[ Page 10719 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Referendum Act (Bill 55). Hon. Mr. Dirks

Introduction and first reading –– 10719

Tabling Documents –– 10719

British Columbia Health Research Foundation Act (Bill 12). Committee stage.

(Hon. J. Jansen) –– 10719

Mr. Perry

Third reading

Securities Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 56). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Couvelier) –– 10720

Mr. Clark

Third reading

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Attorney-General estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Smith)

On vote 12: minister's office –– 10721

Mr. Sihota

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, this morning, one small licence.... A former member of this House, who occupied your chair for many years, is ill in the hospital with a heart attack: Rev. Harvey Schroeder. Many times he prayed the prayer of St. Francis of Assisi. If we could do that this morning.... Shall we pray?

Prayers.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure for me this morning to introduce the Hon. J. J. Duhan, OBE, Member of the Legislative Council from the state Legislature in New South Wales. I would ask the House to make him most welcome.

Introduction of Bills

REFERENDUM ACT

Hon. Mr. Dirks presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Referendum Act.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne, the government indicated its intention to bring forward legislation at this session to allow the holding of referenda on questions of significant public interest or concern. I am pleased therefore to introduce the Referendum Act today.

Perhaps more so than any other government in the history of British Columbia, this government is following a public consultation process in virtually every area of public policy. This bill provides another means by which the government can extend the consultative process.

It will be noted that there is a special provision in the bill which allows the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to designate the results of a referendum to be binding on the government. That means that the government will take the necessary steps to ensure that the results of such a referendum are implemented through changing its policies or programs or introducing new programs or policies. It may also involve the introduction of legislation into the Legislative Assembly.

I will speak on this bill at greater length at second reading, but I commend this bill to all members of the House as a forward step in the process of participatory democracy.

Bill 55 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. L. Hanson tabled the report of the British Columbia Heritage Trust for the year ended March 31, 1990.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call committee on Bill 12.

BRITISH COLUMBIA HEALTH
RESEARCH FOUNDATION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 12; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Sections 1 through 11 approved.

On section 12.

HON. J. JANSEN: I move an amendment standing under my name on section 12.

[SECTION 12(1), by deleting subsection (1) of the proposed section 12 and substituting the following:

(1) No action for damages because of anything done or omitted to be done in good faith

(a) in the performance or intended performance of any duty, or

(b) in the exercise or intended exercise of any power

under this Act or the regulations shall be brought against a director, officer or employee of the foundation, member of a committee appointed by the board or person who is subject to the direction of the foundation.]

On the amendment.

HON. J. JANSEN: The amendment of subsection 12(1) takes the order of the section and clarifies a mistake made. The wording says: "No action for damages because of anything done or omitted to be done in good faith...." Then (a) and (b) are introduced, and the words carry on "...under this act...." The wording is identical except that (a) and (b) are moved after the words "in good faith." It doesn't change the meaning; it's just a correction.

Amendment approved.

Section 12 as amended approved.

Sections 13 to 18 inclusive approved.

On section 19.

MR. PERRY: Under section 19, I'd simply like to raise a point really for the information of the B.C. Health Care Research Foundation in the hope that raising it here will draw it to their attention.

I note that the Public Service Benefit Plan Act will apply to the officers and employees of the foundation. One of the anomalies of the Canadian income tax law is that recipients of fellowships from the B.C. Health Care Research Foundation or the Medical Research Council of Canada are deemed by Revenue Canada to be the recipients not of earned income but of grants or scholarships. The practical consequence is that recipients of fellowships are not entitled to make registered retirement savings plan contribu-

[ Page 10720 ]

tions under the federal income tax laws. Similarly they are the recipients of no benefits — not Medical Service Plan coverage, unemployment Insurance benefits, sickness or disability insurance, life insurance or any other benefit. In reality, it's as if they are self-employed, but by a quirk of the Income Tax Act are denied any access to pensions. Typically these are people in their late twenties or early thirties, who in virtually any other job would be entitled to benefits and some pension plan.

I hope that by simply raising the matter now and pointing out the distinction between the officers and employees of the foundation and the recipients of its fellowship funds, perhaps in future the directors of the health foundation will take this into account and take steps to improve the situation of fellowship recipients. That's all I wanted to say on that.

[10:15]

Sections 19 to 25 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 12, British Columbia Health Research Foundation Act, reported complete with amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: With leave, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 12, British Columbia Health Research Foundation Act, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: I call committee on Bill 56, Mr. Speaker.

SECURITIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

The House in committee on Bill 56; Mr. Serwa in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. CLARK: I wasn't here for second reading; I want first to extend my thanks to the minister and to his staff, Ms. Wanstall, who briefed me on this bill. I have had a chance since then to review it. I am extremely reluctant, as all members know, to let bills of this size pass so quickly without canvassing at some length the nuances of the new amendments. However, I have to say that I don't see how we could gain much by doing that. I think it's a good bill. I fully support it. I don't think it was necessary, perhaps, to merge the Commodity Contract Act with the Securities Act, but for the sake of efficiency and for convenience, it's not a bad idea. Of course, most of these amendments simply incorporate the Commodity Contract Act into the new legislation.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I will talk very briefly on section 34, but other than that, this is a step in the right direction. It brings the Securities Act with respect to commodity futures trading into the 1990s. I've no doubt that there will be further amendments down the road, as this field becomes more complex and new financial instruments are devised. I've no doubt that this is not necessarily a completely finished product at this time.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I'm quite prepared to proceed to section 34.

