorney-General very much for his answer. I am astounded at the numbers that he has given us here this afternoon. It clearly identifies that there was a real need out there. I'm exceedingly pleased that this government responded to it. I would also like at this time to compliment the Attorney-General's staff who are looking after that program. Being able to bring a program into being and handle that volume in such a short time shows their dedication. I would like to go on the record as thanking them very much, Mr. Chairman. I also thank the Attorney-General once again for his response.

MR. SIHOTA: We will return to that program a little later in the estimates. We'll canvass it in detail, and I will certainly want to let the member for Langley know that and invite him to participate in the debate and offer his thoughts.

MR. PETERSON: You can count on my being here.

MR. SIHOTA: Good. We can count on him being here.

I'd like to continue with my line of questions for the Attorney-General. He has now advised us what the rules are. Could he tell us whether there is a minimum requirement? Is a civil servant required to disclose a minimal amount? I know that some jurisdictions say that if you have a 5 percent interest in a particular corporation, you don't have to disclose it. Are there minimums in the guidelines established for this ministry?

HON. MR. SMITH: Given the standards of conduct for public service employees — which is for all employees, including this ministry — the answer is no.

MR. SIHOTA: I see. I take it, then, that full disclosure of any interests is required. Could the minister tell us what process is in place to allow for Individuals with possible conflicts of interest to disclose them?

HON. MR. SMITH: Generally the policy throughout government is that the onus rests with the employee. They disclose to their immediate supervisor and then up through the line as the case may be.

MR. SIHOTA: Those are the general provisions. Are there any more specific provisions in this ministry?

HON. MR. SMITH: The requirements for public service employees are government-wide, and this ministry is no different.

MR. SIHOTA: When an employee in the office of the Ministry of Attorney-General discloses an interest, how is it noted and recorded?

HON. MR. SMITH: Presumably the fact of the disclosure would be placed in the personnel file.

MR. SIHOTA: How would the government generally know — apart from looking at the personnel file — that an employee may have an interest that conflicts with his duties?

HON. MR. SMITH: As I Indicated earlier, the process in the public service is intended to deal with the immediate supervisor. You would not expect the civil servant to rush off and disclose to the government.

MR. SIHOTA: Once a disclosure has been made.... Let me give the minister an example. You have lawyers in your ministry — apart from others — who are involved in giving advice to all different branches of government. How would another branch of government be notified of this if it's kept only on the individual's personnel file?

HON. MR. SMITH: The supervisor to whom it was disclosed may very well share that information with another ministry, if appropriate and as he sees fit.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, the obvious thing for people to do when they find themselves in a conflict is to absent themselves from a decision in which they may have a conflict. Is there a process in place for that to occur, and if not, could the minister explain how it is ensured that the individual who may have a conflict absents himself from decisions that are being made?

HON. MR. SMITH: First of all, one of the things that would obviously occur is that after it was disclosed, you would absent yourself from decisions involving that particular property interest. And it is clear and specific that the onus rests initially with the employee to make the disclosure according to the guidelines, and then with the immediate supervisor to be confident that the appropriate action is taken based on the disclosure.

MR. SIHOTA: For the protection of both the employee and the process, what notation is made of the fact that the individual has absented himself from the process?

HON. MR. SMITH: I would have to find out what, if any, notation is made.

Perhaps the member could get to the specific incidents he's obviously walking up to in this discovery process and just ask the question. Are you concerned about a specific individual in the Attorney-General's ministry? Are you concerned about a particular property? And are you concerned about another ministry? That might be the easy thing to do, sir.

MR. SIHOTA: It's for me to ask the questions and for the minister to answer them. Therefore I'll con-

[ Page 10553 ]

tinue to ask the minister the questions. But that last question sort of begs another question in my mind. You laid out three possible scenarios there. In the instance of another ministry, would your ministry have any knowledge or any role in that? I would assume— and the minister can correct me if I'm wrong in this — that when you're dealing with another ministry, it would be up to that ministry to deal with its own employees, but those employees employed by the Attorney-General's ministry would be governed by his ministry, even though they may interact with other ministries.

HON. MR. SMITH: All of those things are possible, but it's really quite fruitless to try and get at this hypothetically, because obviously each case would be governed by the circumstances. That seems to me to be axiomatic in these issues.

MR. SIHOTA: Perhaps the minister seeks some clarification. Let me just give him an example. I'll pick one in terms of the Motor Carrier Commission. I don't know whether you have lawyers that advise the Motor Carrier Commission. But if there were, let's say the chap had — and I'm not saying this is the case by any stretch of the imagination — an interest in a trucking company or taxi service or whatever. What would be the process for counsel provided by the Attorney-General's ministry to a commission of that nature? I take it the expectation is such an individual would notify the commission he had a conflict and would then absent himself in front of that commission from any decisions that may impact on his interest. Am I to conclude that that is the way it is expected to work?

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, there again, it starts with the supervisor, and that might be one of the ways it would work. It depends on the question being asked of the Motor Carrier Commission, obviously.

MR. SIHOTA: So in that type of an example, would he or she inform the Motor Carrier Commission, inform the Attorney-General's ministry or both?

HON. MR. SMITH: He or she would have informed the supervisor, who presumably is in the Attorney-General's ministry. And yes, it's possible that the alternative suggestion would happen as well.

MR. SIHOTA: Apart from this process of voluntary compliance, I take it that there is no other process in place in government for the government to monitor these or for the ministries themselves to monitor this type of situation.

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, there is the Financial Disclosure Act, and designated public employees are required.... But beyond that, the standard of conduct for public service employees is what governs, and that, as I say, is the program in place for all civil servants, and has been for a long time.

MR. SIHOTA: I take it that it's basically deputy ministers that are required under the Financial Disclosure Act to provide their disclosures.

HON. MR. SMITH: It's anyone designated by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

MR. SIHOTA: Who is then designated in your ministry?

HON. MR. SMITH: I'll have to determine if there is anyone in this ministry other than myself who is designated.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. SIHOTA: To return to my question, apart from the provisions of the Financial Disclosure Act and the voluntary compliance that the minister has referred to, there is no other vehicle through which people should be reporting these conflicts?

HON. MR. SMITH: We've had a good number of years of experience with this issue, and so far there hasn't been a need to have any other process.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, does the Attorney-General not think that there ought to be something more stringent to cover these types of scenarios than the guidelines he has in his possession?

HON. MR. SMITH: If the member would like to lay out what types of scenarios he's referring to, I'd find it somewhat easier to answer the question.

MR. SIHOTA: Fine, we'll get to that in due course. I want to ask the Attorney-General some questions with respect to another area.

The other day the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) asked a question of the Attorney-General, which I'm sure he recollects, dealing with abortion. Here we are talking about it again in these estimates. She raised the matter of a challenge to the legislation to determine whether or not the provisions of Bill C43 were constitutional. As I recollect, the Attorney-General's reply was that no, the government would not be interested in doing that. Could you explain why?

HON. MR SMITH: First of all, the legislation is not through Parliament.

MR. SIHOTA: And second of all?

Is that the only reason, Mr. Attorney, that you offer that opinion?

HON. MR. SMITH: Quite frankly, as I have said to that member so many times in this House that it causes nausea among most people witnessing it, I do not intend to get into a hypothetical journey with him. It is not legislation yet, and therefore anything that will flow from that isn't worthy of discussion.

[4:15]

[ Page 10554 ]

MR. SIHOTA: I see this is not going to.... Well, I'll stay away from that kind of comment.

I take it the province is not entertaining any action in that regard at this time. Mr. Chairman, let me say that it is unfortunate. I think there is a sufficient amount of concern about the provisions of the federal abortion legislation.

This government is well known for its position on the issue, particularly the view of the Premier that runs along the lines that this matter is something that.... The provincial government does not think there ought to be any level of choice attached to women. In fact, if I recollect what the Premier had to say some time ago, his argument was that even in the instances of rape or incest, women were required to bear a child through to term.

