[ Page 10661 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Assessment and Property Tax Reform Act, 1990 (Bill 49). Hon. L. Hanson

Introduction and first reading –– 10661

Municipal Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 50). Hon. L. Hanson

Introduction and first reading –– 10661

Tabling Documents –– 10661

Oral Questions

Air ambulance service. Mr. Perry –– 10661

Pacific National Exhibition. Mr. Reid –– 10662

Mr. Williams

Air ambulance service. Mr. Perry –– 10662

Appointment of Nicole Parton. Ms. Marzari –– 10662

Literacy program funding. Mr. Jones –– 10662

Immigration of Polish child. Mrs. McCarthy –– 10663

Appointment of Nicole Parton. Ms. Marzari –– 10663

Electricity exports. Ms. Edwards –– 10663

Pacific National Exhibition. Mr. Williams –– 10663

Earthquake-resistant schools. Ms. A. Hagen 10663

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Government Management Services and

Minister Responsible for Women's Programs estimates. (Hon. Mrs. Gran)

On vote 34: minister's office –– 10664

Mr. Perry

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Serwa

Ms. Edwards

Ms. Marzari

Mr. Rose

Purchasing Commission Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 13). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mrs. Gran) –– 10672

Mr. Clark

Mr. Rose

Third reading

Statutes Repeal Act, 1990 (Bill 2). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Smith)

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 10679

Mr. Sihota –– 10680

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 10680

Foreign Money Claims Act (Bill 6). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Smith)

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 10680

Mr. Sihota –– 10680

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 10680

International Sale of Goods Act (Bill 7). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Smith)

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 10681

Mr. Sihota –– 10681

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 10681

Conflict of Laws Rules for Trusts Act (Bill 8). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Smith)

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 10682

Mr. Sihota –– 10682

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 10682

Offence Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 53). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Smith)

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 10682

Mr. Gabelmann –– 10683

Mr. Sihota –– 10683

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 10684

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Attorney-General estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Smith)

On vote 12: minister's office –– 10685

Mr. Sihota

The House met at 2:02 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce to the House today some very special people from Chilliwack. They actually reside in the Yarrow area. I'm sure the member for Chilliwack (Hon. J. Jansen) will join me in recognizing Kelly and Tony Van Garderen, and their sons Jason and Craig, who are in the gallery today. Would the House give them a special welcome.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, it's a privilege for me to introduce to the House the members of the Volkow clan who are here visiting Victoria: Nick Volkow, who's the chairman of the Burnaby Parks and Recreation Commission, his brother Serge, his children Nicole, Suzanne and Mike, and his mother Josefa. I'd ask the House to give them a warm welcome.

MR. HUBERTS: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today we have a couple of beautiful ladies who are cousins of mine from Langley, Marie Huttema and Tara Huttema. Along with them, from Orangeville, Ontario, are their friends Marie Kegel, Valerie Kegel and Arnold Sikkema. Would the House please welcome them.

MR. JONES: Mr. Speaker, joining us today from Vancouver and Burnaby are special friends: Mike Pelzer, his daughter Lisa and friend Amber Sheret. Would the House please make these people welcome.

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Speaker, visiting today from Langley are the NDP candidate in the upcoming election, Mr. Derrill Thompson, and party worker Kathy Coxworth. Would the House on both sides please welcome them.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today, joining us from Westport, Connecticut, is Karol Tulp. With her is her friend Sally Williams from Seattle. Would all members please join me in giving them a warm welcome.

Introduction of Bills

ASSESSMENT AND PROPERTY TAX
REFORM ACT, 1990

Hon. L. Hanson presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Assessment and Property Tax Reform Act, 1990.

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, Bill 49 contains measures designed to bring stability to the province's assessment and property tax systems. It also contains measures to streamline the assessment appeal process and return certainty to the industrial tax base.

Bill 49 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.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Hon. L. Hanson presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Municipal Amendment Act, 1990.

HON. L. HANSON: Bill 50 contains revisions which clarify regional district legislation passed last year, and it makes minor corrections. It also contains measures which provide taxpayers with more effective means of voting on regional services, and revisions which allow municipalities to enact bylaws to make smoke alarms mandatory in existing dwellings.

Bill 50 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Veitch tabled the annual report of the B.C. Trade Development Corporation for the year ended March 31, 1990.

Hon. Mrs. Johnston tabled the 1989-90 annual report of the B.C. Ferry Corporation.

Oral Questions

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

MR. PERRY: A question for the Minister of Health. Can the minister explain why the number of air ambulance service hours committed to the Emergency Health Services Commission was cut from 2,800 to 1,800 last year?

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of hours being cut. Generally what happens is that the service is related to demand for that service. If the demand for jet aircraft has changed, then I would suspect that the hours of jet utilization would be changed. I think that's a normal approach.

MR. PERRY: That strikes me as an unusual answer. I have a supplementary question for the minister.

I have a copy in my hand of the Emergency Health Services Commission annual report for 1989-90, which indicates that in fact the demand has increased dramatically and states that the dramatic drop in the level of service provided by the government air fleet resulted in $1.2 million in increased air charter costs.

Does the minister still insist, Mr. Speaker, that the first priority of the government's air fleet is to provide air ambulance services rather than a political taxi service for government ministers?

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, the member is not aware that this question has been answered several times before, and I'll answer it again for his edification. The question of aircraft utilization is based on

[ Page 10662 ]

patient needs, and that is the primary criterion for allocating aircraft.

MR. PERRY: A new question, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If it's a new question, I have another member I wish to recognize.

PACIFIC NATIONAL EXHIBITION

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Tourism. I have a pressing and urgent question I would like a response to. The PNE today has cancelled its 1990 fair. I would hope that the minister would look favourably at considering relocating the fair and putting it on in Cloverdale, where we've had successful fairs and rodeos. Would the minister look favourably at Cloverdale making a submission now to bring on the fair for 1990?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: We are very concerned about the PNE situation and the cancellation for 1990. It's certainly a blow to the youth in the province — the 4-H Clubs, the number of youth employed during and, indeed, leading up to the 17-day fair. We are also concerned with the effect on....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I must ask the minister to answer the question.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: The answer to the question is no, the PNE board is not considering moving the fair to Cloverdale.

MR. WILLIAMS: To the minister responsible for the PNE. Is the minister aware that CUPE, the union representing the workers at the PNE, has guaranteed no strike action either before or during the fair? And on that basis, has he asked his appointee, Mr. Morgan Thomas, to return to the bargaining table, so that we can all enjoy the fair this year?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I have read the letter sent by the union to the PNE board, and I do not, nor does our legal counsel, interpret the letter in the way the member opposite does.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

MR. PERRY: A question for the Minister of Government Management Services. Can the minister explain why the government air services branch refused to provide funding to the Emergency Health Services Commission to offset the $1.2 million in extra air charter costs resulting from its cutback of ambulance services?

HON. MRS. GRAN: The question doesn't make any sense, but I'll take it on notice anyway.

MR. PERRY: A new question. I wonder whether the minister could explain why the government air services branch delivered, at 1,586 hours, even less than the 1,800 that it was committed to deliver, which is, in effect, 35 percent less than the number of hours delivered in the fiscal year 1985-86, although demand for the service was rapidly increasing.

HON. MRS. GRAN: I think the appropriate minister to answer that question is the Minister of Health (Hon. J. Jansen).

APPOINTMENT OF NICOLE PARTON

MS. MARZARI: A question to the Premier. Can the Premier explain to the House why Nicole Parton, candidate for the Social Credit Party, has stated that she has been named by him to a new government commission on women's issues? Does your own Minister Responsible for Women's Programs have any knowledge of this appointment, Mr. Premier? Have you told her about it? Have you consulted with her?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I will attempt to answer the question if the questioner can give me the source of her information.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you on a supplementary?

MS. MARZARI: There's an answer to the Premier's question to me about where....

MR. SPEAKER: It's not appropriate for you to answer the question.

LITERACY PROGRAM FUNDING

MR. JONES: To the Minister of Advanced Education. Has the minister finally decided to implement the recommendations of the Literacy Advisory Committee, including, and in particular, the recommendation that literacy programs be tuition-free?

[2:15]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The Literacy Advisory Committee report to government is still under review, and when the decision is made the member will be the first to know.

MR. JONES: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. On May 11 the minister indicated that he hoped to make positive comment regarding tuition-free literacy programs soon. On May 15 the minister promised to make an announcement well before the end of June. Has the minister finally decided to honour his commitments and announce that adequate funding will be provided to establish tuition-free literacy programs?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I always honour my commitments. Let me tell the member that we will be addressing the issue soon. I can assure him and the House that we have adequate funding for literacy programs In the province.

[ Page 10663 ]

IMMIGRATION OF POLISH CHILD

MRS. McCARTHY: My question is for the Minister of Health. I am sure everyone is concerned about the press reports of a child who has been denied a visa to Canada until recently. She is only nine years old, and she is separated from her father, Zygmunt Korycki. Recently, apparently, the federal administration gave approval for the daughter to enter Canada with the mother, who had had permission some years ago but did not wish to be in Canada because of the child's illness.

The Canadian federal immigration....

MR. SPEAKER: I must ask the member to ask a question.

MRS. McCARTHY: I would like to ask the minister if he is considering allowing the daughter to enter Canada, since the Polish authorities have apparently given a clean bill of health to this child, according to the press.

HON. J. JANSEN: The immigration application is a difficult one. The medical information for this young child came to us last week, and the regular meeting of the medical review committee is not until next week. However, I asked the committee to deal with it today, and I am pleased to advise the House that we have admitted the child on humanitarian grounds.

APPOINTMENT OF NICOLE PARTON

MS. MARZARI: I have a question for the Premier again. Can the Premier tell the House whether or not he has decided to appoint Social Credit candidate Nicole Parton to a commission on women's issues?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot.

ELECTRICITY EXPORTS

MS. EDWARDS: My question is to the Minister of Energy. A new National Energy Board policy means that applications to export energy from Canada can be routinely approved by the board without public hearings. B.C. is currently encouraging development of independent power projects for export. Can the minister assure this House that before construction is allowed to begin, these projects will be subject to public hearings before the Utilities Commission on their environmental effects?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the Utilities Commission will hold hearings in all cases where the export of power on a firm long-term basis is at issue. However, the fact that the federal government is essentially vacating this field makes it all the more important that the province make the right decision, and that our hearings are well attended.

MS. EDWARDS: I'd like to ask the minister if these hearings that the Utilities Commission will have will address not only the environmental issues but also the advisability of exporting the electricity, and if those will be the subjects of the public hearings.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, electricity is now in international trade the world over. However, in any hearing, the economics as well as the environmental aspects of the development will be thoroughly canvassed.

PACIFIC NATIONAL EXHIBITION

MR. WILLIAMS: To the minister responsible for the PNE. In a letter to Mr. Morgan Thomas, dated today, the main paragraph is as follows: "CUPE members at the PNE guarantee there will be no disruption because of CUPE strike action during the preparation and operation of the 1990 PNE fair." What more does the minister want, Mr. Speaker?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, to the member: plainly and simply, a signed collective agreement.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's very clear, Mr. Speaker, that the way that's achieved is at the bargaining table. Will he not direct his people to move to the bargaining table and quit playing their hardball game?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, there have already been somewhere in the neighbourhood of 20 collective bargaining sessions on 20 separate occasions. One of Canada's top mediators, Vince Ready, has been involved on several occasions. The board has had to have six weeks' lead time to prepare for the $4.3 million capital expenditure to get the PNE on track. I say to the member opposite: what more advance notice does the union need to get down to the bare bones of collective bargaining and get on with the negotiation process? They've had at least three weeks' notice. I repeat: they've been bargaining since December 19 of last year. How much more time do they need?

EARTHQUAKE-RESISTANT SCHOOLS

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, numerous studies indicate a pressing need for the provincial government to plan and fund the upgrading of schools to make them more earthquake-resistant. Is the Minister of Education now prepared to indicate that he will review his planning and funding proposals for this need, and support school districts that must make major changes in their schools in order to protect children and the public who use them?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The answer is yes.

[ Page 10664 ]

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT
MANAGEMENT SERVICES AND MINISTER
RESPONSIBLE FOR WOMEN'S PROGRAMS

On vote 34: minister's office, $284,000 (continued).

MR. PERRY: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to pursue with the minister some questions regarding material I raised in question period.

Just while we're waiting for the House to come to order, if I can have the attention of a Page, I'll send her a copy of this report.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Can we have order so the debate can continue?

MR. PERRY: I'm just sending over a copy of the report I referred to so the minister will have it to hand. I confess to being shocked by the material in this report, and I would hope that the minister would feel the same sentiment, but I'm beginning to wonder. I'm going to go through some of this material point by point, because it's rather disturbing. I refer the House to the first page. For the information of the House, this is the annual report of the Emergency Health Services Commission for the year April 1, 1989, to March 31, 1990. For simplicity, I've reproduced part of it. I've sent the minister part of the report; the whole report is available from the Ministry of Health.

I'm referring to an unnumbered page, which is actually page 1. Under the heading "Executive Director's Report, " it points out: "The budget issue is of serious concern to us. If we are to be fiscally and operationally responsible, while meeting our mandate prescribed in the Health Emergency Act, we simply must resolve this major problem. It is difficult to accept accountability for managing the impossible." You can see the level of concern by the executive director of the Emergency Health Services Commission. The report then goes on to detail a number of breaches In rational planning or coordinated and intelligent delivery of this vital service.

At page 8, under the heading "Air Ambulance," it points out that the air ambulance service carried 5,597 patients in the fiscal year immediately finished. The annual costs for aircraft charters was $6,716,561. That's a substantial amount of money that we're talking about in aircraft charters.

The government air services branch provided 1,650 air hours for Medivac. I confess, there is a small discrepancy between that figure and the figure on page 14 of the report for the same fiscal year, which is that government air services provided 1,586 hours Be that as it may, the number is approximately 34 to 35 percent fewer air hours provided to the ambulance service than were provided in the fiscal year 1985-86

1 went back to the library to ascertain whether this information had been previously available, and I note that the last annual report of the Ministry of Health is for the fiscal year 1987-88. We can't really look for assistance to the Ministry of Health annual reports. That one was only transmitted in July 1989.

But in pages 48 through 50 of that report, we see that the air ambulance flights have been growing very rapidly. They were something in the range of just over 4,000 — perhaps 4,100 flights — per year in 1983-84, and had increased by 1987-88 to about 6,000. We must have been doing something well in health care in the province, because they were a little bit less — 5,597 in this immediately past fiscal year.