Sections 1 to 33 inclusive approved.

On section 34.

MR. CLARK: This amendment, like some other amendments, does not deal with the Commodity Contract Act or with futures trading. It deals with changes to the Securities Act. Many of them are housekeeping. This one is much more than that. This section reduces — in the case of takeovers — from 10 percent to 5 percent the amount of share purchases required for providing notice to the general public that such a takeover is taking place.

I want to say to the minister that this is a very positive move. I'm very strongly supportive of this section. I know that the ministry is endeavouring to have this reduction from 10 percent to 5 percent as a national standard. I can well appreciate the importance of that. I simply want to offer my encouragement to do that forthwith.

I also would like to offer my encouragement to the proclamation of this section, if it's possible, even in the event that agreement is not reached all across the country. There may be some technical problems with that, but I think it's a very positive move that we should support. I strongly support it, given some of the takeovers and some of the problems we've seen in the past with corporate acquisitions. This is an area where in the 1980s we saw a frenetic pace. The law has not caught up with the changes that have taken place. I think this is a positive move.

I want to encourage the minister and the ministry to try and get this to be the national standard. I understand this is the first legislation in Canada that does this. I want to encourage the minister, notwithstanding unanimity across the country, to proclaim this section as soon as possible.

Sections 34 to 57 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

[ Page 10721 ]

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 56, Securities Amendment Act, 1990, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ATTORNEY-GENERAL

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

MR. SIHOTA: I'm glad to see the Premier is here today. Maybe he might learn something.

First of all, in concluding the comments we were making yesterday with respect to freedom of information — "policy legislation" I think were the words the minister used in terms of legislation — let me say that, looking at what you said last year and at where you are this year, there hasn't been a lot of progress, at least in what you say. I guess that's all we can go by. However, I take it that there might be some movement in that regard this year. That may be welcome, although I'm not convinced that it will be anything more than just simple window-dressing as we move closer to an election — the suggestion that the government is opening up freedom of information in the social services sector.

Quite frankly, I don't know what you're looking at. If you want to elaborate on it, please do so. Will there be an independent watchdog? Will there be somebody to whom you can go and access the information? Will there be an appeal process? Those are the kinds of things that I'd like to know, and those are the kinds of things that are very basic to a freedom of information policy. Will it be policy or will it be legislation?

Having referred to that, I now want to turn to the matter of the family maintenance enforcement program, which I know the minister commented on earlier in respect to questions from the second member for Langley (Mr. Peterson). I've read the comments, so I don't want to get into the same debate there in terms of the backlog, except to say that there are still some delays inherent in the system.

I want to let the minister know that, from my point of view, the family maintenance enforcement program isn't working anywhere near to the level that it should be. Quite frankly, I would think the minister would agree with me that the system has not worked as efficiently and expeditiously as all of us would have hoped for. There were times in this House when I supported the family maintenance enforcement program. When the legislation was brought in, I supported it and said to the Attorney-General of the time that we'd give it an opportunity to test itself, iron out its wrinkles and see how it was progressing.

It's clear to me a year and a half later that the system is not working at anywhere near the level of efficiency and effectiveness that would be expected by those who are clients of the program and those who are in dire need of family maintenance payments being made in a timely and expeditious fashion. On top of that, as I've indicated before in debate, there is some concern in my mind that there are violations of rights of individuals in how the matter is handled with respect to women, in particular, who are on social assistance.

Having said that, I should point out to the Attorney-General that my concerns haven't changed much from last year. I constantly get phone calls at my constituency office — given my critic responsibilities — from individuals right across the province, expressing frustration over delays and how long it takes the program to move from the time that one fills out the form to when it's processed, to when the matter appears in court and finally money is garnered from the individual who has been delinquent in payment of the sum in question. The biggest complaints I get across my desk, Mr. Minister, are about delays. Inevitably, when I ask for an explanation from the family maintenance enforcement program, there is a record produced, and it just reinforces what I thought. There seems to be a lot of delays at the beginning from the time the form is filled out to the time that it's actually acted upon. So there are problems with delays.

Secondly, there's a constant frustration expressed to me that I must concur with. There is no assistance provided to those people in the non-GAIN area, particularly with respect to what I call the front end: namely, the procurement of maintenance orders. The program looks after enforcement, but it doesn't assist single mothers, in particular, who require it to procure and secure a maintenance order. They should have the full benefit of rights and services from the moment they want to make a claim and help in making that claim or securing the order in the first place and subsequently in enforcement.

The program is enforcement-oriented, as opposed to assisting the individual in procuring or securing an order at the front end. In that respect, a woman — who is usually the person involved in the program — has to go to counsel, which they cannot afford, to get that service or to legal aid if they meet the criteria.

Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, the other constant flaw that seems to show up in the communication I get from individuals is that the program is highly centralized. There are, of course, some offices outside the greater Vancouver area, but it seems to me that the program would be far more effective if it was operated on a streetfront basis in a community where a woman, instead of having to drive miles or phone an 800

[ Page 10722 ]

number to deal with a bureaucrat over the phone, could deal face-to-face with someone she knew was looking after her file.