With that type of attitude and with the limitation on access to abortion in British Columbia, in various communities throughout the province.... Some of them are well known to all of us, as they've been raised in the House before. Combine that with the new federal legislation, concern that physicians, as my colleague the member for Vancouver-Point Grey so aptly noted some time ago.... It causes some concern, and it certainly has caused some fear within the medical community that they may find themselves facing prosecution for giving advice with respect to an abortion. The concern, therefore, from a number of women's groups — and I must confess that I share this concern — is that physicians are going to become far more hesitant in providing this advice and unwilling to provide that advice because of the prospects of facing prosecution. Therefore access to the medical procedure is going to be denied to women, and hence the choice that they can make is further impinged upon. It will result in shopping from one doctor to the other.

I think that the federal government would have been best advised to stay out of the field and allow the situation to be what it was after the court made its ruling some time ago, and not to have interjected through the provision of new legislation, because I think legislation along the lines of Bill C43 — the amendments to the Criminal Code — rekindles the rather emotional debate we've seen in this country around the abortion issue. More importantly in other quarters, it may well limit the extent to which women can procure these services.

I know that this matter has been discussed extensively at a number of meetings and panels I've been to, and I know it's also been canvassed thoroughly in our party. We've taken the view — I should put this on the record — that there ought to be a challenge to the federal legislation. We think it's important to secure a ruling on the constitutional validity of that legislation and to resolve whether or not the law can stand. It causes great frustration and anger in other quarters, of course, but it particularly causes great frustration in the medical community.

The Ministry of Health hasn't seen fit to discuss this matter with the B.C. Medical Association and either provide them with guidance on this issue or give them some comfort in terms of the government's intentions with respect to this legislation. Other jurisdictions have done that. Most notably, we are all familiar with the situation in Alberta and the posture that the Alberta government has taken with respect to prosecutions around the abortion issue.

Consequently I am wondering if the Attorney-General's ministry, knowing that the Ministry of Health hasn't, has had any discussions with the medical community to guide them around those provisions. Has that occurred at all, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. SMITH: I don't know the correctness or otherwise of the premise of the question relative to the Health ministry; I'm sure that will be raised in the Health minister's estimates. We in this ministry try to deal with reality. When and if the legislation is passed by Canada, and when and if it is proclaimed — which is yet another matter — at that time we'll decide what, if any, action we have to take.

I know that the member wants a reference on this issue. That's fair enough; he's entitled to his views. It's interesting to note that he opposed the reference to the E&N. He was derisive about it, and he stood and said it was bravado to bring an action to save that historic right for British Columbians, to protect our constitutional powers and to protect the agreement we entered into at Confederation.

I was very disappointed that the member, representing as he does a place called Esquimalt, would counsel against taking that action— as we have done — to save that railroad and to save the integrity of the constitution arrangements between Canada and British Columbia. It is without precedent that a person from Esquimalt would want to stand by and simply let that thing go down the tube, and would not support the difficult challenge made in the face of everything that Canada could throw at us to keep that going.

In the CAP reference, derision came again from that member, who said that we shouldn't do that. I think it's important that we stand up on behalf of British Columbia's interests when they're not being properly served or when there is a moment at which we should and must stand on behalf of the people of this province against unilateralism by the federal government. It was an action which I might say was not supported by the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew but was supported by the United Native Nations and every other province in Canada. We were joined by three others, including one that did not have any direct effects.

We look forward to receiving that member's support when we stand on behalf of British Columbia in the future. I'm hopeful — I'm always hopeful, Mr. Chairman; even, I suppose, where there isn't hope, I'm hopeful — that he will see the wisdom of our ways in these matters and support the sensible view we take of the E&N and CAP.

MR. SIHOTA: I guess the Attorney-General won't allow the facts to prevent him from making a good speech. I've noted in the past that he tends to ignore the facts. But he wants to make a good speech and

[ Page 10555 ]

therefore comes to the conclusion that he'll say whatever he wants to; he'll construct the story to be consistent with his misinterpretation of the facts. That is again true with the E&N.

Perhaps he should take the time to take a look at what I and my other colleagues in this caucus had to say about the E&N case so that when he decides to give his next speech, he would be mindful of the fact that we said: "Fine, if you want to litigate against the federal government, be our guest; but understand that if you're going to take that route, you may not get what you're looking for, given the historical agreement between British Columbia and the federal government." That was the point that we made. Mr. Attorney, you'd better go back, take a quick look at the facts and make your speeches after you've had an opportunity to assess what people had to say.

I take it that it was the federal Minister of Justice who said she was prepared to sit down with the federal government to talk about the E&N situation. That is the way it should be. I'm of the view that whether you win or lose the case, we may not be further ahead in terms of the quality and nature of the service that we have on Vancouver Island. If you want some advice, I guess it is that you ought to take advantage of the opportunity that Kim Campbell has now provided you with and start to negotiate towards a return of that service to the provincial realm, or negotiate towards a better service on Vancouver Island.

But given the parameters of what you can achieve in court, in my view you're not going to end up with anything near what Vancouver Islanders want in terms of a quality ongoing service. You may be able to succeed in securing the type of inferior service that we have on Vancouver Island, where we still run a 1953 or a 1957 train up and down the island once a day, starting at 8 o'clock in the morning here and then coming back from Courtenay.

I think I learned a long time ago as counsel — and I would think that the Attorney did as well — that sometimes the wisest thing is not to fire off a writ immediately, but to push the other party into a negotiation mode. That can prove to be far more efficient and economical for your client, and in this case for the province. It may well have been better to engage in those negotiations.

If you take a look at the E&N situation, I think that a compelling case.... I don't have the documents here in front of me, but I don't think that the case you've filed allows for the broader interpretation with respect to the nature of the service. There are many who have argued that some of the original terms around that service would have allowed for British Columbia to have that service not as far as Courtenay but extended to Campbell River, and others would interpret the agreement to mean as far as Port Hardy. That, of course, is a matter that is not before the courts, and it's the kind of matter that should be negotiated.

Nor, really, is it going to be up to the courts at the end of the day to make an opinion, given the way you've.... Again, I don't have the stuff here, but I can produce it for you and share with you my concerns on the way you've drafted it. Nor does it deal with the salient issue, which is the nature of the service and an order with respect to the frequency of the service.

In fairness, I'll commend the government for one thing: the fact that you've been able, through Mr. Justice Esson's judgment — I could be wrong again on that because I don't have the file here in front of me — to get an injunction and to maintain the service now, pending the various appeals. That may mean that we on Vancouver Island will not know the final disposition of this matter for three, four, five, six or maybe eight years, as this thing winds its way through the courts — which is a long time to wait to find out what might transpire.

On the other side of the coin, given the fact that you have succeeded on the first round, in my mind it would be preferable if the government were to now enter into serious negotiations with the federal government and convince them not only that the service should be provided, but that it should be a quality service. If they're not prepared to provide a more frequent service to look after the concerns of Vancouver Island, then perhaps discussion should commence on the matter of turning over the service to the province and allowing the province, either through the private or the public sector, to run the E&N.

I see the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) is here in the House as well. It seems that the line has tremendous potential for Vancouver Island. When one assesses highway improvements and highway upgrading on Vancouver Island, they ought to also be mindful of the potential that the E&N railway line has if properly used and properly funded. The potential for cross-subsidization of the more lucrative freight service, to offset some of the enormous costs of the passenger service, should be another item that ought to be looked at both by that ministry and this.

If you want to talk about the E&N, which I don't have any great problem talking about, you had better understand, Mr. Attorney-General, that litigation is certainly one approach. If you look at the record carefully, you were not criticized for taking the matter to court, but you have to understand that that approach has its.... You may laugh, but I'm sure that even you understand that that approach has its limitations. What you may be able to procure at the end of the day, in terms of a court order, may not attend to the needs of people on this island. That's the point, in terms of the objection that I uttered with respect to the court case; it's just reminding people that at the end of the day it may not achieve what you want.