The figures for government air hours, at page 14 of the current Emergency Health Services Commission annual report, are striking. They are: 1985-86, 2,422; 1986-87, 2,699; 1987-88 — the first full fiscal year, I guess, of the present administration, a slight decrease, 2,593; and then in the fiscal year 1988-89 something dramatic happened, because the number of air hours provided by the government air service, according to this report, fell to 1,478; and in the immediately terminated fiscal year only 1,586. As the report points out, a drop of 34.52 percent from five years ago.

[2:30]

The report goes on to point out on page 15 that the government air services branch had: "...again reduced their committed service hours. The reduction from 2,800 hours to 1,800 hours per year caused an increase in charter costs of approximately $1.2 million." The government air services branch was unable to provide offset funding this year as it had in 1988-89, the immediately preceding fiscal year. The Prince Rupert helicopter service remained unfunded at a cost of $0.6 million per year.

That's a somewhat separate issue, but I hope I've now explained to the satisfaction of the minister the basis for the questions I raised during question period. I would simply like to know — since she's been quoted widely, in the press at least, as having said that the day she can't be frank she'll step down from her position — her honest explanation of why the government air service now provides 35 percent fewer hours to the air ambulance service, which was the exclusive purpose for which those jets were bought five years ago.

HON. MRS. GRAN: I'd like to thank the member for sending the report over to me; I hadn't seen it. As the member may or may not know, the use of government jets as ambulances varies from year to year, and it depends on the initial negotiations between my ministry and the Ministry of Health and many other factors. It depends on the availability of the planes in the regions where the emergencies occur.

I can tell the member that we are negotiating this year and targeting 50 percent usage of the planes for this coming year.

[ Page 10665 ]

MR. PERRY: My colleague the hon. member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) points out that there is a discrepancy between what the minister just stated and what the Minister of Health stated a few moments ago in question period.

In response to my question — if we heard correctly — the Minister of Health replied that the number of hours the government jets provide to the air ambulance service is exclusively dependent upon patient demand. The minister has now said that this is a negotiated number of hours. Yet I don't think she has answered my question.

The Emergency Health Services Commission annual report certainly implies — albeit, it doesn't state this in quite so many words — by the expression "Government air services branch again reduced their committed service hours" that 1,800 hours were committed. Yet depending on which figure you take' either 1,586 or 1,615 air hours were actually provided. Either way it's about 200 hours or 11 percent less than even the reduced amount committed.

I'm only a lay member of the Legislature representing one constituency, but, frankly, I find this stretches my credulity to think that this minister's department is administering itself in the public interest, and to imagine that air ambulances purchased specifically to get sick patients out of rough parts of this province in a timely way down to the tertiary hospitals where they can receive the highest possible level of care — or, nowadays, to get them out of the province where they can get good care when it's not available here — are being used to ferry people like the minister, at $1,000 extra per flight, from Boundary Bay to Abbotsford.

This is a matter of public record; the planes have been seen discharging their passengers. I remember seeing one of the government ministers during the Cariboo by-election getting off at government expense in Williams Lake on — if I remember the date — September 7, 1989, and being the only passenger on the jet. On the same day when there were commercial flights that I took up there at New Democratic Party expense to participate in that campaign, one of the government ministers flew up at all our expense, tying up that jet for the entire morning — if not the whole day — just to speak to a chamber of commerce in the middle of an election campaign. I watched carefully and saw only one person come off the jet.

I find it astonishing that this minister can sit there and smugly and firmly tell us that she's administering the public business, when this kind of scandalous abuse of the public purse is occurring. I'm looking at my colleagues to try and get some insight from their eyes as to how it is that a government minister can rise in this assembly and not seem to be troubled by the fact that her own department has run up an additional $1.2 million in costs out of public money This isn't some mysterious government that sits over across the water in Victoria, and this isn't some strange organism that breeds and feeds on the public insatiably and can't be satisfied like a Moloch; this is a government elected by, of and for the people, which is accountable to the public for the way it spends public money. The government money doesn't just grow on trees. I guess in the old days of the real Social Credit it was thought that maybe it did grow on trees. I've never pretended to understand the original Social Credit philosophy. But this money comes out of hard-working people's pockets, and they entrust it to government to spend wisely.

Maybe it strikes me particularly, Mr. Chairman, having worked in some remote parts of the province where the jet can be life-saving to people when it serves as an air ambulance. I remember once riding in the ambulance from New Denver down to Castlegar airport with a miner who had been subject to a crush injury on a road up in the hills behind Sandon in the Slocan Valley. Because we had those ambulances available in a small town like New Denver, we were able to go up the road in the pouring sleet, resuscitate that man, start an intravenous in him in the back of an open pickup truck in the pouring sleet, get him down promptly, put a chest tube into him in the hospital in New Denver and transport him, at risk to ourselves, at break-neck speed down the highway to Castlegar. There we could expect a jet would be available to get him down to Vancouver, where he could have life-saving surgery.

Having been in that situation, it really offends me — frankly it burns me — to see this kind of abuse of the public money. I'm having trouble looking at the minister there and thinking of that wonderful spread in the magazine that sold on supermarket counters quoting her as saying that when she couldn't be frank, she would leave her job. I think it's time for her to come clean with the facts. What the deuce is going on in that department so that this kind of scandalous record can be exposed? Why is it that reports like this have to arrive in brown paper envelopes so that the public can know what's being done with their money?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Chairman, the only thing that I want to point out to the smug member across from me is that the $1.2 million is not an overrun in this ministry; it's an additional cost in the Ministry of Health. If the member would think a little bit about the negotiations and the demand for air ambulance, he would understand why there is a fluctuation. We try to negotiate as closely as we can, but it's always a guesstimate on how many hours you're going to use the jets for ambulance use. There is always a difference. Some years the jets are used more than in other years, but the number one priority for government air service is for air ambulance.

MR. GABELMANN: I don't have much experience in any of this stuff, but I wonder if the minister could explain to me why, if the jets are there sitting on the tarmac available for air ambulance as a first priority, you would negotiate how many hours are to be used.

HON. MRS. GRAN: For budgeting purposes.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm trying to square that with the answer in question period from the Minister of

[ Page 10666 ]

Health (Hon. J. Jansen), who said — and has repeatedly said — that the air ambulance service is driven by patient-care demand. How does this work? If the air ambulance is driven by demand and the minister has a budget for air ambulances....

HON. MRS. GRAN: We don't have a budget.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Health has a budget for air ambulances, and when they exceed that they then start to charter? That doesn't make sense.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I know that's not the answer; it doesn't make sense.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You don't understand.

MR. GABELMANN: The Premier says that I don't understand. I am in good company. There are 2.6 million British Columbians who don't understand this either.

I would like to know: is the air ambulance system driven by patient — and patient-doctor — demand?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Yes.

MR. GABELMANN: I wonder if the minister might explain to this simple mind what the purpose is, then, of the Health ministry budget discussions with your ministry in respect of the hours that will be available for the Citations.

HON. MRS. GRAN: It's so that we have some sense of what Health feels the demands will be, based on last year. But it is always a guesstimate, because the patients' demands decide how many hours those jets are used for ambulance services. As you can see, they fluctuate greatly over the years.

MR. GABELMANN: I wonder if the minister would agree that the fluctuation downward in the last year is a direct result of the increased use of charters for air ambulance purposes.

HON. MRS. GRAN: I just want to say that every year there is a mix. The answer is no.

MR. GABELMANN: So every year there has been a mix. Agreed. Why has the mix suddenly gone to the extent now where it's almost pure oxygen? We now have a situation where charters at great cost are leased by the Ministry of Health for air ambulance services. At the same time, the number of those charters goes up and the use by the air ambulance service of the Citations goes down. Is there any logical answer that the minister, who prides herself on giving honest answers, can give to that? The only obvious answer to British Columbians so far has been that there has been a priority for cabinet minister travel on the Citations. Is there any other answer that would explain the dramatic change in the mix last year?

[2:45]

MR. PERRY: I was interested in listening to my colleague the member for North Island, because his questions are always perceptive, succinct and to the point. Sitting here listening to this is giving me a new lease on life. It's reminding me why I decided to enter politics last year.

I see someone was proposing — I forget if it was in the Sun or the Province — over the weekend that we rename British Columbia to Lotus Land or Fantasy Land or something less colonial-sounding than British Columbia. I have always been an admirer of that name, so don't mistake me for advocating the change, but I can see why whoever wrote that article was thinking along those lines. This is just — there is no other way to describe it — bizarre. I hope that isn't unparliamentary, Mr. Chairman.

Because I had brought in only some pages of the ambulance report, I have asked for the full report to be sent to me so I can check some of the figures and commend them to the minister's attention. Look here at page 8 of the copy I sent the minister, under the heading "Air Ambulance Service."

I remind you that this is the annual report of the Emergency Health Services Commission. Admittedly, few of us are ever privileged to see such government documents. It's not considered in this province in the public interest for the public to really know how government works on the inside.

Here at page 8 of this report, under the heading "Air Ambulance, " above point 6, I quote: "Some uncontrollable cost pressures continue to drive up Medivac expenses." Then: "6. The inability of government air services to provide sufficient flight hours, thus necessitating increased charter flights." When I get the full report back in my hands, I can point out that the number of charter hours rose.

Really, what the minister has tried to tell us in response to very simple questions just does not bear the test of truth. The flight hours accorded, on page 14 of the report, which the minister has a copy of, to government air hours declined by 34.52 percent over the last five years. That is because although the jets were purchased to provide emergency ambulance services for the people of B.C., they were being used for another purpose.

The inescapable conclusion sitting here in cold, hard print on page 15 of that report under the heading "Air Ambulance Service" is: "Government air services branch again reduced their committed hours. The reduction from 2,800 hours to 1,800 per year caused an increase in charter costs of approximately $1.2 million." I don't understand why it is so difficult for this minister to appreciate that whether that money was paid from the Ministry of Health budget or from the Government Management Services budget is immaterial to the taxpayer of British

[ Page 10667 ]

Columbia. It came directly out of the pockets of British Columbia taxpayers.

The service was established to provide a necessary, lifesaving and health-maintaining air ambulance service, which the people of British Columbia expect. Because of her ministry's guidelines and her colleagues' misuse of the air ambulance jets for their own political purposes and their own personal convenience, those jets were not available as much as they had been before — 35 percent less, to be exact.

What I'm really asking the minister again is: will she explain why this happened? Does she perhaps expect us, placidly like good little sheep, to vote on her salary and cheer her along as if... ?

Interjection.

MR. PERRY: I even see one of her colleagues baaing; I hear the baa.

That's not our role on this side of the Legislature. We're here as the people's servants to raise legitimate questions about how this government spends the taxpayers' money. That is the legitimate purpose of the estimates debate; it's totally legitimate for us to insist on an answer from this minister. If she won't give one, then perhaps the people of B.C. will hold her accountable.

MR. SERWA: I'd like to enter this debate on the minister's estimates for a few minutes. Frankly, I would like to compliment the minister responsible for government air services for the actions taken with the emergency ambulance service, which works very well throughout the province.

I also understand the reason that the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey fails to understand that in the interior of the province time is very important in getting patients to the lower mainland centres for specialized treatment. What has occurred in the past — and one of the reasons I'm very strongly supportive of the charter flights that are utilized — is that the British Columbia fleet has been based in Victoria. An aircraft is called; often that aircraft has to then land in Vancouver to pick up paramedics and then go to the interior of the province, where it has to pick up the patient and return to Vancouver.

The fact remains that the charter flights used by the Ministry of Health are located in all areas of the province. The cost of those flights is normally less expensive than government air services, because they use turboprops, which are less expensive pieces of equipment to buy and to maintain, and almost as fast as the jets. The fact is that its payload is on a one-way route. Since time is important — and critical in many cases — I think the present system is very important. Certainly the member from Cranbrook acknowledges the importance of getting individuals from her area to the medical centres or specialists in Vancouver as quickly as possible. So when the hon. member of the opposition continues to talk about cost and about $1.2 million, he conveniently tends to forget that there is a cost to running aircraft, whether they are publicly owned or privately owned, and that time is essential and critical in most cases. I'm deeply appreciative of the care taken by our government in providing the best possible standard of emergency transportation through air.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Chairman, the reason I've been sitting here is that we've been through this several times before. If the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey — it is second, isn't it? — had been in the House, he would have heard a lot of my answers. I guess that's part of estimates: over and over again. He would have heard me say that in a review currently underway, we're looking at basing one of the planes perhaps in an area like Prince George, instead of having all of them in Victoria. When the planes are not available, a lot of the time it's because they're too far away.

I've not seen the report that this member brought into the House today. It's a report from the Ministry of Health. I'm sure that in his estimates the Minister of Health (Hon. J. Jansen) will be able to answer a lot of the questions that the member is asking. But if the member would do me the favour of going back through the Blues to see the questions — good questions — his colleagues have asked and the answers given, he would be a great deal smarter.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Chairman, I hate to go away from the issue of whether the ambulance is available in rural areas of this province. The difficulties there, which I hear regularly, and the fact that there is no reasonable solution yet, make me wish that we could extend the debate on it. However, I have another issue that I want to ask the minister about.

Apprenticeship programs are one of the major problems in our area. I know you're not responsible for apprenticeship programs, but one particular aspect of the problem is the small number of women apprentices in the few apprenticeships that we have in the province.

While I don't have figures that conform exactly to my constituency, I have some that represent what goes on in apprenticeships in the East Kootenay. What generally relates to my own constituency, Madam Minister, is that out of 181 apprentices, seven are female. If you extend that into a broader area throughout the East Kootenay, there are 291 apprentices, of which 16 are female. That proportion is not appropriate. I want to know from the minister what she plans to do about that.

I would like to add a little detail to this picture, which is quite an interesting little portrait, if you look at what the figures tell you. It's interesting, first of all, that in the part that conforms to my riding, the minister might recognize that of the ten cooking apprenticeships, none are women. These are the ones in which people might expect to have females apprenticing. There are two baking apprenticeships, and no women. There is one hairdressing apprentice, who is a woman. The only barbering one is a woman. Of the ten carpentry apprentices, there is one woman. And the one apprentice in practical horticulture is a

[ Page 10668 ]

woman. Those last two are very exciting. It's also interesting that in the designation "parts man" — and I put that forward with quotation marks — there are three women in the six parts-man apprenticeships.

The picture is pretty well the same in the rest of the East Kootenay, except that of the three.... First of all, all three hairdressing apprenticeships are held by women. Of the seven cooking apprentices, four are women. And we have two auto-parts men out of six. What is the minister planning to do? I'd like a fairly concrete answer, if the minister has something to say about this, about what she intends to do to increase the number of women who have access to the rare number of apprenticeships in our province. What is she planning to do to see that the types of apprenticeship become much broader for the women who want to take them?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Chairman, the member has brought up a subject that we all need to address and reflect on. In order for women — girls — to look toward non-traditional careers, a change in attitude is required. When we've talked about Women's Programs — which hasn't been nearly often enough.... I'm surprised that Women's Programs has taken a very low profile in my estimates. I hope that doesn't mean the NDP have decided they no longer care about women's concerns. There has been a real lack of good-quality questions from the other side.