They never seem to know who's looking after their files. They phone the office one day and it's one person; the next day it's another person. There's no human interaction, no knowledge of what's happening and no one who seems to be accountable directly to the woman who requires the service. I'm using the term "woman" because, generally speaking, it is the woman. There is no face-to-face contact and no accountability with respect to who is responsible for their file. So they don't know. It's tough for them to get status reports with respect to their file or to hold someone accountable for the delays and inefficiencies in the file.

[10:30]

Fourthly, there are concerns related to the forms. People have commented to me over and over again as I've visited them throughout the province and in the calls I get in my constituency office and here at the Legislature that the forms are overly cumbersome. They are designed, of course, for a computer, which I guess is necessary today.

The problem is that they're not clear, and they require some technical sophistication. In an era where the ministry talks about plain language, it would seem to me that in the forms people are required to fill out for family maintenance, one ought to have language which is simple and easy to understand and is not reflective of legal terms. There is a constant frustration expressed with respect to that.

There is a general view that the program has been inefficient. I don't want to read every letter, because I have a stack of them here that I could read. I'm sure the minister would have some that suggest the program is working well. But here's just a sample of the kinds of comments I get. This one comes from the greater Victoria area. "I enrolled in the family maintenance enforcement program for out-of-province collection in January, 1990. But as you know, any action can take six months or longer, and even if some action is taken, laws are so antiquated and inadequate that debtors have all the rights and means by which to continue avoiding their responsibility."

In talking specifically about the program, the writer goes on to say: "I'm appalled and totally frustrated by the lack of support available to persons in my situation." I don't want to read the whole letter, but it goes on to criticize the program.

I have another one from the greater Vancouver area, In Surrey: "The family maintenance program instigated by the Socreds has to go. As it stands now, it does not benefit the families and does nothing for the benefit of children."

I have another one from Revelstoke again expressing displeasure with the program. Because it names various individuals and lawyers involved, maybe I shouldn't quote the letter except to say again that there is frustration over the incredible delays. In this case, the recipient enrolled in the program on the second day it began, and it was not until May of 1990 that she got any of the money she expected to get. That's a delay of almost a year and a half.

I'm trying to say to the Attorney-General that I think you've got a lot of work to do in terms of that program. I think you've got a long way to go. I don't think it's working. There were proposals — I know we've discussed these in the past in this House — that offered a more community-based and decentralized program at a lower cost to government. Maybe that was the way the government should have gone. I think it should have gone in that direction.

This program is ineffective; it isn't working for those women and children who rely on family maintenance payments to support themselves. It's not working at all, Mr. Minister. Now that we've had close to two years to assess this program, I think your government has an obligation to take a sober second look at this situation and reorient the program to meet the concerns I've raised and to make it available in communities, so that individuals can go to an office in their community and deal with a worker who will help them process the maintenance order, help them procure the maintenance order in the first place; and then help them enforce it if the husband, as in a typical case, defaults on the program, so that there is prompt payment.

Other jurisdictions have gone to the point of saying: "We as a state will pay out those moneys, and then we'll go back and collect from the individual." It has to be a program where delays are reduced and where there would be a quick turnaround from the time a person comes into the office and asks for assistance to the time they get it. There should be a time-frame set.

Again, I think the standard should be: what kind of service would this person get if we didn't have this program and they had to see a lawyer, and if the state provided for the cost of getting it? Lawyers can generally turn these things around in about six weeks, to give them the full benefit of the doubt. That was my experience in the work I was doing as counsel on many of these cases, and I think that ought to be the time-frame in which the program should be trying to work. Six months is no good; two years is no good. But I think six weeks is a reasonable amount of time to process the order, get it in front of the courts, get the delinquent husband to show up, get the maintenance order and get the money into the hands of the wife and the children who so desperately need it.

Finally, let me say that I have put all of this in the context of a report the ministry received about a year and a half ago from the National Association of Women and the Law — it was done through LEAF as well — that said that there is a significant amount of gender bias in the courts. In the course of their report they point out that after divorce, women are significantly and consistently on the losing end. You have a law that says that assets are split fifty-fifty, but when you watch what happens after a divorce, the woman ends up with the children. The bulk of the financial responsibility in terms of kids falls on the woman; it makes it very tough for her to make ends meet.

[ Page 10723 ]

Maintenance orders are inadequate for trying to top up the financial needs, and women are under tremendous economic stress to make ends meet and to survive after the dissolution of a marriage. On the other hand, husbands tend to get on with their lives and accumulate more assets. Consequently the report recommends the re-examination of the fifty-fifty split and of the way in which we deal with maintenance.

It is in that context of making sure that there is equality of economic opportunity for women and children and that you try to break the cycle of poverty women often find themselves in after the dissolution of a marriage. We've tried to construct in this province a family maintenance enforcement program that is sensitive to that reality. Yet this program fails to attend to that reality and to provide that assistance.

Let me say finally that I regret that during the time I have been making this statement, the Attorney-General, who is responsible for this program, has seen fit to talk to other members of his cabinet and not to pay full attention to what I've had to say.