[4:30]

1 noted that the Attorney-General some time ago was invited — since we're on the topic — by the Minister of Justice to discuss the matter of the E&N. Perhaps he could advise the House just what the status of those discussions are, and, if he has met with the minister and discussed it, whether officials have been asked to follow through on the matter.

[ Page 10556 ]

HON. MR. SMITH: I'd be happy to, because for me — I'm interested in transportation geography — it's kind of a pleasant way to aid the opposition in their obvious filibuster of my estimates this afternoon and the waste of the taxpayers' money to some $8,000 per hour in this Legislature. Clearly you're not ready to do the estimates, so we'll just carry on in this dulcet sort of way of discussing transportation matters. I'm delighted to. I studied transportation geography at the University of Victoria, and once, God forbid, nearly became a town planner. I say that because I would have ended up doing the same kind of work as the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams), and it gives me recurring cold sweats and great nightmares every time that thought crosses my mind.

In any event, the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew.... Goodness gracious me, thankfully he is not charged with the responsibility of protecting the public interest of this province. He thinks that when you have an historic agreement about to be tubed by the Crown, Canada, by way of legislative regulatory enactment, you should sit down then and talk, instead of doing what is obvious. There's not a whole lot to talk about once the train has quit running. I can understand that he would have that difficulty, because as the member for Esquimalt, of course, when he goes to a caucus meeting in Courtenay, he takes his luxury car up the congested Island Highway rather than do the obvious, which is to take the train, which is what we did. Those of us without luxury cars go with the train instead, and leave our vehicles, our LTDs, to be operated by our staff and for their use, as is appropriate.

The matter of the E&N is more than just a simple injunction, as was inferred by the member. I'm surprised he hasn't read the decision. If he did, he would find that it has much more import for the province of British Columbia historically and currently than that, by a long stretch of the imagination. But rather than go into detail, I will leave it to him to read.

Since I assumed this office and became involved with the Council of Ministers, I have been discussing the E&N with Ottawa, and I must say that the Vancouver Island mayors have a far better and fluid understanding of the issue than the member — which keeps surprising me, Mr. Chairman. When someone represents a place called Esquimalt, you would think he would at least have a cursory knowledge of what is going on. Nevertheless, the Vancouver Island mayors well understand that the issue isn't just in transferring it from one jurisdiction to another and continuing the subsidy to the CPR. The issue is pretty fundamental. The CPR got buckets of largess for which they were to run a train up and down the Island once a day. As far as I am concerned and British Columbia is concerned, that is what is going to happen. We'll get it resolved by litigation, by negotiation or whatever way we find to do it. But resolve it we will on behalf of the people.

It would have been absolutely mindless, in the face of that order, to shut off the Via Rail service to the E&N and to say at the point, as the member suggests: "Oh, well, we'll sit down and talk; we won't litigate." It is just ludicrous that you would take that view. The public interest would not have been served; indeed, it would have been squandered.

Where we are at the moment on it is that Canada is determined to appeal the decision on a whole host of grounds. For one thing, their justice department bureaucrats want to justify their federal court system, so they're going to argue that it should have been heard there. The more substantive issue they're concerned about is the terms of Confederation that we entered into. That has very real import for us, because as we move into other areas, of claims being made about ownership of land and entitlement to land and rights and interests in lands, those terms of joining Confederation are going to come right to the fore and be critical to the development of this province. It's important litigation, and it's there by reference. It doesn't require a writ, as was suggested in all that, with the ongoing discoveries that would take place and so on. It is a process intended to get a simple answer. Once the answer is derived, then we have some very real ways to deal with the CPR to provide the service that they will and should provide.

In the meantime, through my office and directly, I am also talking to members of the federal government, not only with the Minister of Transport and Minister of Justice — who works with me in the Council of Ministers — but also with the other ministers, to the highest office in Canada, about the position I put forward, which was to transfer regulatory jurisdiction to the province. That is not, as the "Times-Communist" newspaper has said God knows how many times, transfer ownership. It is transfer regulatory jurisdiction, which would then give us the authority — as we had in this province in 1905, before it was taken away — to link together the land grant and the level of service. Once those two are linked together, I have no doubt that the CPR's mind will be quickly focused, and the right and proper thing will be done.

MR. SIHOTA: The Attorney-General shouldn't talk to me about driving luxury cars; I don't drive one. He drives the LTD. And he shouldn't talk to me about taking trains, when he flies around this province in jets in such a cavalier fashion that he has his colleague from Kamloops flying one hour ahead of him, separate and alone, on a jet. So if you want to talk about....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: What do you mean, "finally down there"?

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: What do you mean I won't listen? The logs are clear. I'm sorry If it hurts you for me to talk about....

[ Page 10557 ]

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Listen, I've never seen you get out of there. Well, you want to talk about gutters? Look, It's not me, Mr. Chairman, who's flying around in jet airplanes at times different from my colleague from Kamloops; it's the minister. I know it hurts him when we talk about the logs.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Not at all.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, if doesn't hurt, you guys wouldn't be heckling over there. It hurts. I think you guys should be mindful of the realities in the peculiar world you live in and the taxi-cab jet service that you dial up and use for your own purposes.

So, Mr. Chairman, I think the Attorney-General, when he finds his way back to his seat and starts listening again, should know that....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: I see the member for Yale-Lillooet thinks this is a waste of time of the House, and I must say that I'm surprised to see him sitting there.

MR. RABBITT: Mr. Speaker, I think it's terribly unfortunate, and I rise on a point of privilege. The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew is supposed to be dealing with the matters of the House, and he keeps making personal references to me, which is not relevant to this debate. I would ask the Chair to bring him to order and ask him to be relevant to the subject at hand.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member, I am sure, is well aware that that is not a point of privilege. The debate has been deteriorating somewhat in the last half-hour, but I wouldn't want to lay the blame at any one person's doorstep. It's a group activity, I would suggest. Would the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew continue.

MR. SIHOTA: Just ten seconds to say that I was surprised to see the member for Yale-Lillooet sitting in that chair. I see he's been demoted. He's gone from the front benches of the government to the back benches, he's sitting next to all of the dissidents that fled from the party, and he's been replaced in his seat by the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf). It's amazing that the caucus chairman for the Social Credit Party has now been demoted to the back benches.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: I see the dissident for Columbia River (Mr. Crandall) somehow thinks that it has been a promotion for him to move from where the member from Surrey is sitting to where he's sitting now, after he slid away from his caucus and slithered his way back in, and now he finds himself sitting in that far corner joined by the member for Yale-Lillooet.

I'm aware that the provincial government has considered, in its application before the court, the matter of the transfer of regulatory authority, and I wouldn't want to predict what the court has to say in that regard, so perhaps we should leave it at that. But I will say that the matter of the agreement with Canadian Pacific is a relatively straightforward matter. However, I think the matter of transference of regulatory authority around transportation matters is a tougher nut for anybody to deal with, and the court may at the end of the day believe that British Columbia should have that authority. I guess it would be in some way ironic to see the province, under the Social Credit administration, begin to exercise regulatory authority over transportation matters, given the fact that it made a conscious decision just a few years back to engage in deregulation of the transportation industry. Be that as it may, however, if the province were to secure the full regulatory authority with respect to rail travel in British Columbia, then it would certainly have the ability to influence the quality and nature of that service.

[4:45]

Having said that, I think it's fair to say that the threat of litigation often achieves a result, as opposed to litigation itself. In this case, of course, we've gone further than that, so there's no point in me getting into could-haves, would-haves and should-haves in terms of the kind of position that I think British Columbia should have taken at the outset on this matter — except to say that I think the Attorney-General has again got it wrong, if he went back and took a look at my original comments, in terms of the approach that I think should have been taken.

However, that's water under the bridge. But you do now have the advantage of the litigation, and you have the success of the injunction, which says to me that if I was in that situation and it was the province of British Columbia, I would begin to negotiate heavily with the federal government, having one leg up on them, and try to push them towards a conclusion by way of agreement with respect to the transfer of that regulatory authority.