[3:00]

Attitudes are everything, and the biggest part of this ministry is to influence attitudes. That means that all of us have to work together — people in leadership roles, in particular. I would think that MLAs, both male and female, when they are talking in their constituencies and in other places, have a wonderful opportunity to talk about the concerns of girls in school, and the fact that they have probably not changed their attitudes over the last 50 years. Having traveled around the province, I am aware that many young girls still believe in fairy-tales. They are not aware that they will probably work 25 to 40 years of their lives. They still believe that they're going to get married, be looked after and live happily ever after. They may live happily ever after, but they will probably do it while they're working.

What needs to happen is that attitudes in school need to change. There are a variety of ways to do this. This ministry, under the women's secretariat, provided some substantial grants to communities and organizations to deal with exactly what the member is talking about.

Role models in schools are another way to accomplish what the member is talking about. It's my hope to work very closely over the next year with Education and the local school boards to convince them that role-model programs will greatly assist young women in making non-traditional career choices.

I can tell the member that when visiting her constituency, I went to her college, which is a lovely college. I met with the board, the faculty and many of the students. I met a single woman who was taking a mechanic's course. I think there were 30 altogether and just this one woman. But that woman changed a lot of attitudes in that room with the men she was working with. They were pleasantly surprised at her abilities, and that her understanding of the car, truck or whatever she was working on was as good as theirs, and that she was indeed capable of doing the job.

It's going to be a slow process; it's not going to happen overnight. But the biggest change will occur when attitudes change.

MS. EDWARDS: First of all, I'd like to congratulate the minister for having set up so many targets, even though women's issues didn't have the kind of emphasis she thought they might have had. You've had a very active time in your estimates, Madam Minister. I'm sorry that you wanted to speak more about women and haven't had the opportunity.

I noticed that you said you would put up some funding for community groups, and that you think it would be nice to have role models in the schools. But what is the budget? What are the actual programs that you're talking about? Even if you are simply talking about the schools — and that seems to be where you have placed your stress — you are forgetting that education is a lifelong process.

It was very nice to come across an example the other day in a parade, when the second princess from Revelstoke told me that she wanted to go to college and become a welder. That is marvellous. But we have to do more, Madam Minister. We have to do more in the schools, and I'd like to know what kind of specific programs and budgets you have.

I know that the two women's centres in my area have projects to do something. Does the minister have specific projects? Does the minister have ideas or a budget? What is the minister going to do for women, other than girls going through the public school system?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Chairman, before I give the member a few examples of what is being done, let me again remind the member that the ministry for women's programs is not a ministry to have large funding that belongs in other ministries. For example, if funding is required for a role-model program in schools, that will come under the Ministry of Education. The other programs the member is talking about fall under Advanced Education.

Having said that, I can tell the member that the province is developing, with the federal government, a British Columbia action plan to increase the participation of women in apprenticeship programs. Under the training opportunities program of the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology, employers who hire women in non-traditional jobs are eligible for wage subsidies. The women's grant program has sponsored summer science workshops for girls aged nine to 12 in communities throughout the province, a new video on careers in the sciences for girls for use in the school curriculum, a career development opportunities kit for teenage girls and

[ Page 10669 ]

young women, and several women-in-trades access projects.

I can tell you that in ministries other than just my own, a lot is being done to encourage women to go into the non-traditional areas — where, of course, they make more money.

MS. EDWARDS: I certainly find it interesting that the minister talks about all these programs that have been put in place since the funding was chopped for women's departments at colleges, for women's training programs that were in colleges that were doing a lot of work to get women back in. But I'm more curious to know.... I don't have any sense of where the people who work with apprenticeships are going to be over the long term, and I'd like to know whether the minister is going to be doing something through.... Have you yet established which ministry you are going to be able to work with in order to encourage more women into apprenticeships? Is that going to be in Advanced Education, Training and Technology? Is it going to be in Labour? Where is it going to be? Is it going to be privatized? Is it going to sort of disappear in a wisp of smoke? What is the minister doing specifically to encourage more women into apprenticeships?

HON. MRS. GRAN: The answer is, the Ministry of Advanced Education.

MS. MARZARI: I was interested to hear the minister comment on the lacklustre performance of the opposition around women's programs. Madam Minister, I should say that I am one who measures estimates procedures on the basis of quality rather than quantity. I have convinced myself over the last three years that you can say almost everything that needs to be said or not said inside a six-hour package. I must admit, the six hours we spent in this House together were most enlightening indeed. From the point of view of ministerial responsibility and accountability, we got answer after answer which was not a "no" answer but not a "yes" answer. We got answer after answer which suggested that the minister wasn't really responsible but might be responsible but perhaps was coordinating. When questions came forward that asked the minister where her money was to coordinate or where her mandate was to coordinate, it was all in the what we call the warm and fuzzy never-never land of possibly a committee but perhaps not a resolution. This was not an estimates procedure, Madam Minister. This was a foray into a fantasy land of possibilities, maybes and never-to-bes.

What amazed me the most was the babysitting that went on around the minister. Throughout the estimates there were at least two senior cabinet ministers protecting the minister from having to answer anything that might be too difficult. This rose to a crescendo in my last question to the minister last week when I asked the minister, in her relationship to and in her coordination of programs that might be related to the Attorney-General, as to her position on violence against women and children in this province. I asked her very specifically what she was doing about wife assault, about wife battering, about child abuse and whether or not she was approaching and lobbying other ministers around getting a Statute of Limitations increase, and about getting the counselling increased for women who had been sexually abused as children. It was the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) who stood up and who went on at length — ate the clock, so to speak, all the way through to 6 o'clock that night — to protect the minister of women from having to answer those very difficult, very serious questions.

In fact, he was so considerate of his relationship with the minister for women that he announced that she was an excellent minister. And why was she an excellent minister, Mr. Chair? She was an excellent minister because she didn't care who got the credit for ideas. She was such a good minister, such a good woman, such a good girl, that it didn't matter to her who got the credit for her ideas. In other words, the Attorney-General was going to get the credit, but she was going to express the idea and remain silent in the background — which I have witnessed at a press conference not so long ago, where the Attorney-General took full credit for an idea which was obviously hers.

So, commenting on the estimates procedure, I must move along to ask my question at this point.

Interjection.

MS. MARZARI: Are you pleased that I'm about to ask a question, Mr. Member?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Is this part of the six hours?

MS. MARZARI: Yes, absolutely. You see, I don't have senior cabinet ministers sitting beside me advising me how to go through my paces. No, just a group of scurrilous old....

Here we go — page 26 of the women's advisory council report, recommendation 4: "That the provincial government undertake to achieve an equal representation of qualified women on appointed boards, commissions, advisory bodies and in senior management in the provincial public service." That's an excellent recommendation, a recommendation that I would wholeheartedly support; in fact, I would want to know that there were files and files of qualified women to fill available commission and board appointments. I would have imagined that the minister would have been compiling these files over the last few months since her appointment so that whenever a board or commission appointment was to be made, the minister would be there and ready, file in hand, with a list of qualified women candidates to sit on boards and, hopefully, to represent 50 percent of those boards, since women hold up half of the sky in all areas across this province and this country.

Yet on Friday we read order-in-council appointments approved June 28, 1990, for the Premier's

[ Page 10670 ]

Advisory Council on Science and Technology. Five members are reappointed for a term of two years. Four are appointed for one year, and then six new people are appointed for three years. I think there is a total of 15 appointments on the page, Madam Minister. Every one of them is a man; every new appointment to the Premier's Advisory Council on Science and Technology is a male. We know, I know and you know that there are many qualified women who could sit on the advisory council. I know two, one of whom did sit on the committee — Dr. Julia Levy. There are dozens more in our university systems that I've talked to over the last three years.

Where are the women on this very important council? Obviously there are thousands of appointments to be made. This is an important appointment; this is an important council. It has to do with the economic development of our province, the whole new initiative In the knowledge industry. Where are the women on this particular council?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Chairman, I'm happy that the member opposite approves of the recommendations in that report. She's had a change of heart in the last couple of days, I would guess. Probably someone has told her that it's a good idea for her to support it instead of constantly trashing what is really a good report, so I'm happy to see the change of heart. It will be helpful, I'm sure, for all of us to work together instead of having that particular MLA tear it down each time we do something in this ministry.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. GRAN: "Try and get along" — did you hear that? That came from your side. Is he concerned? Is it that he wants us to get along because we're women, or just that he wants us to get along?

Interjection.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Oh, okay. Maybe when the member stands up she could tell us what it's like in her caucus. I have a feeling that there are probably some differences of opinion in that caucus over the issues that affect women.

[3:15]

Interjection.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Never? So says "scotch and sofa."

My answer to the member about the specific recommendation for the number of women on boards and commissions.... I want to assure the member that in the last eight months there has been a significant change in the number of women put on boards and commissions, and that it will continually improve. All of the recommendations in that report will be going to cabinet for approval. The report itself has been there and was well received by the ministers, and each recommendation will be Implemented in the next period of time.

I also want the member to know that, yes, I have compiled a lengthy list of very qualified women from not just the lower mainland but all over British Columbia to sit on advisory boards and commissions and whatever else comes up as government does its business.

We certainly have a long way to go, not just in British Columbia but all over Canada. I think that the recent report from the federal government states that very clearly. It's not limited to British Columbia. It's all over this country.

MS. MARZARI: Madam Minister, this is the very reason we haven't had a successful relationship during the course of these estimates. I asked you a very specific question about 15 men now sitting on the Premier's Advisory Council on Science and Technology. Fifteen men. Where are the women? This was your first test. The report comes out mid-June, this committee is appointed on June 29. Where are the women on this committee? This is so representative of all the topics that we've discussed.

The report is an excellent report. For the record, the report is everything the NDP have been saying for 20 years. It's almost as if you'd read through the women's policy of the NDP that we've developed in the last three years, touring around the province. An excellent report.

What I was concerned about was the fact that in selecting that committee you put the members between a rock and a hard place. You put them in a difficult position. You went to them as individuals, but then you used the names of their agencies. Do you know what it's like? It's like — I'll put this into male terms, because the House understands these terms better — asking Wayne Gretzky to comment on the future needs of the Edmonton Oilers. That's what you did. You put the other members of that team in a difficult position. You put the owners of that team in a difficult position. That is my concern about your report and about your committee.

The report is excellent, okay? I don't have to say it again and nobody told me to say that it was an excellent report. But what you've done is put women in a difficult position. That's not what you had set out to do, but you did it through inadvertence, through lack of experience. So much of what you have presented to this House in our estimates represents that same lack of experience, that same inadvertent stumbling into co-ordinated roles when you have no power; stumbling into mandates when you don't have the authority; stumbling into big-budget items when you don't have the budget.

That settles that. One other question has to do with your relationship to lands that are on your lists, Madam Minister. One of my concerns in my constituency is the Jericho lands, and I've been tracking it now for a year and a half. The Jericho lands have gone from Government Management Services; they have trickled through to special privatization lists; at one point they were on the housing lists held by the Minister of Social Services and Housing. Now, apparently, they've been bounced back through BCBC to

[ Page 10671 ]

your ministry. I'm interested in knowing, Madam Minister, now that I've tracked this through the loops that it's traveled, what is now happening to the Jericho lands, 50 acres of potentially residential property, potentially planned housing and parkland in the heart of Point Grey. Have you made plans on the Jericho lands? Have you had consultations with the mayor or the city council in Vancouver? Have you made commitments with the neighbourhood of Point Grey to assure them that they will be consulted and involved in any planning process that goes on?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Yes.

MR. ROSE: I was hoping that the minister would elaborate a little bit more than that, but I suppose a monosyllabic reply is better than a swarm of fetid fog, unless you're particularly fond of fetid fog.

I hope, in the event that one of my colleagues doesn't walk in here with one of his greatest hits, that I will be closing this debate, to welcome the minister to a little bit of relief from this incessant cross-examination and the fact that she's had some very difficult things to defend, some not of her own making. I understand that. I think that going through first estimates must be akin to something else that was very traumatic in a person's life. I can't think of what that might be. Nevertheless, you probably never forget it.

I've got a few questions having to do with vote 35. You might alert your officials, because you might need some advice on this one. I'd like to follow up something my colleague said about the fact that you had some goalkeepers in here with you this year. I would think that that would be a bit demeaning. I guess it's okay for the first time. But I watched your colleague of last year in Parks. He was hung out to dry. Nobody came near him to help him, and he was having a very bad time of it. I think the minister is quite capable of defending herself, and she didn't really need the heavies in here. If I had been in her place, I would have objected to it. It's demeaning as a woman, I think. Anyway, I've said that — for which my colleague is very proud, I'm sure.

Vote 35 includes nearly $9 million for administration and support services, which is up 18 percent over last year. The House voted $7.6 million for administering the thing last year. Your ministry has shrunk by 30 percent. You lost the government personnel services division to the Ministry of Finance; you lost the B.C. Pavilion Corporation to the Ministry of Tourism. If we are paying a lot more to administer a lot less, it seems to me we need an explanation, and I would welcome that explanation.

HON. MRS. GRAN: The actual facts are that there has been an increase in funding of 5 percent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read the budget.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Do you have those figures in front of you?

MR. ROSE: You're up 18 percent.

HON. MRS. GRAN: I guess it depends on....

MR. ROSE: Let me assist the minister. If you look at last year, you've got $7.6 million for administering this ministry. This year it's nearly $9 million. We calculate it at being up 18 percent.

If you want to do it the other way and call it 5 percent, I don't care, but the fact is that you've lost 30 percent of your ministry. I want to know why, if you've lost 30 percent of your ministry, your vote is up for administration something like — take your figures or mine — 18 percent.

HON. MRS. GRAN: I'm not sure if I'm understanding what the member is saying, but the increase is 7 percent for administration.

MR. ROSE: I don't want to quibble all afternoon over this thing. The estimates for 1990-'91 are $8,987,350 — that's this year. Administration and support services, last year, $7,627,267. That looks to me like quite a jump.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Chairman, the comparable figure is $8,376,000.

MR. ROSE: Where did that come from? I'm looking on page 124 of the estimates, and I don't know where the $8 million came from at all. If you want to leave that, we'll leave it. It seems to me it speaks for itself. Anyway, it sounds a little bit like the airline business.

The supplement to the estimates shows a big shift in salaries paid for administration. At $3 million, it's up 40 percent on the $2.1 million voted last year for the ministry, which was then 30 percent larger. So we've got $3 million, up 40 percent over $2.1 million for salaries paid for administration. No other ministry of this government has such an extravagant record. How is this justified?