In any event, those are my comments and my frustrations with the programs. I am sure the minister understands that they are not unique to me; they are the same things that ought to disturb him in his responsibilities. He has to concede, I think, now that we've had this program in place, that it's time to revisit the whole thing and come up with a program that is far more efficient and effective in addressing the needs of women and children who rely on maintenance orders.

HON. MR. SMITH: Yesterday I committed to get some information with respect to the criminal justice branch. I have it now. We have 100 full-time lawyers in the criminal justice branch — or we will have at the end of this fiscal year. We have 150 individuals who are full-time contractors. That translates, in terms of money, as follows: we have $7.12 million allocated for in-house; $8.04 million allocated for full-time contractors, which reflects in no small part specialists, senior people and the like; and $1.28 million allocated for ad hoc legal counsel.

In terms of the specialties the member asked for yesterday, we generally have specialization in seven areas: child sexual abuse, environmental law, native jurisdictions, commercial crime, gangs, Court of Appeal work and youth court work.

The question of gender bias the member referred to in the courts is one that the courts themselves are more than alive to. Indeed, there's an outstanding piece of material produced by the Canadian judicial Council that I had an opportunity to review together with my colleagues from across Canada. I hope it is going to be fairly widely distributed, because it raised some extremely important issues in a whole range of areas within the system where there is that gender bias in fact and, more importantly, where there is a perception of it. As well, representatives of the bar and the bench and I have had discussions and meetings about the issue. The Law Society, working with members from the bench, are developing some initiatives in that regard which I'm going to be a part of, at least in a consultative way and in terms of them reporting to me.

As for the suggestion that we would simply pay the maintenance and then collect it back, I would not recommend that to cabinet. I don't think it's a wise way to go. I take it with interest, but it's not something that I would personally recommend.

The questions relating to the family maintenance program generally — if I can try to capture some of the comments that were made and the questions that were raised. In terms of what is defended, of course variation applications are defended without cost, which is unique to this program. The qualification for people who want to have a separation agreement or some initial agreement or order relating to disposition of assets and custody of children is provided for under the qualification for legal aid. The legal aid qualifications themselves were changed last year so that it was not solely a matter of income and assets. Indeed, that has been of some considerable assistance.

The program itself does provide lawyers to enforce filed orders and to defend applications for variation. But the program is not designed nor intended to act on behalf of individuals in general family law matters, including separation agreements. Frankly, I would not recommend that the program take on that role. That is not what the program is intended to do and not what this House supported it for. It's a program that is designed to collect money. It does take on the additional responsibilities in the area of variation, but I would not support a recommendation for storefront counsel services and so on. That's not what it was intended to do, and I don't think we should ask it to take on that responsibility. If we wish to go to that kind of public-defender model of legal aid, that's something that we should examine, I think, with respect to the Legal Services Society's role and budget itself. Indeed, I will raise with them the issue of that format or model of delivery.

[10:45]

As to the complaints that come from the family maintenance program, I sent a letter to all MLAs last year asking them to give me the complaints they receive, if they could, so that we could follow them up for two purposes: so that we could resolve the complaint itself if possible; and perhaps more importantly, so that we could learn from those complaints and improve the delivery of the program. I have had a few responses from MLAs. I don't recall getting any from the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota). I have received them from the other members of that side of the House, including the opposition House Leader. As I have done every time I have spoken on this issue, I invite people, if there are specific complaints, to provide them to us with the specifics so that we can deal with them and improve the program, because I think that's the object of the exercise.

I would also say that it really does not assist very much to just deal publicly with anecdotal stories that

[ Page 10724 ]

come in that aren't looked at and confirmed, because they are not typical of the program -any more than are the anecdotal stories that I get of great successes. I got a whole list of them that I would be happy to read into the record. They too are not typical of a program that is now collecting money for over 10,000 people in British Columbia.

I do want to address the complaints that we have had up until the end of March, which, in terms of the timing for the whole program being in place, is just over a year. We've had 229 complaints, 2 percent of the total filing kits that have been received: 24 of the 229 are repeats; 62 of those complaints came through the office of the Attorney-General; 28 of them came from other MLAs.

These are the types of complaints that we have received and the resolutions: 32 of the complaints were enrolment delays, and the response to that has been to put some priority into their enrolment; 51 of them were for lack of enforcement, and appropriate action has been taken; 59 complaints related to a lack of communication, and we have endeavoured to provide the information that was wanted and improve the process where it was appropriate; 15 complaints related to inappropriate enforcement — that is, people who complain that they felt some other action should have been taken other than the one that was taken; 16 complaints related to where the program had erred, and corrective action has been taken and apologies given; one complaint related to legislation; 11 complaints related to reciprocal enforcement issues dealing with matters where another jurisdiction is involved; and 33 complaints dealt with matters outside of the program.

That is the type of complaint that we get, and those are the numbers that we get. Again, Mr Chairman, I'm not going to read into the record the scores of good news the program has undertaken — the anecdotal information of successes. I don't think that is as typical of the overwhelming mass of work that is done by the program any more than the others are. If it is the case that we want to have a contest of reading letters into the record, I'd be happy to do it, but I don't think it serves any useful purpose.