There is, as all of us know who have been involved in the field of law, risk in what the court may say at the end of the day; and there is, of course, always certainty in settlement. I think that says the province ought to endeavour to procure a settlement from the federal government with respect to that regulatory authority, and also to begin to deal with the railway company with respect to the land and mineral rights that it had.

Mr. Chairman, as I say, I hadn't really intended to canvass the issue of the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway, but somehow we managed to get off on that tangent.

I just want to come back to the set of questions I was asking the minister, now that I've got at least one of my questions answered from our research department. I just want to confirm with the minister: under your Financial Disclosure Act, am I to understand that no order-in-council has been passed at any time

[ Page 10558 ]

requiring any employee of government, including deputy ministers, to file a disclosure statement?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I can't answer that. I don't know if that's the case. The Financial Disclosure Act has been around for a long time, and I don't know what has or hasn't been required under it before I got here. I can only refer to the Ministry of Attorney-General, whose estimates we presumably are discussing today. As I said earlier, an hour or so ago in this filibuster, I was the only person, as I understood it, designated under the act.

To get back, just for the record, to the E&N litigation, I will accept that the member was perhaps misquoted and that I wasn't correctly informed by the local "Times-Communist" newspaper. That's not unusual, but that particular newspaper quoted the....

MR. ROSE: Gorde wouldn't like that.

HON. MR. SMITH: You know, sometimes when you get so far to one side or the other, you merge in the back. That's right.

That particular oracle of wisdom and information disclosed, when I announced what we were going to do, that the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew referred to it as "just bravado." That may have been a misquote, and I will accept that, if that was the case.

But it was more than just bravado; on behalf of the citizens of British Columbia, thankfully, it was successful bravado — if that's what it was. As I said, thankfully we didn't accept the view that it was just a matter of bravado. We actually did it, because it was the right thing to do and continues to be the right thing to do, as well as the negotiations I initiated with the municipalities and with Canada in two or three different areas.

But if that was a misquote, I accept that.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, I didn't say it was a misquote; I just said the Attorney-General didn't read the story and didn't read the comments. He still hasn't read it. If he ever sat down to read it properly.... But I know he's got his agenda, and he wants to believe what he wants to believe and say what he wants to say. But you've got to run again.

Will the Attorney-General undertake then to provide that information? He says that as far as he knows he's the only one. If there is anybody, would you undertake to provide that information prior to the conclusion of your estimates?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale seeks leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, with the consensus of the House, I appreciate this opportunity of introducing to the House today Mr. Malcolm Ashford, who is the executive director for the Pacific Rim Institute of Tourism. He's here with his executive to talk to people in Victoria about the great plans that they have for the Pacific Rim Institute of Tourism. Would the House make a special welcome to Malcolm Ashford.

MR. SIHOTA: I wonder if the Attorney-General would answer the question.

HON. MIL SMITH: No, I won't undertake that. If it applies to all of government, I can't.

MR. SIHOTA: No, I mean your ministry.

HON. MR. SMITH: In terms of the ministry, I can answer you right now. I'm the only one it applies to.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Attorney-General for that information. That ties up that end of the issue.

I want to deal with another issue now. It falls in the realm of legal aid. The Attorney-General knows that we've had several discussions in the House in the past with respect to legal aid. There was a decision some time ago in the courts that required the society administering the legal aid program in British Columbia to provide that service to those involved with immigration matters and immigration appeal. What provision is made in this year's budget for the consequences of that decision?

HON. MR. SMITH: No specific provision has been made.

MR. SIHOTA: Could the Attorney-General explain why? Does the government not expect the society to provide that service? Obviously the decision has an impact on their budget.

HON. MR. SMITH: There are two or three reasons, Mr. Chairman. One, it isn't clear yet whether that will be required, because the matter's being litigated. As well, the Legal Services Society has a small surplus in a part of its budget this year that can be applied. Further, as they do from time to time, they have apparently made arrangements for access to the Law Foundation, which invests moneys that come from — I forget the word off the top of my head — the merge part of lawyers' trust accounts, the common trust account that earns interest in the bank. So it goes to the Law Society.

MR. SIHOTA: If I'm not mistaken, I think it was the Gonzalez decision, although I could be wrong on that. Again, I'm functioning from memory.

It's an interesting reply. I could see that when the decision came down, they would have to cover for that out of the funds that they had at that time. Perhaps they could dip into their surplus now. But did I hear the Attorney-General say— I take it the decision is under appeal — that because of that the government is taking a wait-and-see attitude with

[ Page 10559 ]

respect to the provision of additional funds for immigration assistance?

HON. MR. SMITH: The short answer is that they don't need any money this year.

MR. SIHOTA: How do you ascertain that they don't need any additional money? It would seem to me that it's going to impact on their ability to provide programs or expand in all those traditional areas. This is a decision that obviously caught the board by surprise. It would seem to me that the government would see the need to provide for assistance as a consequence. Could you answer that question?

HON. MR. SMITH: I believe the question was: how do we determine what assistance they need? We determine that by meeting them and working with them, both at the staff level and at the board level. I meet regularly with individual members and the whole board and the appropriate bar association sections. We have determined the budgetary issue from those meetings.

We've also determined that it is a singularly inappropriate situation that Canada.... We have this whole business of shifting the expenditure responsibility onto the provinces unilaterally, without any warning, without any discussion and without any consultation about how it is to be done. There could be no greater example than this refugee situation.

We support Canada's wanting to have a good and generous system of refugee adjudication in this country, but the system they've got is neither good nor generous. The system they have is an administrative nightmare. The thing has enormous backlogs and procedural difficulties; the thing was not well thought out and is extremely costly. They have simply tried to fob off the cost onto the provinces without any consultation or discussion.

If you look at it, it doesn't make any sense. People are refugees to Canada; they are not refugees to British Columbia any more than they're refugees to Richmond simply because the airplane lands there. So if Canada wants a good and generous system of refugee adjudication — which we think is a sound, proper course to follow — then Canada should make provisions for it so that administratively and cost-wise internally everything will flow from that philosophical position.

I have welcomed the input, consultation, very good advice and support that I have received from the Legal Services Society as well as the Canadian Bar Association immigration sub-branch as well as the criminal branch and those who have been associated with this on the side — to take that view to Canada and advance it. We're going to continue to press that view, because fundamentally this is bad news for all of the provinces, but particularly those provinces where the intake is highest. It is especially bad news for and imposes hardship on those individuals who have to come up against this incredibly difficult, complicated and expensive system, which was not properly thought out but just flipped on without any consultation with anybody else. One of the consequences is the one we're looking at right here.

I welcome, as I say, the close consultation that is taking place from the immigrant community, from the Legal Services Society and from the immigration section of the Canadian bar to help us work this problem through.

MR. SIHOTA: I don't disagree with you that this is a program that was hatched by the federal government, and I don't particularly disagree with you when you say that the bureaucratic system that they've set up is dumb. I think we all know the history that triggered the legislation and the outcry that brought about the legislation.

Of course, I didn't hear the Attorney-General say much then. I can remember, when a number of people showed up on the shores of Nova Scotia, some of the comments that the Premier had to make with respect to those people. You weren't Attorney-General then. I can tell you that that caused a fair bit of discomfort in at least one ethnic community in British Columbia, and I think that was the beginning of the end in terms of the Premier's acceptance within that community. But it also triggered a rather angry backlash throughout this country, and one of the consequences of that backlash was the implementation of this new legislation at the federal level. The feds had a problem and they wanted to solve it; they came up with a bureaucratic system that even the courts have now said is an unfair system. I can't remember the name of the decision, but there was a recent decision out of Ontario, if I'm not mistaken, where the court exercised some liberty in commenting on the procedural unfairness of the federal system.

[5:00]

It's fine to have a debate and an argument with the federal government. As I once said — to get to a quote that you referred to earlier — it's always good bravado to take shots at the federal government. But the reality in this case is that there is a court order that effectively says that the society is obliged to pay for the service that's rendered to these refugees. Of course, there is a consequent impact on their budget.