HON. MRS. GRAN: I don't know where the member is reading from, but we are not up 18 percent in expenditures — or the 40 percent I heard the member say. I'm having difficulty understanding what he's talking about in terms of such a large increase for administration. He's right, we have lost some things in the ministry.

While I'm up, I want to expand just a little bit on the question about the Jericho land. The Jericho land is with the B.C. Buildings Corporation. Nothing has been planned for it, and I just want you to know — and particularly the member for Vancouver–Point Grey — that I am talking regularly with the residents and nothing will be done without consultation with them.

MR. ROSE: If you look at the notes under "Vote Description, " you see that the subvote "provides for administration and support services to the ministry including executive, financial and administrative,

[ Page 10672 ]

human resources, information systems, and ministry information services." Then it goes on and on: "...management training and development...some expenses incurred by the Legislature ... cabinet committee expenses and travel expenses within Canada" and that sort of thing. Then there are certain recoveries here. So that's where I got it. That also includes salary.

The ministry seems to be hiring nearly seven times the number of consultants they did last year. I would like an explanation of that. Is this one of the residues of privatization? In other words, what you do is cut your staff down in your ministries, then go outside. But ultimately you spend the same or more money on it. This appears to be another angle as well.

[3:30]

The ministry seems to be hiring seven times the number of consultants — $788,000 this year compared to $117,000 — for what is called "professional services." Would the minister confirm that she's asking advice, perhaps on how to handle her spending estimates? What are all these consultants for? Can we have a list of them? Will you table what they're for and what they're doing? There seem to be a fairly substantial number here.

HON. MRS. GRAN: We're not hiring any more consultants or contract people than we ever have before. I think the member can imagine — and probably knows all by himself — what a ministry would hire people like that for. If there's a job.... In Women's Programs I will be hiring quite a few consulting people to help with projects that are short-term. Once they are dealt with, they will then go on to the appropriate ministry.

MR. ROSE: The vote also includes some $595,000 for "recoveries." These recoveries were larger last year. Why are they down 9 percent from last year? I would like to know whether you've cut training or whether last year's recovery was not realized. What is the relationship of the $595,000 in recoveries to last year's actual amount of recoveries?

HON. MRS. GRAN: In the Centre for Executive and Management Development, for example, the expenditure was 650 and the recovery was 594, for training programs.

MR. ROSE: Under the STOBs, STOB 50, which includes vehicle and equipment operation, has gone up 76 percent. Does this represent more cars, more gas-guzzlers and greater travel during an election year, or a combination? How do you justify this increase?

HON. MRS. GRAN: We didn't have all the vehicles last year. This year we have the management for all the vehicles in government. That's the difference.

MR. ROSE: Do I understand that you've taken over all the vehicles from the other ministries? You have total takeover of all vehicles, and they are all purchased and managed and disposed of through the vehicle management services? Yes.

I don't have anything more on that, but I really can't congratulate the minister, as much as I'd love to, on a spirited defence or explanation of these STOBs and these sub-votes. It's just not good enough.

Will the minister undertake — if not to do it today, because she can't — to get me some accurate answers, a little bit more amplified and specific answers than she gave me today? There are some anomalies in spending, and I think I've gone over a great number of them. We're paying a lot more to administer a lot less. I need an explanation of why that is.

Salaries for administration appear to have gone up when your ministry has shrunk. I need an explanation for that. It seems to me there are seven times the number of consultants as last year. Why? The recoveries are down. Why? I've got an explanation about the last one — vehicle management — and I'm satisfied with that.

At that point I'll close this portion of the estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 34 pass?

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, I was hoping the minister might respond before you called that vote.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Chairman, I will make a commitment to provide the member with that information.

Vote 34 approved.

Vote 35: ministry operations, $32,212,980 — approved.

Vote 36: pensions and employee benefits administration, $10 — approved.

Vote 37: pensions and employee benefits contributions, $10 — approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Serwa in the chair.

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

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 13.

PURCHASING COMMISSION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

The House in committee on Bill 13; Mr. Serwa in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, as the minister knows, I have very serious reservations about this legislation, which I discussed on Thursday. I would

[ Page 10673 ]

like to have some more detailed discussion with the minister in committee stage.

The first section is definitional changes. Perhaps I could just begin by asking the minister to explain them. There is a change dealing with public institutions and a changed amendment. Maybe the minister could explain the necessity for the changes to the definitional section of the Purchasing Commission Act.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Chairman, that is just a clarifying clause.

MR. CLARK: I'm trying to find out what it clarifies, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps the minister has some bill notes. These changes are germane to section 3 of the bill, so we'll get to that later. But I wonder why it was necessary to change "public institutions" to "government institutions." This seems to be the significant change, and I'm not sure....

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Chairman, the definition of "public institutions" provides a distinction between government institutions, to whom the commission must provide service if requested, and public institutions, to whom it may provide services upon request.

MR. CLARK: Is that a change from the previous act, which required that the Purchasing Commission shall operate on behalf of public institutions? Are the substantial changes that they shall act only on behalf of government institutions and not public institutions?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that's correct.

MR. CLARK: Then why is it necessary to delete from the Purchasing Commission's power certain public institutions — if that's what happened here?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Chairman, just let me read to the member: "This definition is essentially identical to the previous definition of 'public institution'." Therefore, government institutions in the new act should be thought of as the former public institutions — for example, Crown corporations. B.C. Assessment Authority, B.C. Housing Management Commission.

MR. CLARK: I apologize to the minister, but now I am confused. Here is a change now delineating government institutions from public institutions That wasn't here previously. The minister answered that that was a significant — for want of a better word — amendment in the sense that it made a substantial change to the Purchasing Commission Act. The minister stood up a minute ago and said, I think, that there really was no change. Can you tell me which it is? Does this amendment remove certain institutions from the purview of the Purchasing Commission?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Chairman, it is simply a clarification of "public institution"; it distinguishes between them.

MR. CLARK: I don't want to jump ahead, Mr. Chairman, but is section 3 the reason for the distinction, the change of "shall" in the old Purchasing Commission Act to "on request...government institutions"? Is that the reason for the change? If it is, then in fact these amendments do more than clarify; they substantially change the powers of the Purchasing Commission Act.

HON. MRS. GRAN: The difference is that the "shall" applies to ministries and Crown corporations, and the "may" brings in municipalities, school boards, hospitals, and those kinds of things.

MR. CLARK: Is it the case that in the past the existing bill did not allow the Purchasing Commission to act on behalf of municipalities, hospitals, etc., and that they are now covered by this "on request" position?

HON. MRS. GRAN: The previous bill really didn't allow or disallow the Purchasing Commission to deal with school boards, municipalities, and those kinds of agencies. It's clarified and spelled out in the new act.

MR. CLARK: So this in fact does not change the operation of the Purchasing Commission, except to say that certain institutions — which are now defined — may be covered by the Purchasing Commission Act if they request it. Is that the nub of the matter?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Yes, that's correct.

MR. ROSE: I just wonder if the Chair would confirm the mandatory part — or the appearance of it being mandatory. The commission "shall" is really permissive when you put in the "on request" stuff. The commission really has no power over the government institutions; it's only on request. I think we should remind ourselves that of all government purchasing and all government institutional purchasing, the Purchasing Commission looks after only 6 percent of the total. I've said so many words that you've probably lost me. I'm asking for confirmation that what appears to be the shell of the mandatory side of it really is permissive when you put in those little words "on request."

HON. MRS. GRAN: The mandatory part applies to the Purchasing Commission.

[3:45]

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. CLARK: I have no wish to discuss this section at great length. The germane amendment of section 40) (a) of the existing act is twofold. One now says

[ Page 10674 ]

"on request," and it says "government" institutions rather than "public." The existing bill says that it is the duty of the commission to acquire supplies. So it's in the affirmative: it shall acquire supplies on behalf of public institutions. It now says the commission "shall," which implies that it's mandatory, and then adds "on request" for government institutions. I'm trying to ask the minister what the significance of that amendment is. To repeat for the minister, there are two little changes in this, and I'm asking the minister to give us some clarification as to the significance of the amendment that changes "shall purchase on behalf of the public institutions" to "may" purchase — or essentially, "shall...on request...government institutions."

HON. MRS. GRAN: The Purchasing Commission, if requested, is required — it's mandatory for them — to deal with the contract. The "may" allows areas — public institutions — that haven't been included or defined previously to now become part of the client service offered by the Purchasing Commission. The "may" applies only to the clients; the "shall" applies to the Purchasing Commission.

MR. CLARK: I understand that the commission "shall purchase" if a government institution requests it. They are required to do it upon request. But from a reading of the existing bill, it appears that they shall do it, regardless of whether or not it's requested. It says that their duty is to acquire supplies for public institutions.

I may be reading that wrong, and I'm quite prepared to concede that if the minister can point it out to me. The difference is that we've now changed it from public institutions to government institutions. I'm trying to get a handle on the significance of the two amendments: "on request" and now government institutions instead of public institutions.

HON. MRS. GRAN: The word "shall" applies to government institutions, and "may" applies to public institutions. It's mandatory for the Purchasing Commission to deal with government institutions, but they may deal with public institutions which are municipalities, school boards and hospitals.

MR. CLARK: I understand that, Mr. Chairman, but I know they shall on request act on behalf of government institutions. I wonder if the minister could explain why it's necessary to have "on request." Is it not the role of the Purchasing Commission to act on behalf of all government institutions on a mandatory...? In other words, it's mandatory both ways — not just the commission, but on the part of government institutions. I fail to see why you need "on request" on the part of government institutions.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Because the policy is that the client service be such that they request the service; it isn't mandatory. That's why that phrase is in there.

MR. CLARK: It would appear from reading the existing bill that it was mandatory. Is that not the case? It certainly has been interpreted that way. Upon reading the existing bill, it implies that it was a duty of the commission to act on behalf of government or public institutions — or both. Is the minister saying essentially that this amendment codifies what exists in practice? Is it fair to say that this amendment codifies what actually exists in practice?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Yes, the member is correct. The Purchasing Commission is moving away from the mandatory philosophy of ministries having to deal with the Purchasing Commission. In fact, the volumes have increased.

MR. CLARK: With all due respect to the minister, it strikes me as a diminution; in fact, it is. I don't know if the minister agrees with it or not. I understand the need for institutions to participate in the Purchasing Commission and the use of their talents to purchase on behalf of government institutions. But if the government wants to take advantage of economies of scale and wants to pursue certain objectives such as efficiency or, as we get later on, other objectives which are now added to the bill, then it would make sense to me to require all government institutions to work through the Purchasing Commission. That's the main way in which the Purchasing Commission can achieve those economies of scale and efficiencies.

As I read it, that was the primary intent of the original Purchasing Commission Act. This may not in practice, at the moment, diminish the power of the Purchasing Commission. The minister mentioned a minute ago that it may even enhance the amount of purchasing. In reality, it diminishes the Purchasing Commission's power to purchase most efficiently if all government institutions are not operating through the Purchasing Commission.

If they are required to operate through the Purchasing Commission, the Purchasing Commission can presumably use that leverage to reduce prices or to pursue other government objectives. I suspect that if the government will get to this in an amendment — it's in the same section, actually.... If it chooses to pursue environmental initiatives, for example, using this legislation — if, that's the objective of the government — you've now given government institutions the option of not proceeding through the Purchasing Commission. Therefore you negate the very purpose you are attempting to achieve with the amendments.

The amendments now make it essentially at the client's request — to use the minister's words. I think it weakens the power of the commission to pursue government objectives other than price, and weakens its power to pursue price objectives, because they can't necessarily take advantage of the economies of scale which would take place if it were mandatory. It strikes me that the existing act was mandatory. These amendments make it mandatory to the Commission only if it's requested by the government institution.

[ Page 10675 ]

I wonder if the minister could explain her view on that, given that it appears that if all government institutions must go through the Purchasing Commission, the commission can therefore achieve the best price, given economies of scale and other things. This now weakens the power to do that, it seems to me.

HON. MRS. GRAN: I guess if we were talking about power, I would have to say that the member is right; but we're not talking about power. We're talking about efficiency and a philosophy. There's a difference in philosophy that probably stands out here between the NDP and Social Credit, and it's a good example of how we believe that you can't legislate creativity, that you can't force efficiency, that you can't legislate the innovative purchasing that now goes on through the customer-service-oriented Purchasing Commission.

The change in philosophy has taken place over the last five years, and it has worked extremely well — so well that it's really nice to hear members of the opposition compliment the Purchasing Commission for doing a good job. I don't believe — and probably no one on this side believes — that mandatory purchasing by government ministries would work.

The other thing the Purchasing Commission does is work with ministries, if they request it, to help them with their purchasing, If that's what they want to do. They're available for consultative and also for purchasing purposes.

MR. ROSE: The minister talks about different ideologies behind....

AN HON. MEMBER: Philosophies.

MR. ROSE: It's the same thing. One man's philosophy is another man's ideology. It doesn't really matter what you call it.

What do we have the Purchasing Commission for, anyway? Why bother with it, then? If everything can be so innovative, having every ministry.... And the minister said this: every ministry can go off in all directions and buy.... That's what the minister said. I see the official behind her shaking his head. I know it's not in the act, but that's what the minister said: "...acquire supplies required by the government." It would seem to me that it would be all ministries then, so ministries couldn't go chase their own little creative initiative rainbows. They are under here. It's the government institutions that are not under here, not the government ministries.

Why do we have a Purchasing Commission? It seems to me that we have it for two or three reasons I'll try and think of them as I go along. The first one that comes to my mind is to keep everybody honest, because there have been all kinds of horror stories in which there has actually been influence.... I'm not saying it's just in this government; it's governments traditionally — like they build highways. There have been the seeds of corruption. This is a squeaky-clean Purchasing Commission, and we like it that way.

The other thing is the economies of scale. That's another reason why we have a Purchasing Commission. And the other one is so that it can be creative and innovative in itself and go out like it does with its shows. I've forgotten the name of the one down in the convention centre. It was very impressive. A lot of government ministries were there, but by and large, there was someone very close to the minister there as well. I believe Mohawk Oil had a booth at that show.

All governments, if they don't have one, should have a purchasing commission. What we should be doing is not reducing its power and influence.... It's only looking after 6 percent, as I've said 15 times now. We should be looking for it to expand its role, not diminish it, for all kinds of reasons, if for no other than to make sure that proper tendering takes place and that people do get a proper break if they don't have expertise. I mentioned the unconscionable contracts in copiers, word processors and all of these things that the average person doesn't have expertise in; it should be in the Purchasing Commission. So that is the difference.

What we're going to do is that government institutions may clue into it on request. But they don't have to, and that's really what worries me after some of the horror stories of hospital purchases over the last little while, raised so capably by my hon. friend.