I think we should, however, be alert to the fact that the program — because it deals in an extremely sensitive, frequently traumatic, gut-wrenching, emotional area — is one that becomes a lightning-rod for issues that do not necessarily relate to family maintenance itself. It is a government-sanctioned program and has that imprimatur of officialdom to it. And coupled with the fact that since 1871 there has been no such program in this province, it is not overstated that it has a significant level of accumulated interest. Taken together, those things mean that we should be alive to the fact that the program often receives complaints about matters that aren't properly within its purview.

I think one thing all of us should be very careful not to do is try to insinuate into the program responsibility for issues that it is not mandated to undertake. If we do that, then I think the value of the program will be deflected and the good work the people do will be diminished.

Speaking of the people in the program, I want to say that in my view they are extremely capable, dedicated people with a high degree of skill, and they have a good esprit de corps. Comments were made earlier in the year that there had been numbers of people bailing out, quitting the program. I checked that out at the time, and it turned out that those were exaggerated descriptions. In fact, one person had left, and she had left to study for her master's degree in law in Cambridge. Sometimes we inadvertently don't represent carefully enough what is going on, and when we do that, it's not helpful to people who are showing a high degree of dedication in collecting over $13 million a year now for people who, in the main, were not receiving it in the past.

MR. SIHOTA: I would have expected a bit more from the minister than that. I'm surprised that you got only 28 complaints from MLAs, I think you said. I've got 31 here — I was just counting while you were speaking — and the vast majority have been sent over to the program for explanation. In fact, I doubt if any were not sent over. That's 31 in terms of correspondence; I'd hate to go back and look at all the ones we handle over the phone.

MR. LOENEN: Why don't you pass them on?

MR. SIHOTA: I just said they were passed on. If you want to take the cotton out of your ears, you may be able to hear something, Mr. Member.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, I gave them to the people who run the program.

I'm surprised that you are not even prepared to admit that there are problems with the program. I think the other day you provided some statistics on the backlog. I don't want to go back to what you said last year, but I think you said last year that you'd have the backlog in the program cleared up by summer. You obviously didn't achieve that goal; you're still backlogged to some extent now.

Quite frankly, I think this government, for public relations reasons, wants to create the impression that it is trying to do something in the family maintenance field, that it's trying to help out women who need family maintenance orders. What you've done is produce the narrowest of programs for family maintenance so that you can advertise on those nightly TV ads in which you throw off the fact that you're doing something — to try to secure yourself some favour with the electorate. And you've refused to develop a full-blown program of service and assistance, in particular to women in need of family maintenance. I find it unfortunate that for reasons of policy you would say that you don't agree with the storefront concept and that the only model you are thinking of is the public defender model, as you've said earlier on in these estimates. I give you an example of a

[ Page 10725 ]

streetfront advocacy program that we would set up in this province, modelled after work being done in Ontario and in New Westminster, which gives people an office in every community. Whether it works through your ministry or Social Services, there's somebody in an office — a court registry, a Social Services office or government agent's office — where the process and the files that can be accountable to the file are available. It's unfortunate that for policy reasons you reject the storefront system.

The minister, who comes from the interior, ought to appreciate the need for this service, particularly in the interior. But for reasons of policy, you've chosen to maintain a very limited and relatively inefficient program. Because you're the majority party right now in British Columbia, I guess you're entitled to have that policy. I guess that explains the differences between what motivates you to represent your political party and what motivates me to represent mine. But I think that if you want it....

MR. REID: On a point of order, it's a matter of interest that there is only one member of the opposition over there, and he continues to talk about the government members not paying attention. I don't think there's a quorum in here to listen; maybe we should adjourn the debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We do have a quorum, so I'll ask the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew to continue.

MR. SIHOTA: I can understand that the Social Credit member for Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale is anxious to get out of here, as all members of the Social Credit Party are, but we've got some important issues to raise, and I want to raise them with the Attorney-General.

As I was saying, Mr. Chairman....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: If the member for Surrey, the former minister, doesn't want to listen, he can leave.

Let me get to the point here. I guess it is a difference of opinion about the philosophy of how a program should be run. I think it is reprehensible, Mr. Minister, that you have chosen to set up a program that is narrow in its focus, limited in its objective and inefficient in its result. Consequently, there should be a revisiting of it. I would trust that the minister, when he reflects upon these estimates in the quiet of his office — because publicly he doesn't want to admit the program's not working well — will be calling in his people and seeing what can be done to improve the program.

I want to raise a couple of other issues with the minister. One is in the area of environmental prosecutions. The government has taken some pleasure in talking about environmental prosecutions and about proceeding with greater haste with respect to corporate polluters. We have witnessed, however, on two recent occasions accused corporations raising as a defence what I can best describe as comfort letters provided to those corporations by the Ministry of the Environment — letters suggesting that the government would not prosecute and would look the other way. That has been introduced as evidence as a way of deterring the prosecution.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Since it is the Attorney-General's ministry which must still find a way to prosecute in the face of these obstacles, could the Attorney-General tell us how many such letters are still out there sitting in the hands of polluting corporations and presumably available to be used in cases which have yet to come to the courts? Has he even tried to find out, given the recent revelations in court? Can he tell us if he was consulted by the Ministry of Environment prior to the release of those letters?