You and I can talk about the federal legislation as much as we want, and we can argue about it with the feds until we're blue in the face, and maybe they'll change their legislation or maybe they won't. Maybe they'll make a system that is more procedurally fair than what they have; maybe they won't. Maybe they'll agree at the end of the day to fund 100 percent of the cost of administering that program and 100 percent of the consequences of the court decision, because immigration is, of course, a federal matter.

It's one thing to have that political debate at this level, but the fact of the matter is that there are people out there who are benefiting— and I think appropriately — from the decision of the court. Whether you agree with it or not, people ought not to be thrust in front of that type of administrative system without the opportunity, if they wish, to engage counsel to defend them around some very

[ Page 10560 ]

difficult issues. I'm sure the Attorney-General would agree that it is not an easy thing for someone who cannot speak English to attend before an appeal board, a quasi-judicial body — given, I would think, in many cases, their experiences with the judicial entities in foreign jurisdictions — and with those limitations to try on their own to make a case that fits the pigeonholes established in the federal legislation.

It's virtually impossible for someone who speaks only Spanish to come before one person or a panel of three people, as the case may be, and make out their case in Canadian law as to why they ought to be granted the ability to continue to reside in Canada. When the court was faced with that issue— and remember, that's what they're required to take a look at — they made a decision that effectively said individuals are entitled to have a measure of legal protection, legal advice, legal assistance and legal counsel to deal with that bureaucracy. That's the reality; that's the decision. It doesn't do much good, in my mind, to sort of bellow away at the federal government.

On the other side of the coin, you also have to recognize that there is an obligation to pay for that service, and it has a consequent effect on the Legal Services Society. The question to the minister is: if the court has said that they have an obligation to pay for that service or to provide that service, will the government in the interim, while it works out its difficulties with the federal government, continue to provide for that service without forcing the board of the society to take the money from one other aspect of its budget to attend to that service?

Secondly, with respect to the federal government.... It may well not be in this case, but again, as I recollect it, there is a provision that requires the federal government to cost-share these legal aid increases. Is the federal government not participating under that program?

HON. MR SMITH: It's most difficult to know where to begin in answering this series of issues.

First of all, the member should be aware that the Legal Services Society is complying with the court's order, as we and all citizens would expect them to. So any suggestion that they aren't is a miserable kind of way to impinge upon their good character. They are complying, and they are not doing it with force, as was suggested — that we would force them to do certain things.

Force is not the policy of Social Credit governments; that's the policy of statist and socialist governments. Force is not the policy of free enterprise governments. We don't believe in force, and we don't use force. That's statism; that's social democracy, democratic socialism or whatever form of early Ceausescu we're now referring to.

So firstly, the Legal Services Society is complying; secondly, they are doing it on their own and not being forced to do anything; thirdly, they have the resources this year to be able to deal with that compliance without there having to be a special allocation in the budget. That's what I said 40 minutes ago in this filibuster, which is really the essence of the issue.

I would also like to say that I welcome the pro bono service that has come from the private bar and which has helped out immeasurably during this period of time. It has been a difficult period of time because of an administrative process imposed upon the citizenry that is just not working, doesn't make any sense and in fact wouldn't serve the purpose — whatever it was — that Canada was trying to achieve in the first place.

It's interesting that the members raises the issue of CAP and assistance to legal aid from the federal government. When I took action on the CAP matter, the local "Times-Communist" paper reported that he had said this was litigation cowboyism, or some such thing as that. Well, I was proud to be associated with cowboyism and litigation. That seemed to be kind of a neat way to think of life, coming as I do from a wonderful place where cowboys are revered— and properly so.

The truth is that one of the reasons we went to court, of course, was that the CAP provisions that Canada was trying to unilaterally eliminate, the funding formula that had been around for 27 years.... The late W.A.C. Bennett and the late Lester B. Pearson entered into that agreement. On the one hand you had Canada reducing their contribution to CAP and on the other hand you had them imposing on us yet another expenditure obligation that used to come under the umbrella of CAP. We said: "Well, it seems to us that you shouldn't act unilaterally to begin with. But goodness gracious, beyond that you shouldn't be on the one hand taking money away unilaterally and on the other hand imposing more expenditure obligations out of the same program." That was one of the reasons we took that litigation.

I was sorry when the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew criticized us for going to court on CAP. It was important litigation. It wasn't supported by the NDP, but it was supported by the United Native Nations, who understood what we were doing and came with us, walked with us shoulder to shoulder to deal with that issue. It's important for all user groups to know at the end of the day how that was dealt with, and on what philosophical and principled construct.

It's not a question of trying to say to Canada: "Oh, you can't find ways to resolve your terrible budgetary problems." It is simply a matter of saying that when you enter into agreements with people, what's wrong with trying to keep them? Particularly when they develop expectations on how that would operate, as they have done across this country, provinces should legitimately be able to accept that those obligations will be fulfilled. They have a legitimate expectation thereby that they will be.

So we won by that reference — or rather we didn't win, because you don't win in references in that sense. But the court established a very important principle: the doctrine of legitimate expectations does not apply just to constitutional issues and the division of powers, as was the case when Mr. Trudeau

[ Page 10561 ]

tried to unilaterally patriate the constitution in 1982. It applies as well to fiscal agreements, and in my view that's an extremely important step forward in this federation, particularly at this time.

I was sorry when the member wouldn't support us in the CAP litigation. But perhaps he better understands now that that litigation cowboyism was in part to protect us from the unilateralism that was on the one hand cutting funding sources through CAP and on the other hand imposing greater obligations through the refugee adjudication process. There's a difference between what he talks about as bravado and what we talk about as principle. I guess it's easy, perhaps from some immaturity or the like, to characterize those things in that way. But there are very important principles that you have to establish in any working relationship, and particularly in a federal system. From those, you can then certainly have all kinds of room for negotiation, argument and discussion; but it's important to establish those principles. I was sorry when the member refused to stand up on behalf of British Columbia to support us in trying to establish that principle. It was, after all, for British Columbians as Canadians, but nevertheless for British Columbians, that we were trying to do that. We were supported by the United Native Nations and other governments across Canada, but we were not supported by the NDP in this province. It would have been easier, I think, had we been able to say: "This a British Columbia issue. This is in no way a partisan issue." But that was not forthcoming.

We're hopeful — well, I am hopeful, because I'm always hopeful — that in the future.... I think we're perhaps going to have to look at ways in which we can ensure legislatively that obligations we enter into are not so open-ended; that when we buy into them, Canada can't just fill in the blanks for us, or some other level of government can't just say: "Well, here it is. You've established them to do this, that and the other thing. But now we're going to throw two or three other things into the hopper which you know nothing about, and you just go ahead and jolly well pick up the costs."

They did that with the young offender relationship. We had very good programs established to deal with incarceration, separation and segregation for young offenders, and along came the former Minister of justice, who unilaterally cut off the funding. When we met in Charlottetown, we agreed to a resolution; he agreed that that was a bad thing to do and that they wouldn't do it again. Obviously that message didn't get through to Mr. Wilson when he went back from Charlottetown, because lo and behold, they did.

I would hope that the NDP would support us in protecting British Columbia's interest in these fiscal arrangements legislatively, if necessary. But that hope is obviously tempered by the experience that when push comes to shove, when you get down to the short strokes in this kind of stuff, they're nowhere to be found. On issues of principle they don't want to stand firm for British Columbia; rather, they want to characterize it as bravado or some other negative sort of thing that it isn't.

The positive thing is this. We're working together with the Legal Services Society, the immigration bar and others to come up with ways that we can protect ourselves — legislatively, if necessary — against this happening in the future. We're looking for and examining ways to persuade Ottawa to really rethink this whole silly program — because, to be most gracious and kind, it is indeed that.

[5:15]

I think the penny is starting to drop, based on what I saw in the popular press a couple of days ago, although I temper that with the knowledge that it was after all a press report, not something that somebody told me directly. I'll have to check it out to see if it is accurate.

The third thing is that there is litigation going on in which we're not involved but the Legal Services Society is. There is further litigation going on in a separate case in another level of court, in the federal court system, that has taken quite a different tack from the direction of the first litigation.