MR. CLARK: I think my colleague put it correctly: the Purchasing Commission has done a very good job. I think all members agree.

Far be it from me to criticize legislation brought in by Mr. Bennett's administration. The minister said that the original legislation was too restrictive, and now we want the ministries to have the freedom to opt out of the Purchasing Commission legislation. It seems to me that it defeats the purpose of the original act; or it potentially does, given the.... I'm sure the Purchasing Commission staff will fight aggressively and competitively and probably retain 6 percent or more of the government's business. I've no fear that the Purchasing Commission can't survive on an opting-out basis. It will continue to do a lot of business — although other sections of this bill potentially limit its competitive advantage; the restrictions you can now place through government public policy, through the government putting in other caveats about economic efficiency, may make the Purchasing Commission much less effective.

I think the member who spoke previously made a good case. Anyone who reviews the comptroller-general's report with respect to the former Minister of Tourism's attempt to use the power of the Purchasing Commission to establish some kind of monopoly for associates of his would say that the Purchasing Commission came out of that sorry affair very well, because it was clearly looking out for the public interest. However, these amendments now make it possible for individual ministers — or ministries, through the ministers — to opt out of the safeguard that is in place, given the Purchasing Commission's mandate. Given the Purchasing Commission's man-

[ Page 10676 ]

date — given its previously mandatory requirement to purchase on behalf of ministries, which is in fact thwarted and which could have been something much more damaging to the government than in fact took place — I fear that these amendments potentially undermine the ability of the Purchasing Commission to act as the very safeguard.... The former Minister of Tourism's bid was essentially thwarted by the Purchasing Commission. I think that diminishing their mandatory requirements to act as that safeguard potentially leaves the government open to abuse.

[4:00]

Mr. Chairman, this is a large section. I could debate lots of it at some length, but I'll try not to. I'll try to focus on the most offensive section to me.

Essentially all the way through it, this section adds, aside from "on request" and the change to government institutions, "the environmental well-being of the province." It adds environmental objectives as options to the ability of the Purchasing Commission to pursue economic efficiency objectives. Then a large new section — subsection 4 (2) — is added: "In addition to any powers required to perform its duties, the commission may...." Then I'd like to draw the minister's attention to (k).

MR. ROSE: Subsection (c) as well.

MR. CLARK: My colleague can refer to that, but....

MR. ROSE: I'll do it, then.

MR. CLARK: Okay, If you'd like to.

MR. ROSE: I raised this the other day — 4 (2) (c). Since we're going seriatim, perhaps it would be better to deal with it now: "In addition to any powers required to perform its duties, the commission may...(c) dispose of intangible personal property of the government where this is conducive to the economic and environmental well-being of the province." I want to know who determines that the disposal of intangible personal property.... Whose job is it to decide whether that disposal is conducive to economic and environmental well-being? What are the guidelines that would determine and trigger the disposal?

HON. MRS. GRAN: First of all, I want to remind the member of the independence of the Purchasing Commission. It's an independent body directly responsible to the Legislative Assembly. The amendments in this bill reaffirm this independence by establishing guidelines for the addition of public institutions to its customer base.

Section 4 requires any new customer to be substantially publicly funded, and ensures those decisions are free from political influence. Section 1 ensures only that commissioners can designate additional public institutions as customers. That's by way of establishing the independence of the Purchasing Commission.

I think the member is talking about technology commercialization.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Yes, that's what you're talking about. I think it's important for me to point out that the government always retains ownership of these items. They're bid on in a fair way by companies. I gave a good example when I introduced a bill last week.

It seems like a very rational thing for us to do to recoup some of the costs that are incurred in developing software, particularly, in government.

MR. ROSE: I wouldn't be so unkind as to describe what you've just said as bafflegab, but it seems to me that the independence of the commission needn't be questioned. But even commissions need some kind of guidelines in order to determine whether something is in the interests — environmentally or economically — of the province.

Who decides that, and on what basis do they make that decision? For instance, they might well decide that they're going to dispose of a piano that they own. That's hardly an intangible. I might be interested. It might be in my economic well-being, as a British Columbian, to have these tendered.

Are there going to be tenders here? Are there going to be guidelines to what is supposed to be personal property of the government? "Intangibles," I suppose, does not mean anything more than intellectual properties. But there could be guidelines.

It seems to me there should be some guidelines here to determine what is in the best interests of the province. Then who decides? Is it the Ministry of Environment? How do we encourage this sort of thing? I think there's an amendment coming up on the environmental side of it in a second.

HON. MRS. GRAN: I'd like to acknowledge — and I think I said it before — that yes, there will be tenders, and that the commission and the customer decide.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Guidelines would not be put in a bill. These guidelines change through the passing of time.

MR. CLARK: I understand the minister's concern, but I think the safeguards aren't there. I don't want to berate any of the minister's colleagues or....

HON. MRS. GRAN: Against what?

MR. CLARK: Against abuse; against purchases that are not economically efficient on the basis of new rules which are now in place in this bill. There are no

[ Page 10677 ]

parameters. There are no clear guidelines to govern what the Purchasing Commission shall buy.

It now says under sub-subsection (k): "notwithstanding section 12." Notwithstanding section 12 of the act. Let me read section 12: "The commission shall obtain, if practicable, competitive prices of all supplies purchased by it, and shall keep records of the price." In other words, the commission shall choose competitive prices on the basis of bidding.

That whole section is the only section that deals with bidding. It's one line; it's nice and clear. The commission shall, where practicable, choose competitive prices.

This amendment (k) says: "Notwithstanding section 12, " — low bid — "create opportunities and programs to encourage local and regional suppliers or in favour of environmentally sound supplies." That means, notwithstanding low bid, you can choose something that's more environmentally sound and/or choose something that is a local and regional supplier. That means the government, through public policy decisions, can choose something which may or may not be economically efficient.

It's important, and I want to say this very clearly to the minister. I am not one to genuflect before the altar of low bid. Historically in British Columbia we used to have a 5 percent preference for local suppliers. That was done away with in about '83.

The government brought in a Purchasing Commission and said it would be more efficient, and it would make it mandatory and centralize some of those decisions so we could get the best price. Now we've changed that. Now we've gone back to potentially a preferential treatment being given on the basis of environmentally sound supplies or on the basis of regional suppliers.

I don't have an objection to a preference being given to environmentally sound supplies. I don't have an objection to preference being given to regional suppliers if it's going to encourage a nascent industry in a certain region or something. But there have to be some clear rules governing the ability of the province to discriminate against the low bid and in favour of something that is environmentally better or which has regional suppliers.

In the absence of those clear guidelines, it opens itself to political abuse, because the commission might be independent but the government institutions aren't necessarily. If the cabinet minister comes from Campbell River or from Kamloops, the cabinet minister from Kamloops in charge of a government institution can go to the Purchasing Commission and say: "We should use this Kamloops supplier, because subsection (k) of this bill allows us to discriminate in favour of a certain region in order to promote an industry."

While I certainly applaud the goal, in the absence of any kind of guidelines it means that it's open to political abuse. The entire purpose, it seems, of the Purchasing Commission was to avoid — potentially, at least — that political abuse by having an independent commission designed to purchase the most economically efficient product. It was the independence of the commission which is very clear when you read the sordid affair with respect to the previous Minister of Tourism. It was the commission that said that in the public interest this is not a good idea. That is now thwarted, potentially, by this particular amendment. The former Minister of Tourism — not to pick on him, but he clearly was involved in a particular affair — could now use exactly the same purchases that he tried to get the commission to adopt before. He now could point to this section and say: "It's more environmentally sound, " Clearly it was; it was for recycling. "It's regional." Well, it's for Surrey or for — I can't remember the name of the group....

AN HON. MEMBER: Semiahmoo House.

MR. CLARK: ...Semiahmoo House, which had laudable goals. You could now point to this section of this bill and say, "The Purchasing Commission should follow our lead in the Ministry of Tourism," and proceed with the assistance of Semiahmoo House, using precisely this language to thwart the integrity and independence of the Purchasing Commission which was so clearly verified by the comptroller-general's report. I think this is very dangerous.

With that, I would like to move an amendment. The amendment says: "Section 3. 4 (2) (k): By adding after 'supplies': 'If such supplies are priced within 10 percent of the lowest comparable bid'."

On the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All those in favour of the amendment?

MR. CLARK: I'm speaking on it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Second member for Vancouver East.

MR. CLARK: Thank you. I hadn't really relinquished the floor.

MR. ROSE: Why don't you call the vote, for crying out loud?

MR. CLARK: I will shortly, Opposition House Leader.

Mr. Chairman, this may be clumsily worded, and I'm not legislative counsel, but obviously the attempt is to put some parameters on the environmental or regional goodwill of the government. If the government minister says, "We should choose this supplier from Kamloops or from Fort St. John because we want to promote an industry there," it has to be done within some bounds of economic efficiency. This is 10 percent, which is quite generous. The previous rules were 5 percent. It could be some kind of difference in other jurisdictions. It says, for example, "recycled products" — a percentage of recycled products within 5 percent. There are all kinds of parameters

[ Page 10678 ]

the government could choose to use. I have merely chosen one obvious one for illustrative purposes.

Very clearly this section is an amendment which could have meant the government would be even more damaged by the former Minister of Tourism's efforts than they were, because the former Minister of Tourism's efforts with the Purchasing Commission could well have succeeded had this amendment been in place which allows the ministry now to opt out at their request or to work with the Purchasing Commission pointing out this section for environmental or local or regional reasons to choose this particular supplier.

I think it undermines the independence of the Purchasing Commission. I think it potentially leaves it open to political pressure from ministers and ministries for political purposes. I think it means that the economic efficiency which the government was striving for with the original Purchasing Commission Act is undermined by this particular amendment.

I urge members, and the minister, to support this amendment or to put forward another amendment which would be more acceptable to the minister and that would at least give some bounds, some guidelines, for neutral or value-free criteria by which to weigh environmental or regional considerations. In the absence of that, with simply having it wide open, I think there is a potential for abuse, and I don't support it, and I ask the minister to support this amendment.

HON. MRS. GRAN: I want to speak against the amendment and just put on the record that the absence of price preferences for environmental products has not constrained the commission's ability to promote environmental purchasing. In fact, they have been extremely successful.

Price preferences would actually inhibit the commission's ability to undertake environmental and regional purchasing initiatives for three reasons They remove the ability to use an environmentally preferable product or service that may cost more than the price preference allows. They do not support the commission's approach of incorporating the true costs of using a product into the purchasing decision — for example, ensuring the proper disposal of an item is considered before a purchase is made. This approach ensures that taxpayers receive the best overall value from government spending. And lastly, they can foster inefficiencies in the private sector and public spending and develop markets which will not withstand the tests of time and competition.

I want to remind the member, in his discussion of the former Minister of Tourism, that the Purchasing Commission never had a mandate to do municipal purchasing. Only with this act will we then have an opportunity to do so.

Amendment negatived.

Section 3 approved.

[4:15]

On section 4.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, this section gives me some concern again. Perhaps the minister can alleviate my concern. I want to draw the minister's attention to section 4 of the bill we're in and to section 6 (4) of the Purchasing Commission Act, which is amended by this section. The bill says: "The commission may require the person making a requisition to satisfy it that there is an appropriation available for the purpose or that other financial provision is made in accordance with law."

The existing act says almost exactly word for word: "The commission shall not act on a requisition until it is satisfied that there is in existence an appropriation available for the purpose, or that other financial provision is made in accordance with law."

In other words, currently under the legislation, anybody who goes to the Purchasing Commission must prove that there is money in the budget, and that it was passed in the House before the commission can act. The new amendment says the commission "shall" rather than "may" require the person making a requisition.... Now that strikes me as a very substantial amendment. It means, in fact, that with the Coquihalla and other problems we've had with purchases made by government ministries which were not authorized under the law, and which were not authorized necessarily by certain votes or sub-votes or by budgetary matters or estimates passed by the House....

I fail to see any rationale for amending the Purchasing Commission Act to remove the mandatory requirement of persons making a requisition to the commission to justify it on the basis of the law or on the basis of appropriation passed before the House. Perhaps the minister could give us some explanation as to why it is required to amend the legislation and to substantially dilute the provision which requires persons to justify their requisition on the basis of money that's passed in this House.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Chairman, the change simply puts the responsibility where it belongs: with the ministries. No one knows their budgets better than they do.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, I move an amendment to section 4. line 644, to change "may" to "shall."

On the amendment.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, while the minister says that the responsibility for following the appropriations of the House is clearly with the ministries, it seems to be an extra safeguard— which could be very important — to require that agencies of the government justify their requests to the Purchasing Commission by proving to the Purchasing Commission at least that the money is there to make that purchase, that the law was passed and that the

[ Page 10679 ]

appropriations were passed in the House through the estimates.

For the life of me, I fail to see why a safeguard which assists everybody — and ministries perhaps — to justify their requests would be removed in this legislation. It is another way that reduces the compliance requirements for ministries with respect to their appropriations before the House. While other ministries may not want to have to justify it or go through the paperwork, I would think that the minister responsible for the Purchasing Commission would feel strongly that such justification should be forthcoming, again, to enhance the checks and balances in this House and the accountability of the Legislature, and that, in fact, it was a simple requirement in the existing act that ministries say: here is the money; here is the vote it was passed on; and here is the reason we want you to purchase equipment on our behalf. To remove that and substitute "may" I think seriously weakens that safeguard.

I think we have seen too often — not just with this administration but particularly with this one, and with the last one as well — that there were times when that scrutiny of the public purse has not taken place. So I can't for the life of me see why an amendment of this nature would not carry in the House by all members who are concerned about ensuring that such justification is always made before purchases by ministries — particularly large purchases.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Chairman, the commission cannot know the commitments of any ministry We rely on the signature of the official from the ministry to tell us that the money is indeed in the budget. I would urge members to vote against the amendment.

MR. CLARK: The minister is quite correct: they rely on the signature of the ministry or the minister before they can purchase things on its behalf. That is now removed; it says "may" rather than "shall." So that signature, that onus on the ministry to justify its purchase requirements, is no longer as heavy an onus as it was under the previous act. I don't see why the government would choose to diminish the authority of the commission or at least to have that paper trail, to have the ministry justify the request under appropriations before the law. I cannot see why that amendment would take place now, particularly in light of what we've seen over the last few years or prior to that. This is another safeguard. There's no rationale that I can see which would justify this amendment; I can see all kinds of rationale for enhancing the scrutiny that might be required of ministries by the Purchasing Commission and by others before purchases are made. I don't think the minister has made a very good case for amending the legislation.

HON. MRS. GRAN: This ministry — and I would hope all others — is trying to get away from all the paperwork that government has. I'm sure the member knows how many electronic transmissions there are. If the commission feels it necessary to have a signature, then we have the ability to ask for it.