The government would like to point out that it is being tough with environmental polluters. But the evidence is contrary. We've seen very few prosecutions over the past five years and nominal penalties. The penalties have basically been the cost of doing business. There is now, as the minister understands and as we have maintained for many years, an important need to make sure that we get tough with corporate polluters. Those are the questions I have for the minister, and I would be interested in hearing his comments.

[11:00]

HON. MR. SMITH: Before I get to the environmental issues, I want to place on the record my position on the storefront issue that was raised by the member in terms of family law. I will raise the question of that model of delivery with the Legal Services Society. I said that I didn't think that a collection program is the appropriate vehicle to take on that method of service delivery. I thought I set out reasonably cogently why I thought that was the case, but perhaps I failed in that regard. It is simply a question of policy, which we debated in this House in 1987-88, when the member supported this program. This program should deal primarily with collection issues. If we wish to go into a delivery model for other things, then we should more sensibly draw in the Legal Services Society and other providers of legal assistance and look at it from that point of view. That's the preferable way to go.

I did commit last year that the backlog would be gone by this year, and I'm pleased that that commitment was kept by last fall. I'll just let the statistics speak for themselves. Last year in my estimates there were almost 6,500 or 7,000 persons in backlog, and there were less than 3,000 registered. Today 10,306 persons are registered, and 1,471 are in process. That reflects an average of 600 a month coming in and a significant number requiring work with out-of-province jurisdictions that obviously take longer. I think that commitment has been kept. It's through no credit of mine; it's to the credit of the individuals in the program who in the face of a tremendous desire to

[ Page 10726 ]

have the program help, have managed to do a very good job. They are very willing to improve and have said to me that they recognize — as I recognize — that there are improvements that can be made to this as to any other program. We desire that it be done.

The member says he has 38 complaints there. I would very much appreciate the opportunity to receive them so that I can ensure that they're properly dealt with.

In terms of the defence, or at least the question on environmental prosecutions that the member raised — the so-called "comfort letters" that were out there — I want the House not to be alarmed by that in any way. Obviously defence counsel will raise whatever they can on behalf of their clients. The good news is that that defence has not succeeded; that decision was rendered by Mr. Justice Patrick Dohm in a major case some weeks ago. There will be all sorts of novel defences raised; about that I have no doubt.

The reason is that we have taken the fine from $50,000 maximum to $3 million maximum. I must say that when I was at a meeting with my colleagues across Canada a few weeks ago, they were agog that the maximum penalty in this province is so high. No other jurisdiction in Canada comes remotely close to the maximum penalty we have here in British Columbia.

There may have been other questions, but I think the member was primarily concerned about that issue having been raised as a defence — the comfort letters, whether I'd been consulted on it, and the like. The issue is now moot, because the defence failed.

MR. SIHOTA: Let me deal with the family maintenance enforcement program. I don't know why, but the minister always chooses to kind of gloss over the facts. He made a commitment last year not to clean up the backlog by this year, but to clean it up by the end of last summer. On May 1, 1989, he said: "We...will be able to clean up the backlog over the summer." Later on the same day he said: "I am confident that it will be able to clean up the backlog by the end of the summer."

You didn't do it last year, and you've still got a problem this year. Cut the guff and just admit you've got a problem with the program. And don't come in here and tell me that you said you'd have it done by the end of this year — you didn't say that last year.

With respect to environmental prosecution, sure, it worked in one case, and it may well be that the defence will not work in others. It may work in some others — who knows? Who knows what kinds of letters are out there, and the nature of the commitment or the comfort provided? Different facts, different letters. It may result in a different determination by the courts. You know that as well as I do, and you know that you can't rely exclusively on one case that you won to conclude that all of the facts in the next case are going to be the same.

My questions to you were: how many of those letters are out there? Have you found out? Were you consulted with respect to the content of those letters? What steps have you taken to protect the Ministry of Environment further by rescinding the comfort that may have been provided in those letters? There's more to it than simply the fact that you won in one case.

Obviously there are corporate polluters out there, and this government has had a tragic record with respect to enforcing environmental laws. You know that and I know that. You've heard the statistics, and I know them. I think it was only last year that the average fine was somewhere around $600, and over the last three years you've only done about 30 prosecutions. If you want the actual numbers, I could provide you with them very quickly; my colleague the critic for the environment isn't here right now. The point is that the letters are out there, and you should be either hauling them in or advising those who are in possession of them that they're rescinded so that there is no illusionary comfort out there.

I want to deal quickly with another issue: the Expropriation Compensation Board. The minister knows that I raised this last year; I raise it again this year.

The board's work was as follows: for the fiscal year '88-89 there were eight hearings. Six matters were settled, and 16 were still pending on the board's registry, for a total of 31 cases. There were three hearings with adjudications delivered; three matters were resolved otherwise. Rolling in those 16 cases, 37 cases are pending with the board. Not a very busy board, yet the chairman of the board, Mr. Heinrich, a former Social Credit minister, is being paid to adjudicate those matters.

Last year I raised — I want to raise it again this year with the minister — the form of payment. Is he paid by cases that he hears? Is he paid a flat salary for his work? How is he paid? What is set aside this year for the salary to Mr. Heinrich under the Expropriation Compensation Board? If memory serves me right, he was on a full-time salary last year, yet there were only eight adjudications. This year there were only three where there were hearings and adjudications delivered. This year there has been a total of six cases where matters were settled or adjudications were delivered.