In the meantime, the Legal Services Society is complying with the orders of the court, as properly they would and should. They're not being forced by us, or anyone else for that matter, to make choices between different programs. They have established a way in which they can fund their obligations and have the resources to do it. Therefore — to get back to the original question when this filibuster started — there is no need for us to have a separate line item this year in the budget.

MR. SIHOTA: In that little outburst you forgot to answer the question. I'll put the question again in a minute. But I want to deal with the points that you raised. Since this debate today seems to be going off on some tangents, I want to talk quickly about one other issue. But I want to come back to the immigration matter.

You get off on this rhetoric about force and the role of the state. You say that's not the Social Credit way; Social Credit would never force anybody to do anything. You link that with some of the regimes in eastern Europe. Of course, I would hope that you would not link it with anything that we would do, because that would not be the approach that we'd take.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

Through your regulations, you're forcing women on social assistance in British Columbia to fit into your Family Maintenance Enforcement Act. You're forcing them; that's what you're doing. You're forcing them in your own legislation. You afford them no choice.

A woman on social assistance right now says she doesn't want to have anything to do with that man, because of abuse or something that happened in the past, and you say: "I'm sorry, we're going to go out and get a maintenance order for you." There are all sorts of consequences that occur because of the approach made by your ministry under that legisla-

[ Page 10562 ]

tion. So don't come to me and tell me that force is not the way of your government; it is. That's perhaps the most salient example of what you do. That's why there's a challenge against the government with respect to that provision.

Why can't a woman go out and decide on her own when she wants to engage a lawyer to attend to a maintenance order when she's covered under the GAIN regulations? Why don't you let her decide who her lawyer's going to be? You don't even let her decide that. You tell her who her lawyer's got to be under your GAIN regulations. Mr. Chairman, that's force.

The Attorney-General is saying — if I can put it to him this way — that philosophically it's not the way of his government to force people to do something that they don't want to do. Is he now prepared to recommend to the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Jacobsen) that those provisions be rescinded?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I had no intention of entering this debate, but I do want to clear up something. When the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew talks about force, I think it's absolute nonsense. He talks about a single mother being on welfare and being forced to have a maintenance agreement. It doesn't force anything upon that person at all.

What it does do is two things. It forces the father — usually it's a single mother — to face up to his responsibilities and provide some income to that person to maintain those children. He's brought children into the world, left her alone in many cases, and walked away from his responsibilities. Yes, when a single mother is on welfare, it's mandatory for a maintenance order to be created.

But it does two very important things. Most important, it gives that mother some assurance, when she leaves the welfare rolls and re-enters the workforce, maybe at a low-paying job, that she will have something to supplement her income; she will have a maintenance order in place which she could not get before, so that when she gets back into the workforce, this can make the difference between her making it and not making it and being back on the welfare rolls.

It does one other very significant thing, Mr. Chairman. When the single mother is still on welfare, it puts some money back into the coffers from that father who wouldn't face up to his responsibilities, to take some of the burden off the taxpayers. If that's forcing someone, then I think this member has a really distorted vision of what forcing is. The only person being forced is the father. He must face up to his responsibilities and put something back into the coffers to support those children, so that the taxpayer doesn't bear the full burden. This assures the single mother, when she finally gets on her feet and back into the workforce, that there is a maintenance order in place to supplement her income however meagre it might be. So I just wanted to set the record straight on that, and it is more a Social Services matter than a matter for the Attorney-General.

MR. SIHOTA: You don't have to be neanderthal to understand that the legislation says that because a woman is on welfare, the provisions of the law are mandatory. She has been discriminated against because she's on welfare. That's what is happening. That is true. Don't tell me that's not true. Read your own legislation. You're not familiar with it. Mr. Chairman, the member opposite from Kamloops is not familiar with it. It makes it mandatory for a woman.

If the thing were as perfect as you're saying, there wouldn't be this very serious court challenge around that legislation. There is a challenge, and if you guys don't know that, then you'd better wake up.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: No, don't just write it off. You are discriminating against women. You are forcing a woman on welfare to do something that a woman who's not on welfare wouldn't have to do. You have mandatory provisions in the legislation. You say to a woman that she must do that; you force her to do that.

There are all sorts of ways in which she can force — to use your own language — a father to fulfil his obligations under a maintenance order. Just give her the liberty, Mr. Minister, to make that choice on her own. Under that legislation you're effectively saying that a woman who is on welfare is denied the liberty to make that choice on her own, and that she is denied the liberty to decide whether or not she wants to get a maintenance order and renew contact with a spouse. You have to understand, Mr. Chairman, that that's a very serious thing for a woman who finds herself in that type of situation, faced with the dilemma of saying: "Look, if I get back in touch with this guy, who knows what's going to happen? Is he going to come after me? Is he going to get after the kids? Is he going to tell them things that they shouldn't know or hear?" You're saying that just because she is on welfare, she's denied the liberty of making that original decision to secure a maintenance order.

Then you go further. You say under that legislation....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: You guys want to talk about force, and you say it's not the way of your government. You then go one step further and don't even let her choose her own lawyer. You deny that liberty to a woman who's on welfare. It's somewhat specious to say: "Well, she would have an order in place when she gets off welfare." If she wants to make a decision to get that order, if we had a properly funded legal aid system— which again gets back to one of the topics we've yet to canvass — she'd have it in any event.

[ Page 10563 ]

The sole purpose for your program, quite frankly, is to get more money into your coffers to offset the costs of your welfare program. In order to achieve that goal, you're quite prepared to violate a woman's human rights. You are quite prepared to deny her her choice. Because you want those dollars, and in your thirst for those dollars, you're prepared to take away her discretion to go on her own and get herself a maintenance order. You don't think she should have that discretion. Why? Because she's on welfare. If she's one dollar over the welfare amount, it's a different story. She's got that discretion; she can do whatever she wants to do, whenever she wants to do it, through whichever lawyer she wants. But in terms of the legislation you've introduced in this House, you're saying that she's going to be forced to do it.

Believe you me, I can understand the right-wing mentality that gets you to arrive at that position. It's the bottom-line financial accounting approach that side has: "Let's try and get as much money as we can." Sometimes it's not a bad goal, but you have to say to yourself: when we do that, are we going to be trampling on people's rights? In this case you made a conscious decision to do it, and that's why you're being challenged on it.

What got us off on this angle was the Attorney-General — I see he's got his eyes closed now, so there is life over there — saying that philosophically the government does not wish to force people to do anything against their will. That was the argument. Somehow he tried to paint the picture that his administration respects the liberties of individuals, and somehow this party over here would force people to do things.

Well, here's an example of where the Social Credit Party is forcing women to do something against their wills simply because they're on welfare. They're being discriminated against solely because they're covered by welfare, or they find themselves in that administrative scheme.

The argument that we're having here is in many ways a philosophical argument. It's the kind of argument that will be played out among those who will be passing judgment at the end of the day on the legislation that you've introduced. But don't come in here and tell me that you're not forcing people to do something against their will. You are in that example. That's the fact of the matter, and that's why so many women in British Columbia are upset over this provision.

If you want, I'll read you the stack of letters I have on that in my office. People are upset, but I never expected you to show much concern for the dignity of people's rights in your desire to get as many dollars in your pocket as you want. As I say, we'll come back to the matter of legal aid and the family maintenance enforcement program a little later on.

The question I would ask of the Attorney-General is with respect to the other issue of immigration, which he did answer. Am I correct in assuming that the funding programs with the federal government allow for the federal government to pay a percentage — I believe it's around 50 percent — of those additional legal aid costs that are incurred by the immigration decision?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I can't let those remarks go by without one more shot at trying to get the member to see the merits of this program, rather than to sit there on some kind of an idealistic mountain and say: "You're forcing people to do things." We're only forcing the fathers of these children — and in most cases it's fathers; if it happens to be a single father on welfare, the same thing applies, so it doesn't apply only to women on welfare. However, in the majority of cases it is women who are the single parents and have been left by an errant spouse.