MR. CLARK: I think this is more than paperwork, Mr. Chairman. I think we've seen an abuse — on the Coquihalla Highway, particularly — of purchases by ministries that were not authorized in this House. The whole purpose of this chamber is to debate the taxing and spending priorities of government. A large part of its spending is on procurement. The Purchasing Commission is a safeguard to ensure economically efficient purchases. That has been watered down by other sections of the bill, and now the section that required the ministry to justify a purchase request on the basis of an appropriation before the House has been reduced.

I agree with the minister's attempt to reduce paperwork — we all do. But paperwork which justifies expenditures approved by the House clearly seems to me not the routine red tape that should be abolished. I just think it's important to keep that caveat, in light of the abuses. I don't say that in any way other than that the facts show that there have been abuses in the past. This simply reduces that accountability. I don't support it; I support the amendment.

HON. MRS. GRAN: I just want to make one point. Surely the member is not saying that the ministers should not be responsible for their budgets and that the Purchasing Commission should take that responsibility away from them. They're accountable.

Amendment negatived on division.

Sections 4 to 12 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 13, Purchasing Commission Amendment Act, 1990, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading on Bill 2.

STATUTES REPEAL ACT, 1990

HON. MR. SMITH: The principle of Bill 2 is to show all citizens that as well as adding to the weight of paper and legislation from time to time, this House subtracts from it. Hence the title of this bill is the Statutes Repeal Act. Very simply, it takes off the record pieces of legislation that are considered no

[ Page 10680 ]

longer necessary or that fulfilled their usefulness at an earlier date when they may have been passed for a very specific purpose.

[4:30]

Mr. Speaker, I have been advised by all who have considered this legislation — speaking to the principle of it — that it contains no land mine of the nature that we saw many years ago when we were doing this kind of thing. Consequently, all those whose ministries it affects advise that all of the pieces of legislation here are appropriate for repeal. Mr. Speaker, I'm honoured to move second reading of this bill.

MR. SIHOTA: Just a short comment. Certainly there's no problem here in terms of supporting the Statutes Repeal Act, 1990. 1 can't help but note in passing the fact that we are now repealing, under section 1 (3), the Deficit Repayment Act, which I think some of us who have followed politics for some time appreciate.

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you might remember the debate around the legislation. It was a highly partisan bill, and I guess that's why we have these statutes repeal acts: to repeal laws that have become outdated.

Certainly politics has changed a lot since 1976 when that legislation was introduced. In my mind, that reinforces the fact that in terms of administrative bills, they should come and go, and you get into this kind of a problem and you repeal them. But when you get political bills, like the Deficit Repayment Act, they really shouldn't have been there in the first place in terms of legislation. I think it's appropriate that the legislation which caused so much clamour around here some years ago is now dying without much of a bang.

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, the House is advised that the Attorney-General closes debate.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I now move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 2, Statutes Repeal 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: I call second reading of Bill 6, Mr. Speaker.

FOREIGN MONEY CLAIMS ACT

HON. MR. SMITH: The principle of this particular bill is to adopt the uniform statute of the Uniform Law Conference of Canada, which in turn, I might add, is based in considerably large part on work done by the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia.

This bill seeks to resolve problems relating to foreign money liabilities in terms of claims. It will do so by allowing a court to order that money that is owing to a judgment creditor may be paid In a foreign currency. A court would do that where it believes that the successful litigant's loss or claim would be most truly and exactly compensated by being expressed in a currency other than Canadian currency, such as the currency in which that individual regularly conducts his or her business.

The bill also provides that the appropriate date for determining the exchange rate for conversion of the currency would be the date on which the judgment is satisfied.

These changes will increase the certainty and clarity in the law respecting foreign money liabilities and will bring the law into conformity with modern international practice, particularly in relationship to arbitration. The changes themselves are ones that have been long advocated, and the reform of the law, I suppose, is made more necessary because of the floating nature of many currencies and the fact that their values do indeed fluctuate in relationship to one another more than they previously may have.

The bill, in my view, will as well benefit international trade and business in British Columbia by bringing this aspect of the law into conformity with commercial practice and by helping to make British Columbia a more effective forum for resolving international commercial litigation that involves foreign money claims.

The bill is, therefore, an initiative which I think will enhance British Columbia's position in the international economic community, and in no small way will it support the role of the International Commercial Arbitration Centre located in Vancouver, which is developing as a place where people wish to come to have their commercial disputes resolved.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to recommend this bill to the House, and I move second reading.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would not want to stand in the way of the good work of the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia, which has served this province well over the years with a number of recommendations, some of which have been implemented, some of which have not. This one is being implemented with respect to the Foreign Money Claims Act. It seems to me that it's only common sense that we have this type of provision to make sure that judgments are in a fashion that reflect the currency in which an order most truly and exactly should be paid. I have no problem with this legislation, and it has our blessing.

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to Standing Orders, the House is advised that the Attorney-General closes debate.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I now move second reading.

Motion approved.

[ Page 10681 ]

Bill 6, Foreign Money Claims Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 7.

INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS ACT

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to be able to speak to this matter on second reading today. This bill also is one that is rooted in the Uniform Law Conference of Canada. It adopts the United Nations convention on contracts for the international sale of goods.

The object of this bill and the convention upon which it is based is to improve the law which operates between private contracting parties in international transactions respecting the sale of goods. The bill accomplishes this by providing uniform rules to resolve questions arising in international sale-of-goods contracts where such questions have not been addressed either by the seller or the buyer.

The bill would apply where the parties have their places of business in different jurisdictions, both of which would have to have adopted the convention. If the parties to an international sale-of-goods contract do not wish the terms of the convention to apply to their contract, they of course may exclude it by expressly prescribing their own rules in the contract or by choosing the domestic law of some jurisdiction to govern the terms of the contract.

The bill clarifies and simplifies the rules governing such contracts by clearly setting out the ordinary obligations that are common to contracts for the sale of goods. We think it helps parties avoid the problems of determining which law governs their contract in those jurisdictions where they have not expressly provided for a governing law. As well, the bill respects trade practices between the parties and trade usage in order to help ensure the will of the contracting parties.

The rules contained in this bill are the result of some 50 years of work by various — and I would suggest eminent — international legal scholars, and they're becoming the prevailing international standard.

A particularly important and admirable feature of the bill is that the convention, while codifying rules common in international sale-of-goods contracts respecting the formation of the contract and the obligations of the parties, does not impinge in any way on areas of the law of British Columbia which we would not wish to see affected. It does not, for instance, apply to consumer contracts or contracts for services. It does not in any way affect questions of the validity of contracts, except as to when an offer has been made and accepted. For example, the ability of parties to make a contract — we'll say because of age — and whether a particular kind of contract can be enforced in British Columbia are not determined by the convention. Likewise, questions of property and the goods sold and the rights of third parties such as creditors or trustees in bankruptcy are not covered in this convention. Products-liability claims for personal injury are also excluded. All of these remain exclusively matters of the domestic law of the province of British Columbia.

The bill deals with those areas which are common to, and have often caused problems for, parties to international transactions respecting the sale of goods. The bill will benefit international trade and business, I believe, by helping to provide greater uniformity and greater clarity in this area of the law. It complements other provincial initiatives such as the International financial centre in Vancouver and the British Columbia International Commercial Arbitration Centre.

This bill is one more initiative which will enhance British Columbia's position in the international economic community. I am therefore pleased to commend it to the House. I move that the bill be read a second time.

MR. SIHOTA: Just for the record, I certainly have no problem in supporting this legislation...

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

[4:45]

MR. SIHOTA: I'm glad the minister is appreciative of that fact.

...having done some international sale of goods work prior to my election and having been involved in a contract where transactions were taking place simultaneously in three countries: England, Canada and Saudi Arabia. In the case I was involved in, it would have made a lot of sense if there had been a convention that laid out the kinds of provisions which appear in this legislation, to guide us more than trying to determine the intricacies of the law in different jurisdictions and the interpretations of certain actions in one jurisdiction compared to another.

This legislation would certainly go some way to clarifying some of the contractual obligations of those involved in transactions and of those who are contemplating being involved in international trade. I would suspect that as we get into more and more international trade activity throughout the world — because the globe is shrinking in these matters — this type of legislation will become more and more useful and a greater number of jurisdictions will decide to become signatories to the legislation. I note that some major jurisdictions such as the United States have already adopted the convention.

Again, this is legislation that I think is worthy of support. Accordingly it will have our blessing.

HON. MR. SMITH: I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 6. Foreign Money Claims Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole

[ Page 10682 ]

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

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call second reading of Bill 8.

CONFLICT OF LAWS RULES
FOR TRUSTS ACT

HON. MR. SMITH: In addressing the principle of this bill in second reading, it may be appropriate to describe a bit of the background — although, admittedly, in the issue of trusts it's sometimes risky at best to describe the background of any matter pertaining thereto. However, this bill adopts a uniform statute of the Uniform Law Conference of Canada.

The object of the bill is to resolve questions as to which of our provinces' or territories' law is to apply to a trust which involves a matter impinging on two or more of those provinces or territories. The bill does so by providing a code of conflict-of-laws rules, according to which the applicable law is determined: first, by reference to the law chosen by the person establishing the trust; and second, to the law of the province to which the trust is most closely connected.

The bill will protect the legal interests of British Columbians relating to trusts where elements of the trust may involve two or more provinces or territories. The bill is complementary to the International Trusts Act, which was enacted by this Legislature in 1989. I believe the bill will be beneficial to interprovincial trade and business by helping to simplify and clarify Interprovincial business dealings.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to commend this bill to the House, and I move second reading of the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: No, we would like to have another speaker.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I certainly am not, by any stretch of the imagination, expert in trusts. It's one course I didn't even venture to take in my days at law school. I know that last year we approved the International Trusts Act, if memory serves me correctly. I know Professor Waters had been involved in that legislation, and I would suspect that his hand is somewhere in this legislation as well. Far be it for me to question his wisdom.

Mr. Speaker, once again this legislation is.... Any attempts, in my view, to bring about uniformity in the law.... Clarity, of course, is another matter. You never know if you're going to achieve clarity until you actually see the application of the law and the interpretation by the courts, but uniformity is certainly a laudable goal. As a result of that, there is no objection from this side of the House with respect to this legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, the House is advised that the Attorney-General will close debate.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 8, Conflict of Laws Rules for Trusts 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 53.

OFFENCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to have an opportunity to speak to this bill today. The amendments contained in this bill will complete the series of changes that were introduced last summer when fines for moving traffic violations were reintroduced.

Mr. Speaker, as members will recall, when this government reinstated fines in July 1989, our goal was to improve traffic safety on British Columbia highways. Prior to that time, most traffic offences were subject only to penalty points. Unfortunately, experience showed that the threat of penalty points alone did not seem to deter unsafe driving practices. So with traffic accidents now costing the province of British Columbia upwards of $750 million a year and, more importantly, resulting in unnecessary human suffering and loss of life, it was considered appropriate that the government should take some further action. That is what has happened.

The amendments in this bill will provide the framework to streamline the fines process and to improve the enforcement of fines. This bill introduces a new violation ticket to replace the existing ticket information process. The violation ticket will be used for offences committed under a variety of provincial statutes. The single ticket will simplify the process for both our law enforcement officers and the public. The redrafted ticket process also permits significant administrative streamlining to be introduced by removing the duplication of handling and processing of the ticket information, which is now done by the courts and the motor vehicle branch.

The system will be a highly automated one, which allows the tracking of complete records of all offences. The government will have a comprehensive recording process for all tickets that will improve enforcement efforts by identifying persistent offenders and permitting better management of outstanding fines to government.

Under the new system, violation tickets will be forwarded directly to the superintendent of motor vehicles, who will record the offence on a contravention file. This file will form a central registry for all provincial statute offences laid by means of a violation ticket and will provide information on the disposition of each offence.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a clarification regarding the dispute process under this new ticket-

[ Page 10683 ]

ing procedure. There was a note in one of the Vancouver papers indicating that people would be allowed to dispute tickets by mail and also receive by mail a judge's decision on the dispute. Put at its kindest, that newspaper story is wrong.

Section 14.1 of the proposed legislation will allow a person to file a notice of dispute, in person or by mail, at motor licence offices, government agent offices and appointed agents' offices. A notice of the date and the place of the hearing for disputed tickets will then be sent to the person who filed that dispute. The person will then have the opportunity to appear before a justice and give his or her side of the story, as they do now. There are no provisions for a review of the validity of the reasons for a dispute in the absence of the person disputing the ticket. The article in the Province, therefore, was false, incorrect and completely misleading.

The new procedures for disputing tickets are designed to treat everyone in a fair and equitable manner. Currently the dispute period is set at the discretion of the law enforcement officer and can range anywhere from 14 days to six months. Under the new system, there will be a uniform dispute period of 30 days. There's also provision in the legislation for disputes to be made by mail or in person. The amendment also allows an additional 30 days for an individual to apply to a justice for a new hearing-date in the case where the person, through no fault of their own, fails to attend the hearing for a disputed ticket. If the person fails to attend on the new hearing-date, the ticket would then be treated as if it were not disputed.

The motor vehicle branch will provide copies of the disputed violation tickets to the courts. These copies may be generated either by microfilm or by some other photographic means. The proposed amendment, therefore, will also allow a printed copy of electronically stored information to be used as a valid copy of the ticket for court purposes and is in anticipation of computer-produced tickets.

This new section also provides for the fair and equitable treatment of those individuals who, through no fault of their own, are unable to file their dispute within 30 days, in those circumstances, an individual will have an additional 14 days in which to apply to a justice to be allowed to dispute the allegation or, indeed, the fine, if one has thereby been rendered.

Another amendment designed to streamline the ticket administration process allows the motor vehicle branch to enter a conviction by transmitting the information electronically between courts and the motor vehicle branch, thus reducing the need for paper transactions and additional paper records. The courts will retain the hard- or paper-copy file of the conviction.

An amendment is being made, as well, to allow the cancellation of the ticket where there is incomplete information to form a charge or where the ticket was issued in the name of a person who was misrepresented by someone else.

Provision will also be made to allow a justice to consider several tickets or informations at once if they relate to the same incident. This will eliminate the need to schedule several separate trials to deal with matters arising from a single incident. The passage of these amendments will streamline the process of tickets, both for the province and for the individual who has the misfortune of receiving one.

Mr. Speaker, I commend this bill to the House, and I move second reading.

MR. GABELMANN: The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) is just out for a moment and does intend to have a few comments on this bill.

I want to say to the Attorney-General that as I understand some elements of the bill at least, this is good stuff. I think the opportunity for people who are in receipt of minor violations— for example, moving-vehicle violations —   to dispute their ticket without necessarily having to take several days off work, without having to go back to the scene of the crime to plead their case, is very useful. If this legislative approach does deal with that issue, then I think we're making significant progress.