Really, my question is: what money is allocated this year for that board, and how much of that is in payments to Mr. Heinrich for his services? The reasons are obvious as to why I'm trying to ask. I want to know whether or not the taxpayer is getting full value for the services that are being rendered.

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes, Mr. Chairman, if I may just go back to what I was alleged to have said last year, the member said that I had said that the backlog would be done by the end of the summer. Then he went on to quote that it would be done over the summer. That is in fact what I said: "Over the summer." And it was dealt with over the summer. If you wish, I will go and get the numbers. In fact, I know there are people dealing with it. If you want it, I will be more than happy to do it. The point is that over last summer we put on a significant effort to get the backlog dealt with, and it was dealt with.

[ Page 10727 ]

The good news is that there are 10,000 women now in British Columbia who are being served by that program; it has collected over $13 million a year for them and their children. I'm grateful to the people who are in the program, because I think that's good and worthy work. I also know that there wasn't such a program until 1988-89. Previous administrations failed to deal with that issue. It wasn't a partisan matter, because previous administrations of all stripes in this province failed to deal with it. That was wrong, and that now has been corrected.

Yes, it is the case that over the last three years, as the member reports, there has been a low level of fines, on average, in pollution matters. But with the greatest respect, Mr. Chairman, I think it matters little what happened three years ago in terms of averages, when this Legislature last year instructed that those maximum fines go up, as they have. We committed last year to put significant new resources into prosecuting and gathering evidence for prosecution of polluters; we have done that. What is important now is to test the results against the new programs and the new legislation and the new allocations of money that this House has made for that purpose. It doesn't serve any particular purpose other than to confuse people to talk about what happened three years ago.

The chairman of the Expropriation Compensation Board is paid $94,000 a year, which is a matter of public record. The board has a dual purpose. Not only does it do hearings, but the chairman is as well very much instrumental in assisting with the resolution of many matters which, I suppose, don't therefore show up in the statistics. More than one-third of the applications actually have been resolved without a next step going on. I think that's a real credit to the work being done by the chairman, because he's producing good written decisions that are establishing precedents and frameworks for resolution of expropriation issues. Because there's consistency in terms of the application of the law, obviously people are able to determine better how much they're going to get and therefore know better whether to proceed.

I should point out that expropriations will also vary year to year in terms of the amount of public works being undertaken. As the members may know, when the SkyTrain was going through, there were a number of expropriation cases in the province. When there's any major road project, that turns out to be the case as well. I would anticipate that as the right-of-way for the Island Highway is acquired, particularly contiguous to urban areas, there will be a substantial increase in the number of citizens who may feel aggrieved by the amount of moneys they are offered for their land. That seems to be the pattern.

[11:15]

In addition, I should advise the House that there have been several matters proposed to be referred — and one in fact now referred — to the Expropriation Compensation Board relating to mineral tenures in parks, where we as a society have decided to prevent those tenures from being developed. The citizens who hold the beneficial ownership of those tenures have decided to take advantage of our expropriation laws — and I don't use that word in any pejorative way; that is there — and have referred matters now to this board. I would expect that the work they do involving those issues is going to be very important not only with regard to the treasury of this province, but with regard to some resource-use issues and some conflict of resource-use issues which are gaining currency.

While the option obviously is there for those people, in some instances, to go to the court or to the board, there is indication that some will be going to the board. That may be a matter for which the entitlement will have to be determined. Nonetheless, as I say, I think the Expropriation Compensation Board is doing good work. I know that the work it is doing is assisting the community. It deals with expropriation matters greatly because of the quality of the decisions that are coming out and the goalposts that are being established. So I think that as a judicial function — quasi-judicial in the technical sense, but in a real sense it is a judicial function — it could benefit greatly from not being partisanized in any way.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, as the minister grasps for justifications and mutters them into the microphone in this House, the fact of the matter is that you have a former Social Credit cabinet minister, who is a friend of this government, getting paid $94,000 a year. Last year he adjudicated on three cases, he settled another three that were resolved without the necessity of adjudication and he has some pending. Fine, if you want to appoint your friend to a position, I guess you have that prerogative because you're the government in power. You know my views about those kinds of appointments, so there's no need for me to get into it. But he's being paid $94,000 a year.

The year before last he adjudicated on eight cases, and in the 1989-90 fiscal year he adjudicated on three cases. Why don't you just pay him by the hour? Let him go off to his law firm back in Prince George and adjudicate on these matters and pay him by the hour. Given the volume — if I can use that word — of work, somehow I think you're not going to end up spending $94,000 plus an office and all the other benefits he gets like a secretary and all that stuff. You've got to be joking! He deals with three cases. Try as you may, Mr. Minister, the fact is that there's no justification. It's bad enough to appoint one of your own political friends to the position, but it's worse to give him $94,000 and to have him do so little work.

I raised it last year, thinking that you'd revisit the whole issue, and you haven't. Quite frankly, this government deserves to be booted around on its handling of the Expropriation Compensation Board. I agree with you; I supported the Expropriation Compensation Board. In fact, if you go back to the debate, you will see that I proposed a number of amendments which the Attorney-General of the day — being a fair-minded person — accepted because he

[ Page 10728 ]

realized it would result in a better system. It is the way to go in terms of how you resolve expropriation matters; I have no doubt about that.