[5:30]

I don't think there's anything wrong with getting these guys to pay the Crown, to face up to their responsibilities and to pay for raising those children. They brought children into the world, and they walk away from their responsibilities. What is wrong with asking them to pay their share of raising those children if they can afford it? If they've got a job and are making a decent living, then they owe it to that mother and those children to pay for their support.

The most important thing, though, in the program — and I can't emphasize this too strongly — is to assist that single mother back to some form of independence so that she won't be stuck on welfare forever. The only way you can do that is to ensure that when she leaves the welfare rolls and gets back into the workforce, she has that support there. There's no other way of doing it.

We're not forcing her, as you said, to get herself a maintenance order. She doesn't have to do anything of the sort. We'll do it for her. She doesn't have to make contact again with the spouse, if she doesn't want to. She doesn't have to reopen that.

MR. SIHOTA: You do it for her.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, and I guess we could get into this philosophical argument, but I don't think it's forcing her to do anything. She doesn't have to go and get herself a lawyer. She doesn't have to make contact with the spouse again.

Another important thing you overlooked is that if there is any threat of abuse or violence, that is taken into account with the superintendent of family and child service, and there will be no maintenance order if the spouse is abusive and there's a danger to either her or the children. So that's taken into account. But I don't think it's wrong to ask that errant spouse to pay his fair share. We don't force him to apply. We just do it — it's automatic — and I think there's quite a difference in philosophies here.

We don't say to this person, "You must go down and get yourself a maintenance order, " to quote your words — you must do this, you must do that. You don't have to do anything. You don't have to re-establish contact with this very unpleasant part of your past if you don't wish to. However — and I repeat this one more time so that the member gets it straight

[ Page 10564 ]

— if there is a danger to her or the children, then all of that is taken into account before anything is done.

He says we want to get as many dollars as possible into our pockets. It's not our pockets, Mr. Member, and I think you should rethink that phrase: "Get dollars into our pockets." It's the taxpayers' pockets. We're talking about those who foot the bill for social assistance and for all the programs, and it can amount to millions and millions of dollars — only because we forced someone to face up to their responsibilities. Not the mother, but the father of the children has to face up to the responsibilities.

So it's very important that we get this philosophical argument on the record, because I think that the majority of taxpayers in this province would not be against such a program to assist people back to some form of independence. Maybe that's the difference in basic philosophy: we don't see social assistance or welfare, if you like, as a way of life; we see it as a temporary measure to help people get back to independence and to keep them independent once they get there. And this program goes a long way to do just that.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Chairman, I couldn't resist, after listening to the previous speaker talk about his good program in his previous responsibility with Social Services. The minister said this is an important philosophical debate, and I would agree because it really tells you a lot about the difference between your government and New Democrats. We respect human dignity and a person's human rights. Just because they happen to be poor and have to rely on income assistance, that doesn't mean they have to give up that dignity, that human respect or their basic human rights.

The dual standard that the minister points out is all too prevalent in that government's policies. If a person is on income assistance, it's compulsory to be a participant in the family maintenance program. The dual standard says that if a woman who is raising children is poor, she should be out there working, whereas if a woman is supported— by your Premier's own words — she should be at home looking after the children. That dual standard says that we have a two-tiered or a split class....

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. I know I have personally given a great deal of latitude to my counterparts opposite in their filibuster today of my estimates. But I really think that we are straying just a touch from the Ministry of Attorney-General here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, it appears that there has been some straying for the better part of the afternoon from the actual estimates of the Ministry of Attorney-General. I would just ask the members' cooperation so that we can continue the discussions...

MR. SIHOTA: A point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: ... on vote 12.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: You're not supposed to interrupt the Chair.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, don't interrupt me. If you want to talk, stand up and put up your mike. If you don't have the courage to stand up....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the member now state his point of order, please.

MR. SIHOTA: It's simply this, Mr. Chairman. In all respect, I think the Chair has to understand that the family maintenance enforcement program is governed by the Attorney-General's ministry, and we're talking about that program. There is a linkage with the program, under statute, to the GAIN Act. Both bills were brought in, if memory serves me right, by the former Attorney-General, and were Attorney-General bills.

Also, in fairness, Mr. Chairman, we've talked this afternoon about conflict of interest, we've talked about immigration matters as they relate to legal aid, and we've talked about abortion, all of which are matters that fall under this ministry. I would think the Chair is being a touch unfair when the Chair is suggesting that we have deviated from the parameters of this ministry. I don't think we've done that, in all fairness. But I make that point so that....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: When did fairness ever occur to you?

MR. SIHOTA: More than it has to him.

HON. MR. SMITH: Speaking to the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, I'm more than happy to accommodate the opposition's filibuster. If they want to waste the rest of the day and the taxpayers' money, some $10,000 an hour, talking about this, then I'm quite happy to agree to let them do it. I just think, though, that it's important to get the facts on the table. The stuff we were talking about is not governed by the Attorney-General. One of the difficulties this member has in dealing with my estimates is that he's quite ignorant of what is or is not in the Attorney-General's ministry, and that does pose him problems. So on that point of order, Mr. Chairman, what he said is entirely incorrect.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps we can return to vote 12, recognizing the initial comments that were made on the vote as such. Regarding the statement of the Attorney-General in his first point of order that the item we were dealing with is not within his ministry, I would ask the cooperation of all members in that respect.

[ Page 10565 ]

MR. SIHOTA: The member for Langley earlier on in these estimates asked questions around the family maintenance enforcement program, and I'm at a loss to understand.... I'm not trying to challenge the Chair's ruling here, but I do need some clarification, because the family maintenance enforcement program is something that we're going to be talking about— or so I intended — later on in these estimates. The member for Langley raised this and spoke to it. We're talking now about the family maintenance enforcement program and its conditions. It's my understanding that that program is administered by the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General has provided the House with a number of statistics, both during his opening comments in his estimates and to the member for Langley, with respect to the family maintenance enforcement program. We're talking about that program, and I would just seek clarification from the Chair, so that I'm sure in my mind that I'm not offending the Chair when I talk about the family maintenance enforcement program.

HON. MR. SMITH: On the point of order — if I may assist the Chair, and through the Chair assist the member who is confused — the estimates of the Ministry of Social Services and Housing have been dealt with in this House. I was in for most of the debate, and there wasn't a single question from those members on this issue, and goodness knows there was ample time to raise it.

The family maintenance program of the Ministry of Social Services and Housing — they have their own family maintenance program — assists creditors receiving income assistance. Therefore the questions relating to the program of the Ministry of Social Services and Housing should be addressed in that ministry's estimates. That's the assistance I think the Chair will need for the member for Esquimalt. But if he wishes to waste the House's time, as they've been doing the rest of the day, I won't object further.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I have already stated that the minister said this was not within his ministry, and I cannot accept any further discussion on this matter if it's not within his ministry.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: No, it's the Attorney-General — the family maintenance enforcement program.

Let me ask the Attorney-General a question: do those people who administer the family maintenance enforcement program — I'm talking about people like Sandra Edelman and Brian Pollick — work under your auspices, and are they not members of your ministry?

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes, Sandra Edelman is a member of this ministry.

MR. SIHOTA: We'll take this step by step. Does Sandra Edelman, or Brian Pollick, not work for the family maintenance enforcement program?

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes. I'll say it really slowly so that the member can understand it; he has difficulty. Yes, they work for the family maintenance enforcement program. They do not work for the family maintenance program of the Ministry of Social Services and Housing. They are separate — spelled s-e-p-a-r-a-t-e — programs.

MR. SIHOTA: I don't think I can say he did it deliberately, because I don't think he can think that long, Mr. Chairman, or be that conscious, but I would suggest that the minister was being deceptive when he referred to the family maintenance program, knowing full well that we were talking about the family maintenance enforcement program. That's what we were talking about in this House. So will the minister confirm that the family maintenance enforcement program...?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I would ask the member to withdraw the word "deceptive." It clearly imputes a motive. It's clearly unparliamentary, and I would ask that it be specifically withdrawn.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew withdraw the remark.