[5:00]

I know that I wrote to the Attorney-General some time ago — he may recall it — asking about the typical kind of situation that I run into all the time: somebody from a remote logging community in the northern part of Vancouver Island gets a ticket in Parksville on his way back from a trip to Vancouver and is absolutely persuaded that that ticket is incorrect and that he, in fact, was not guilty of an offence. The price that that person pays for attempting to demonstrate his innocence —  if that's possible —  is far greater than the price that the ticket could ever command. Clearly, justice could not be done in those circumstances.

If this bill can in fact deal with those kinds of situations in a fair, appropriate and effective manner, then we're making some good progress. I'm sure it wasn't just my letter to the Attorney-General that prompted this legislation, but if it helped, then I want to say thank you to him on behalf of my constituents.

MR. SIHOTA: There might be some technical matters that I'd want to raise in committee stage on this bill.

I can see what the bill tries to do here, in terms of encouraging another way in which people can dispute a ticket. For the reasons that my colleague for North Island has raised, that is something that we should certainly try, and see how the system works and whether or not the judges or justices who are going to be looking at these matters can make appropriate judgments on the evidence as it comes in in written form. I don't know if in the long run it's going to solve the problem. Of course, there are times when people feel that they've been hard done by, in terms of a speeding ticket. But they may have some factual concerns and they may have some technical concerns, and I'm not too sure if the legislation will

[ Page 10684 ]

allow people to raise some of those technical concerns.

It is a kind of reverse way of doing things, in the sense that the material is filed in court and then a person is required to state their case by writing and, I guess, forgo the opportunity to cross-examine or forgo in some ways the opportunity to see whether or not the police officer makes out his case. So it provides a measure of justice but not the totality of it.

Let me just give you some examples, Mr. Speaker. When one is contesting a traffic speeding ticket, there are all sorts of things that a police officer is required to prove and some which they may be able to mention but not be appropriately cross-examined on. For example, if I remember the legislation correctly, the officer has to prove that there was a sign posted and in place. I guess a person can dispute that by way of written notice as to whether or not a particular sign was in place. If there's a difference of opinion on that, I guess they take their risk if they write in. Alternatively, I don't know if it is possible in the legislation — I'll take a close look at it when we get to committee stage — that the court can order that the matter be put over, to resolve a factual dispute which may exist with the police officer, or not.

There are all sorts of technical arguments people can raise around radar guns and whether or not the tuning-fork was taken to it after the last case was looked after, and whether the machine was reset, and whether or not it meets the standard required in the regulations, and all that kind of stuff. Again, you would think that those matters are of a technical nature that may not be resolved by written correspondence from an individual raising that concern.

On the other side of the coin, I guess, on the face of it a chance for someone to state their case is a lot better than the opportunity that didn't exist in the past, which is not to state their case. But I can see a number of technical concerns or considerations that people may have when they want to dispute a ticket. When there are factual disputes, I'm not too sure if a written submission by an individual would solve those disputes. At committee stage I'll be looking for an assurance that at some point the court has the jurisdiction to adjourn the matter, ask for further written submissions from the person contesting the ticket and seek clarification around a material fact that may be an issue.

It's an interesting process; I've no doubt about that. I think that it's worth trying to see what kind of success happens. It hopefully will not resolve into just some sort of superficial opportunity for an individual to state an opinion, the outcome never being in doubt.

It will receive our support at this stage, Mr Speaker, so that it can move forward. Some of the technical concerns I've got we may be able to raise at committee stage.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, just for the record, again — because I don't think the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew understood what I said earlier on, or perhaps I said it when he was out of the room.... He seems to be relying on the statements that were in the Vancouver Province, which intimated that you could argue the substantive issues involved in the dispute by mail. That article in the Vancouver Province was 100 percent false. I will put it into the record again so that the member is not confused. It doesn't change how you argue any substantive issue, and it makes no change whatsoever in how you would adduce evidence or indeed cross-examine people, and so on.

What section 14.1 of the proposed legislation would do is allow a person to file a notice of dispute in person or by mail — simply the notice of dispute — at either a motor vehicle office, government agent's office or an appointed agent's office. A notice of the date and place of the hearing for the disputed ticket would then be sent back by mail to the person who had filed it. It has nothing to do with arguing the substantive issues by mail at all. The person will then have the opportunity to appear before a justice and give their side of the story. There are no provisions for a review of the validity of the reasons for dispute in the absence of the person disputing it none whatsoever. So I want to make that very clear.

The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) was right on the money when he correctly pointed out that the purpose of this legislation is the kind of issue that he and I and other members who represent rural areas have raised. It is particularly the case, now that we have a ticketing system for all kinds of other offences, that you can very readily imagine a circumstance where you will be ticketed for something that occurred hundreds of miles away from where you live.

Under the current regime, you would have to show up in person to file the dispute; this way, you can file the dispute by mail. The receiving office can notify of the hearing-date by mail and, indeed, the legislation provides a further provision, if something gets mucked up in the mail, that with appropriate reasons you can have an extension of that filing-date.

I want to repeat that it does not in any way suggest —  as was suggested in the Vancouver Province erroneously, falsely, incorrectly and ignorantly —  that you can dispute the substance of the ticket by mail or that there will be a judge making hearings and sending this back by mail. In that regard, because the Vancouver Province quoted my still great, good friend and former professor of torts, Professor Atrens, I contacted him to see what he actually said to the reporter. I want to put into the record that he told the reporter he knew absolutely nothing about the legislation, but that generally, in like legislation, there would be certain things he would want to look at. One of them would be the ability of someone to hear things in person. So while he said to me today when I talked to him that the quotes were correct, there's a huge "but" that should be underscored 40 times and circled in red. The "but" is that the quotes were clearly qualified by his assertion that he could not comment on the legislation, as he had not seen it and did not know anything about it. Once again the Province has lived up to its normal standard in its

[ Page 10685 ]

ability to mislead people, but in the course of doing so, was able to get a good, big headline out of it.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 53, Offence 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 Committee of Supply.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ATTORNEY-GENERAL

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

MR. SIHOTA: I believe that when we left off the other day, we seemed to be interrupted by other estimates.

We were talking about the Gonzalez immigration decision as it related to legal aid funding in British Columbia. I was expressing the view to the Attorney-General that the province had an obligation, notwithstanding that immigration is a federal matter, to continue to provide that assistance. I think the point was being made that the Law Foundation had provided some assistance. The Attorney's argument was that there was a surplus of funds that attended to the problem now. I believe we left off at the suggestion that legislation might be an option in this matter. It surprised me that the Attorney-General said that, and I just want to say for the record that I would be averse to that option being exercised.

Having said that, I want to turn to the matter of legal aid and try to canvass with the Attorney-General just where the government is going with legal aid. Some weeks ago now, when he introduced his estimates, the Attorney-General provided some numbers — which I don't have here with me — that spoke to the increase of legal aid funding over the past two years and to the increases which have occurred in that area. These were triggered in large measure by the increases —  and in August of '88 it would have been unilateral —  by the Legal Aid Society. Now we're beginning to see those bills coming in, service being provided and costs going up.

What I'd like to ask the Attorney-General is this.... Of course, he knows, as we've debated in this House in the past, that there was a task force recommendation in 1984 to provide for funding to a particular level to cover the requirements for legal aid. That task force was implemented, and to date the government hasn't followed through to fully fund the system as was envisioned by the 1984 report and to attend to the amount of money that was deemed to be required at that time to properly fund the system I don't know what inflation would have driven the numbers up to, but certainly the program is still not being funded at that level.

[5:15]

I have a question for the Attorney-General. I asked this last year, and I want to ask it again. Does the ministry have a four- or five-year plan to take it to those levels? The feeling with respect to legal aid is that the government provides funding on a year-to-year basis, based on where it wants to go and how much money it has, and that there doesn't seem to be any funding plan with respect to legal aid.

To properly plan within that system, rather than approaching the matter in the fashion that we have over the last four years in the estimates, it would make sense to have some kind of plan in place — and government making a commitment — to achieve within five years or within a particular time-period the level of funding that was recommended by the task force.

Does the ministry have a plan in place to achieve the funding levels within an X period of time to the level that was recommended? Or is it just as simple as saying: "Well, we'll do it as quickly as we can do it"?

HON. MR. SMITH: We've exceeded the suggestions of the task force in some areas, and in other areas we have, in terms of the tariff, not met exactly some of the specific suggestions. The reason for that, simply put, is that we have established our priorities for the provision of legal aid, and they have, generally speaking, related to the area of family law.

However, I want to point out that in 1984, when the task force made its recommendation of having a funding increase — I can't remember what the percentage number boiled down to overall, but basically I think they were seeking almost a 100 percent increase in the funding levels — legal aid was funded to the tune of $13.9 million. We are being asked this year to support funding to the tune of $32.071 million. When you look at other legal assistance provisions, the total legal assistance and services budget for 1990-91 is $44.3 million, which itself is up from $36.5 million last year. So working with the people in the legal aid community and working with people in the communities generally, where legal services are being provided in family law and areas related to native justice and others, there has been a significant increase. When you flow in not only the legal aid but other matters that go with it — this legal assistance and services budget — it has gone from $13.9 million to $44.3 million between 1984, since the '84 task force, and 1990-91. That well exceeds the request that was made by the task force.

MR. SIHOTA: I'll get back to the task force, because I don't think it does — and I'll point out how it doesn't. I don't think you've taken into account the 1984 measurement translated into today's numbers. I'll have those numbers either by the end of today or tomorrow, but I don't think you've taken that into account.

[ Page 10686 ]

The problem here is that individuals of modest means — working poor, particularly — simply cannot afford to have access to the justice system. That, in part, is why the Hughes commission recommended in its report last year that the task force recommendations be implemented to provide adequate funding for legal aid.

The people who I describe as "working poor" are individuals of modest income. They simply cannot afford to engage the services of a lawyer. A vast number of people in society have no access to the judicial system. They can't use the judicial system, because they can't afford to gain entry into the system to help it resolve disputes. That's the basic problem. There's no ability for them to access advice, counsel or direction, or individuals who can handle matters for them. There are a number of areas where people, quite legitimately, ought to have access to counsel but don't get it. Let me just lay out examples of that.

One, of course, is workers' compensation. In my view, there should be legal aid coverage for workers' compensation. Someone gets injured at work and has an interruption in his stream of income. They have to then deal with a bureaucracy full of red tape, which has its own special set of rules. If one takes a look at the experience in the constituency offices, it is generally a bureaucracy with its own set of rules and its own bureaucratic system. Individuals find it hard to deal with that bureaucracy. There are a number of jurisdictional disputes that come up under the WCB, and the ability to appeal a decision is, of course, limited by the privative clauses in the legislation, all of which are very difficult for someone to handle. Furthermore, it's very difficult for someone to handle if he doesn't have access to a lawyer and has an interruption in his stream of income, to know just where he should go. They have to make a choice. Their income is interrupted. Do they go to a lawyer and spend more money to try to deal with the system? Or do they try to deal with it on their own? That's a tough choice for people.

There are a number of other areas. I can remember, as counsel, dealing with individuals involved in foreclosures, who would come to my law office seeking advice on how to deal with it. They were poor people, who for some reason found themselves in a dispute with the bank. You've got all of the legal repertoire that the banks have, their deep pockets and their access to well-paid lawyers, and you have an individual who has to go before the courts and deal with a foreclosure application, who is often unaware of any rights he may have as he tries to reconstruct his financial affairs, unaware that he might be able to get a reprieve for six or eight months, and more importantly, unaware of some of the technical flaws that may exist with the application that a bank is making —  he is caught by a judgment that is before them because they defaulted on various rules, not knowing how they can work around that default. Often they are working people who just ran into some difficulty and now find themselves, for the first time, before the law dealing with a foreclosure and the possibility of losing their home. That's a frightening prospect for a lot of people.

Very little can be done in terms of providing them with ongoing assistance. Sure, there are counsel throughout British Columbia who will do some of that work for free. But I think it can be fairly said that it is unlikely that counsel would take on a lot of these cases gratuitously; consequently people are not beneficiaries of legal assistance or legal advice.

Again, in the area of foreclosures, if I just go to the experience I had as counsel, which I don't think is unusual in comparison to others.... There are a number of other areas where people could use an advocate. They simply don't have the skills to deal with a bureaucracy. Sometimes we as MLAs end up picking that up in our constituency work. We also have to acknowledge that in our constituency work matters become highly technical, and it's just not easy.

Residential tenancy matters, I think, are an example of an area where other jurisdictions.... I think of Ontario, which, through its system of advocacy centres, provides people with assistance on residential tenancy tribunals and hearings. It's not a simple matter sometimes, and other times it is. If it's an easy matter — if it's a simple matter of rent not being paid and the five-day provision being violated — it can be handled either free by a lawyer or through the services of an MLA or some such resource in society.

On the other side of the coin, there are other examples — for example, issues dealing with residential tenancy on native lands; whether or not the provincial law applies to native lands; whether or not people can be evicted from a residence that sits on native lands; or whether or not there's an application of the Residential Tenancy Act to those lands. Again, that is a frightening prospect for people — to have been removed or evicted or given notice and not know the legal status of that notice and not have the skills or the ability to deal with the bureaucracy they have to face. Other examples, of course, are UIC appeals and social assistance appeals. It seems to me that whether it's foreclosure, debt, UIC, welfare or WCB, people should have the ability to consult and engage the services of someone who can represent them at that level.

One option is the provision of legal aid. I'm not saying that is the only option, by any stretch of the imagination. Certainly, to engage the services of a lawyer for that kind of system and to fully fund it through legal aid will, of course, add significantly to the cost of the legal aid budget.

As I mentioned a second ago, there is an alternative. The system in Ontario allows, to a larger measure than we have in British Columbia, people to go to a community advocacy centre and get advice on these matters through an advocate who is not necessarily a lawyer but who is skilled in these administrative matters. People can seek their advice and get them to represent them in an administrative setting and at an administrative tribunal.

To some measure, I know, that causes the legal community some discomfort, because I guess this is

[ Page 10687 ]

paralegal work and we get into jurisdictional matters with the Legal Profession Act. But in other areas I think it's safe to say a lot of lawyers just don't do that work, and a lot more people out there can't find a lawyer who will do that work, given their limited means.

So a system of advocacy centres.... I think we have a good example in British Columbia in terms of what happens in New Westminster with the society there, which I think has done a good job over the years through the offices of the New Westminster Community Legal Services Society. It's an example of a storefront setup where people can go to get the kind of assistance they need, so those people who are — I wouldn't say "falling through the cracks, " because there are gaping holes there — falling through those gaping holes have a net of protection that can assist them.

[5:30]

I guess many of these concerns are poverty — driven matters, and I don't know to what extent the ministry puts its mind to these concerns, what plans it has in this year's budget to attend to them or what long-term plans the ministry is developing to deal with these very real issues. These are of real concern to people of modest income and the working poor who can't access the judicial system.

We have a wonderful judicial system in British Columbia, and on the whole it works quite well, but people need to have access to it. In the areas that I've described and others, people don't have access to it, and they're left to their own devices to fight the system. Inevitably that means that either they don't fight it, or they're victimized by the more powerful elements in society who have access to the full repertoire of legal advice and direction and who can, quite frankly, trample on their rights.

I think the area of foreclosure law is one where that happens fairly regularly, and where people lose homes in circumstances that I don't think ought to have happened. I don't want to get into the particulars of various cases except to say that I'm sure the Attorney-General and I both realize that there are examples of that nature.

So that kind of program needs to be in place, and I wonder if the Attorney-General could advise as to what steps or actions his ministry is taking to attend to that very real need in society.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that, like anything that could be demand-driven, if you set in place systems and formulas for it, you could probably find a lot of places to spend the money; there's no doubt about that.

The thing I'm thankful to the taxpayers for — because it is they who must pay the bill — is that we have $32 million proposed for legal aid this year, and that's up from $13.9 million in 1984. That is a substantial commitment on the part of taxpayers in the province to provide this very important service.

How is that dealt with in terms of the ever-growing and changing needs of society? Through the justice reform process that I implemented last year, we set aside an additional $500,000 to expand the civil legal aid programs. How that money is allocated and spent will be determined by the society, of course. They will evaluate how that works, where the needs are and where the demand came, and that information will flow back to us and assist us greatly in the planning process. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, I have insisted that in all matters undertaken, we have a relatively rigorous system for evaluation. I learned, upon getting involved with the ministry, that, quite frankly, there was very little data available upon which you could base expenditure decisions, simply because we haven't collected it, historically.

So there are all kinds of anecdotal information floating around and assumptions made from that and policies developed from that and expenditures flowing from those policies, which, upon analysis, turn out to really not bear up to any rigorous scrutiny or evaluation. As we've gone through this exercise, we've been careful to make certain that we evaluate where our expenditures go so that we know we're putting it in the right places.

There have been some changes in the eligibility of legal aid, which also address the concerns of some members in the House. I know I've had a number of people who raised the question of eligibility in the area of family law, particularly for the working poor. So we changed that eligibility last year, in a way that makes it discretionary on the part of the legal aid officers so that that service can indeed be provided and is now provided, in fact, to people who may be characterized as the working poor, who didn't fit the strict requirements of the legal aid service. That was an extraordinarily important move forward and I think a very progressive one, because it opened up to the working poor the availability of legal services in the whole area of family law, which is one of the most important in our society.

We also buttressed the provision of support for the legal aid offices, which in turn has enabled them to do some work in the area of foreclosures as the need arises, which they do directly by providing advice and assistance out of their offices on matters relating to foreclosures and rent disputes.

We are examining a number of areas where resources, in addition to those that come from this chamber, might be brought to bear. There has been a very long tradition in the law community of pro bono work provided throughout the province, and for that I am grateful. I want to say thank you on behalf of the people to the thousands of lawyers in this province who do a great deal of that. Some do it in an unorganized way, some, as do most professionals, but certainly lawyers, from time to time simply provide advice and indeed take on cases that may not even be on a contingent basis but are simply taken on because they see an injustice that they feel they wish to be involved in helping to right.

Also in an organized way, the Canadian Bar Association through the lawyer referral service, provides a half-hour of free legal advice on a referral basis to anyone who phones up and seeks it. That is a tremendous resource. When you take the number of

[ Page 10688 ]

practitioners in this province and consider the number of times they would be available to provide that half-hour of advice, and that in a half-hour you can accomplish a great deal for a lot of people, particularly steering them into understanding whether or not they have a legal problem, which frequently is the major issue they have to face.... I think that work done by the Bar Association all too frequently goes unnoticed and unacknowledged. I want to acknowledge it as well.

The Law Foundation of British Columbia, because it is the beneficiary, of course, of the money that flows in the pooled trust accounts of lawyers and, I believe, notaries — if I'm not mistaken, real estate agents as well are now under that umbrella — seeks to invest or redirect that money into a whole range of services, many of which touch on the area of providing legal services. They have been involved in funding, for instance, advocacy programs that touch on the very serious matter of the administrative processes that come to play in the workers' compensation world. They have been most helpful with the Legal Services Society directly. They have provided several millions of dollars for equipment and processes that will allow the Legal Services Society to fulfil their mandate of providing services, as well as education services, which are very important in this whole area.

As well, we're examining a number of insurance schemes that can be developed that I think are, quite frankly, the way of the future in providing a lot of services for people, particularly in the lower- and middle-income levels and in some instances what may be considered the working poor.

I know from my own experience in practice. I initiated a referral program of that sort, working with a large credit union, and it was an extremely useful and successful endeavour that greatly assisted the 20,000-odd members of that particular credit union.

In my discussions with some of the members of the trade union movement, particularly in the mining sector in our area, there are a number who are advancing the idea of developing a program of a broad-range insurance coverage that would assist people in a whole host of legal services. Members of the bar are particularly interested in that. I'm certainly encouraging it, because I've seen it work in another movie. I think it is something that would help to bring a lot of resources to bear on helping to defray the costs of providing legal services for individuals, and indeed to encouraging people to seek legal services. One problem that many citizens get into is the mystery surrounding the law and lawyers, and their predisposition is frequently not to attend to get legal advice until a problem arises when indeed, if they had sought it in advance, the problem may not have occurred.

As well, I want to commend the trade union movement itself, because they provide a full range of services in the area of workers' compensation for members of their own organizations — as properly they should — from the dues that are paid and as part of the services they provide. I don't know what the situation is with all members of the trade union movement, but I have had considerable experience with the IWA. They do an outstanding job of providing legal and paralegal services to their members and indeed to their retired members, especially in relation to workers' compensation.

So within the framework of the processes we have underway, we're buttressing the resources going into the Legal Services Society — particularly working carefully with them to make certain that the priorities we set out are fulfilled; working with a number of agencies in the community that provide support for counselling services for advocacy programs; working with organizations that want to provide, on a longer term basis, ways in which we can alternatively support people's "judicare" needs, if you like; and working as well with the private bar. We are advancing the extent to which services are provided, and we will continue to do that in a planned and organized fashion. I recognize that in the provision of social services at whatever level, you will always be able to do more, and indeed you should always want to do more.

[5:45]

The other area we are examining that is very important in this relates to the way in which we organize the dispute resolution system in our society. We've taken tremendous strides in reworking our courts, our rules of courts and the kinds of things that can be heard in courts, developing the way in which issues are taken before the courts, changing the jurisdictions of the courts and generally substantially improving the access of citizens to our courts. As that access improves, it seems to me that the relative increase in costs will either remain static or diminish. All of those things, taken together, work towards trying to provide improved legal services for citizens in our society.

MR. SIHOTA: I don't think you've answered my question, so let me just come at it from a different point of view.

Mr. Hughes's commission last year recommended that the recommendations of the 1984 task force with respect to legal aid funding be respected and that the funding be provided for that level. Is it the minister's view that this year's provision achieves that recommendation?

HON. MR. SMITH: If I may just correct.... I think I left the impression that the notaries are part of the Law Foundation process. In fact, they aren't. They give their support from their trust accounts directly, I believe, to the Legal Services Society itself.

Regarding the issue of the relative improvement of provision to legal services in relationship to the 1984 task force report, the facts are these. In 1984, $13.9 million was the budget for the Legal Services Society. Today the budget is $32,071,000, which is a significantly larger increase than was called for by the task force report on a global basis.

In addition, when you examine all of the legal services and assistance programs that we fund, al-

[ Page 10689 ]

most all of which touched or were touched by the report of the Law Reform Commission, you would see that we're expending $44 million on legal assistance and legal services.

The answer is that in terms of the global amount, the amount being asked for quite clearly exceeds that which was recommended by that report. There are areas within the report where you could well have the argument made that we are not up as far as was recommended by the task force report. One of them, I candidly recognize, is in the area of the tariff; that is, how much in fees are paid to criminal lawyers?

We have not met the request that was put in by the 1984 task force report. We have improved it, but we have not met it. What we have done is put our priority into family law rather than into the criminal area, and in the family law area we have gone in excess of the increases that were recommended. For instance, the task force recommended that, overall, the increase for a tariff should be, I believe, 75 percent — the fee the average lawyer would charge to a client. What we have done in terms of the family law increase is that the tariff increase is not 75 percent; it is 114 percent. It has well and truly exceeded that which was requested by the task force.

On the other hand, in the case of criminal law the request was for 75 percent; we've only raised it by 62 percent. So in that area we have not done as much as we would have wanted, but that reflects the decision I took that the priority would be in the area of family law. On balance, that decision is not a bad decision and indeed is supportable by virtue of the fact that family law cases typically involve children or often involve some incredibly intractable dispute in which it is very important, it seems to me, to attract the best and most capable individuals you can from the private bar to be able to undertake it. Quite obviously, the tariff we had was not doing that. Those who were inclined to do that work almost always found they were not able to do it. So we increased the tariff, as I say, by 114 percent — not since 1984 but since 1986 — in that area. It has gone up even more than that if you go back to the 1984 report. But there was not sufficient money to do that and also increase the tariff for the criminal law side by the full 75 percent that was requested.

As recently as six or seven weeks ago or thereabouts, I met with the criminal bar subsection to discuss these issues and to discuss how we might go about getting the increase up. They recognized that in this particular budget it was unlikely that they were going to get moved up to the 75 percent. Indeed, they told me that their biggest concern was that there might very well be a reduction, or a reduction caused by inflation, if they were given no increase at all. I assured them that there wouldn't be a reduction and that I would work for some increase What we have in the budget is some provision that will allow me to keep my commitment to the criminal subsection of the Canadian bar.

MR. SIHOTA: I have a number of comments. First of all, I would suggest to you that the short answer to the question is that you haven't met that recommendation of Mr. Hughes which reiterated the 1984 recommendation of the task force.

What you're doing is comparing apples and oranges. You're comparing a budget of previous times — in 1984 it was around $13 million — and saying: "Look, we're at $44 million." What you haven't calculated is the value in today's terms of the budget of '84; you haven't given an accurate reflection of the value of the money put in in '84 in today's terms. If you did that, you'd be comparing apples with apples. If memory serves me right — I'll have these numbers for you when we reconvene tomorrow — the recommendation in last year's dollars would have been about $42 million to $44 million. You haven't reached the level the task force recommended in '84.

Quite frankly — and I don't want to get into a protracted debate about this — you're wrong. In some ways you're not dealing directly with the point when you talk about services provided in the civil non-family area. People do not get representation in court with respect to foreclosure applications with anywhere near the regularity that you suggest. You are correct when you suggest that assistance with respect to foreclosures is provided mostly in terms of advice. People come into the offices and get advice from either the students or the lawyers on staff. They're given advice, but with respect to ongoing representation, particularly around the more difficult issues, that service is not provided.

If they're exceptionally difficult, I would suggest that the in-house counsel take on some of those matters. Certainly with respect to the routine matters there's simply the provision of advice, with no direct representation. The same applies in general terms, and there are exceptions to this — this is where again you're wrong — with respect to WCB. It's attended through the form of advocates, which you may not have said, but you're wrong on the point that the services provide the trade unions with the full repertoire of WCB assistance. That's simply not true. At some point the matter takes on attributes of law that are well beyond the skill level of those who service their trade union clientele, and you're wrong if you intend your comments to be interpreted to suggest that that assistance is provided to all people who are covered by unionized agreements. That's not the case. But more importantly, as you would recognize, there are a significant number of people injured at work, who are not engaged in an area covered by a collective agreement, who aren't unionized and who consequently don't get that protection either. There's quite a gap in terms of WCB assistance. The social services end of it — the welfare appeals, UIC, the pension appeals, which are common examples — is left unattended to.

The points I was trying to make to you are: (1) you have not achieved the task force recommendations of 1984, which I trust you would admit; and (2) there is no plan in place to try to reach that task force level, which is perhaps what causes me more concern than the first point. It would be welcome if the ministry said: "Yes, we have a plan in place to achieve these

[ Page 10690 ]

goals by a certain time, and we make the commitment that in three, four or five years — or whatever the time period is within the ministry — we will achieve the task force recommendations." I'm sorry to see that the minister is not prepared to make that commitment.

The third point that I think has to be made here is that the minister should be taking a look at different modes to provide the service that's available. I gave you the example of what's happening in Ontario not because I hold it out as the example to the world of how it should happen, but because they have a fairly good system there — one that is, in my view, significantly better than what we have in British Columbia. There are elements within the legal community that don't like it, because there are, of course, jurisdictional disputes between those people that provide the advocacy work who are not lawyers and lawyers who feel that they should have access to that work. But the point is that the clientele — the working poor, people of modest income — get assistance in that area.

I see that our time is just about up. I want to touch briefly on your comments with respect to family law and the tariff. It is true that there have been increases in the tariff in terms of the hourly amount of money that is paid. But of course, as the minister recognizes, I am sure — but doesn't touch upon — there are ceilings established with respect to the amount of time one can put into particular work. It may be that when you are working on a particular form of family work, be it the seeking of a maintenance order, a separation agreement or, similarly, in the criminal field, there are ceilings put. It's determined that that amount of work may take four hours, and after four hours the work that you provide is pro bono. And that often results in the fact that counsel are reluctant to take on certain types of work that they think would be a little bit more complicated than would be the case at first blush, and they're getting paid at a lower rate than the going rate.

I don't believe people should be getting the going rate all the time in all these types of matters, but I believe there has to be a greater level of flexibility in the ceilings that you provide so people are not required to do pro bono work regularly because a certain item of work is allocated for four hours and it takes six or eight or ten or 12, which can often be the case in something as simple as a separation agreement. They then end up doing a significant amount of work pro bono.

Most certainly, Mr. Attorney, being a member from a rural riding, you'd appreciate that problems are more acute in the rural portions of the province than they are in areas such as Vancouver or Victoria, because there is a lot of counsel situate in those communities, and fewer in the rural areas of the province; therefore, lawyers are not always accessible in the area where the individual is looking for assistance.

[6:00]

I was listening to your answer to see whether or not you'd be heading in towards this community-based delivery model I talked about that we see in New Westminster and in other places in the province. It's a good system, and that's where we should be headed.

With those comments, I notice it is a little after 6 o'clock, so I will move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I remind the members that tomorrow the House will sit at 2 p.m., and with that I move the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.