MR. SIHOTA: I'll withdraw the remark "deceptive." Perhaps "cunning" might be a better way to describe the practice of one who chooses to point to one program and suggest that another program doesn't exist in his ministry.

Will the minister now confirm that the family maintenance enforcement program is administered by his ministry?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, the answer, as I said earlier, is yes.

MR. SIHOTA: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would submit that the Attorney-General, when he suggested to you that the family maintenance program doesn't fall under this vote, was referring to a program that we weren't referring to. He knew full well that the family maintenance enforcement program — and that's the program that we're debating — falls within the Attorney-General's ministry.

In light of the fact that the Attorney-General has now confessed that the program falls under his ministry, I would submit that it would be in order for us to discuss that program. I would just seek clarification from the Chair, in light of the explanation from the minister, so that we can proceed with the debate around that program.

[5:45]

HON. MR. SMITH: The member cleverly — I will give him the credit; I don't use words like "cunning"; that's for those who prefer to be beneath the curb — referred to the family maintenance program, when in the same sentence he had been talking about the family maintenance enforcement program. So we'll

[ Page 10566 ]

let him continue to play his games and waste the taxpayers' money with this filibuster — $10,000 an hour in this House — because he's not prepared for these estimates. So let him carry on.

MR. SIHOTA: I see the Attorney-General thinks democracy has a price. We've been asking questions all day long about various programs under his administration. If he thinks it's a waste of time to be asked questions about programs under his administration, then tonight he should actually reflect on those comments and think very carefully about what he's saying and the tack he's taking in terms of the expenditure of taxpayers' dollars.

Perhaps he needs a lesson in the estimates process, Mr. Chairman, and an understanding of why this Legislature exists, why we have authority in this House to ask questions of ministers about matters that fall within their ministry, and how important it is that ministers be accountable for expenditures made under their ministry in the institutions that we've established in the Legislature. Arguments, principles and points that are elementary to most grade 10 and 11 students seem to escape the minister.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Aren't you combining points of order with speeches?

MR. SIHOTA: If other members opposite want to speak, they can certainly engage in this debate.

I don't think the comments of the government House Leader should go unanswered, so let me also say that no one under the family maintenance enforcement program or any other program would object to the view that a father should accept his rightful responsibility to pay maintenance. Everyone understands that. When you bear a child and participate in bringing a child into this world, you have an obligation to attend to that child's needs. If you separate, that obligation continues; it doesn't extinguish upon divorce or separation. That's not the point here.

The point, very simply put, is whether a different set of rules should apply to women on welfare than to other women, and whether or not the statutory system that the government has set up infringes upon the rights of women, or men, who may be on welfare. The point, very simply put, is that it does. A very conscious decision was made by the government, because it wanted the bucks in under the maintenance program, to violate the rights of these women and to take away from them liberties that other women enjoy. It seems to me that a woman ought to be free to decide, among other things....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Education on a point of order.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, that member sought the floor on a point of order. He has usurped the time of the member who was speaking on the issue. Now it would appear that he has just flowed from a point of order to asking some questions. I think he should not speciously seek the floor on a point of order and then get involved in the debate and not give other members an opportunity to speak, while he engages in legal technicalities and practising his rhetoric as a lawyer in here and not seeking the floor under proper conditions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: When I recognized the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew I asked whether it was on vote 12, and he indicated that it was.

MR. SIHOTA: It's been an interesting afternoon. We get the government House Leader defending the Attorney-General on the family maintenance enforcement program because the Attorney-General is not familiar with the program, and now we get the Minister of Education trying to help out the member from Surrey on this side of the House. Fine. If you want to take up time doing that, that's your prerogative.

Before we got off discussing this program, I asked the Attorney-General a question about the federal responsibilities. Rather than awaiting an answer, I would assume that the federal government does cost-share the program and that there is a measure of assistance provided by the federal government under CAP for the costs associated with that immigration decision.

Listening to what the Attorney-General had to say during his comments on the immigration matter that got us off on this debate about force.... He said, my notes here say — and I could check them with Hansard later on — that "one must also look at things legislatively." This matter is, of course, before, I would think, the Court of Appeal of B.C. — but again, I'm working from memory there. I just want to clarify this in my own mind. Was the Attorney-General suggesting that one of the options that his ministry is considering is a matter of legislative intervention with respect to this whole issue of funding and the provision of immigration services? I can appreciate your concerns with the federal government, and I can appreciate the debate that you're engaged in with the federal government with respect to the program. As I said earlier, in many ways that debate is quite valid. But I was struck by that comment the Attorney-General made, and I just need a clarification as to whether that is one of the options his ministry is looking at this year.

HON. MR. SMITH: As tempted as I am to rely on the wisdom of the Minister of Education that this is future legislation that we would be talking about, I can tell the member — because I've said it publicly and others have too; and I suppose when he's not practising full-time in his little office over on Esquimalt Road, he gets time to read the papers and maybe know what's going on — that we're looking at a whole range of issues in the area of protecting the province's interest in those situations where Canada unilaterally imposes upon us obligations and doesn't provide either the consultation or the mechanism for funding them. We're looking at a range of legislative

[ Page 10567 ]

options in that regard. And I would hope that the opposition would support us in that. As I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, I'm always hopeful, even when there's no reason to have hope, and that frequently is the case with these folks.

But to make the long story short, it is not appropriate to have a system in place in a federation where one level of government can impose upon the legislation of another level of government in a way to impose costs, and therefore taxation requirements — the raising of money — that that Legislature has not been able to deal with. It has a kind of extraterritorial quality about it in terms of legislative jurisdiction, and that's wrong. I don't think we should do that, and I would hope the NDP would support us on that. The alternative is just to lie prostrate and let them do to you whatever they wish. I don't think that's right. That may be the NDP's view of it; I don't know.

Certainly it is the case that we are examining that option and a whole host of others in terms of providing that service. I want to say to the refugees who have had to rely on that service that indeed the provision for the service is there and it is being provided. I want to again thank the bar, particularly the pro bono offerings that have come forward that have assisted us, and to say to all of them that it's a difficult issue and I appreciate their assistance They've had opportunity when they could have been political, and they haven't been. They've been most helpful in working with me and consulting with me directly and with my staff on these matters. So that's where that stands.

In terms of the issue that the member referred to of all the people that he'd had rushing to him dealing with the issue of the Social Service ministry's maintenance department, I will accept some of that. I will also accept that there's perhaps an element of exaggeration there, because the folks who took the litigation found it necessary to actually run an ad in the newspaper to seek out a fact pattern before they were able to go to court. In other words, they didn't have a complaint from which they grew the court case; they sought out the court case. It's as close to champerty as you will get without having anyone actually jump up and report you. They sought out a fact pattern and then of course fobbed it off to the taxpayer and legal aid to put more expenditure out to have to support it. So I think while there may be some element in the complaint that was suggested, I am a little from Missouri.

In any event, we've had a long afternoon. The member for Esquimalt says it's been interesting. That tells me as much about him as anything I could care to hear, because interesting it hasn't been, I can assure you, and most everyone now in the empty gallery would agree with that. The press hasn't come in once, and that usually tells you something about the interest level. Most of the time he was alone on his side; no one joined him. That's how disinterested they were in what he was doing. So it hasn't been very interesting, but it has been long and tedious.

I want to say to the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) that I am most grateful always and privileged to be able to be here and debate these issues in our democratic way. Even filibusters are democratic institutions of long standing. I suppose even the wasting of taxpayers' dollars in filibusters is an acceptable mode of democracy by the NDP, and they can explain to the people of British Columbia.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the committee sit again?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Next sitting, Mr. Speaker.

MR. ROSE: I know it's not a point of clarification, so I'll ask on the basis of a point of order. I took the House Leader's reply to mean that at the next sitting, which will be tomorrow morning at ten, we'll be continuing with this dance of the dialectic here. Is that true, or isn't it?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Probably we'll continue with this tomorrow.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.