However, $94,000 for three cases where adjudications were delivered; come on! You're going to get better value for the taxpayers' money — if I can restrict it to just that element instead of the partisan, political argument which is obvious — if you just paid the guy by the hour. You can still massage the palm of your friend, if that's your objective. But if you want something for value for the taxpayer, pay a guy to do it by the hour — we do it on all sorts of other boards — and cut the kind of blatant partisan appointments and cut this type of incredible salary of $94,000 to deal with six cases.

Earlier you were talking about work that goes to various law firms, and you gave me some numbers. You said about $8 million — I may not have heard this correctly — was the number in terms of work that goes out as contracts to private law firms doing criminal work. I think you mentioned about $7 million for the people you've got in-house that do work.

If you take a look at Kamloops for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1989, it's interesting that the record shows that the law firm of Mair Janowsky Blair received $151,367 worth of work from the ministry and various institutions of government. Other Kamloops law firms were: Nixon Wenger and Co., which received $27,000; H.A. Pontious, $12, 000; and Gillis McKechnie Watt about $10,808.

We all understand that Mair Janowsky Blair is a firm that is well connected with government. This government has been criticized in the past with respect to favouring its friends and insiders. We've seen it with respect to the expropriation board. There are some obvious questions that relate to the amount of work being forwarded to that law firm, which I understand your spouse is also working for.

I also want to deal with the minister's utilization of government aircraft and jets for his travel. I listened with great interest the other day — although I wasn't in the House; I was in my office — to the minister talking about the use of government jets to fly up to the Cariboo during the course of the provincial by-election that occurred in the Cariboo. The minister took some great pains to lay out the details of his trips to the Cariboo and point out why he had to utilize a government jet to fly up to the Cariboo. He was on — as he put it — government business. He gave examples of speeches that he gave, and he also talked about the one occasion when he went up there on a private plane paid for, I assume, by his party, because he went up there for partisan purposes.

I think the argument that he was making was that it was just coincidence that he was up there at the time of the Cariboo by-election. He was flying up there so frequently to the Cariboo on business, and it just happened to be coincidental that there was a by-election going on at the same time. I guess one has to accept the fact that the minister says it was just coincidence. Having said that, what I was struck by in terms of what the minister had to say at that time was the great detail he provided with respect to where he went, who he visited, what time he spoke and what he spoke about.

HON. J. JANSEN: It's called open government.

MR. SIHOTA: And the government, of course, likes to say it's open and honest and happy to provide details with respect to all these kinds of matters. So in the name of open government, I have here, just by coincidence, if I can use the word, the air logs of the minister from August, 1989, through to March, 1990.

It is fascinating to see the number of occasions he goes up to Kamloops, predominantly on weekends. But I know the minister doesn't do that always; I know he takes the ferry from time to time; I've actually seen him on the ferry on one occasion I took it up.

On some of the occasions that he's flown up, it has been noted that he flew up within hours of his friend and colleague, the other member from Kamloops, the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Richmond). On February 2, 1990, I think, his colleague left at 8:30 a.m., and the plane came back down again and picked up the Attorney-General and took him up at 11 o'clock, and the question arose as to why the two members from Kamloops, the Minister of Forests and the Attorney-General, couldn't have arranged their affairs so as to fly up at the same time and save the taxpayers some money and not have a plane go up and come back and go up and come back. I think about $3,000 was spent on those trips, when of course it costs, if it's the special, about $89 to fly Air B.C. to Kamloops. But he spent somewhere around $3,000 on jetting the minister and his colleague from Kamloops up to Kamloops.

I note from the logs again on October 12 that the Minister of Forests went from Victoria to Vancouver on a government jet and then flew later on that same day from Vancouver to Kamloops, while on the same day the Attorney-General flew at 3:30 p.m. from Victoria via Qualicum to Kamloops, and the two of them arrived in Kamloops — he and the Minister of Forests — a couple of hours apart, again at great expense to the taxpayers. These jets were ferrying the two ministers up to the same city at approximately the same time, although I'm not too sure if, on October 12, there was more than one passenger on the flight.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, pardon me for interrupting. I'm having some difficulty in accepting the relevance of the way the debate is going on vote 12. The subject was very well canvassed in some estimates we've dealt with very recently.

MR. SIHOTA: The questions I have to the minister relate to this. He provided in some detail the explanation for his trip to the Cariboo. I'll be happy to table these logs, because I know the government hasn't tabled them. Open government with respect to the air logs lasted for about four days, and then they were

[ Page 10729 ]

taken somewhere in the back rooms so the public couldn't look at them any more. So the minister may not get access to this. I'll be happy to table the schedule of the minister's travel.

My question to the minister is this: since he provided all the details as to why he was in the Cariboo and what engagements he attended there, would he be kind enough to provide the same details with respect to his trips that are enumerated here and explain why it was necessary and what government business he was on at these times. I think that it would be appropriate for us to know why on certain occasions he was flying to Kamloops, Terrace, Prince George, Smithers, Abbotsford, Chilliwack and some of the other examples that show up in these logs.

[11:30]

I think it's only fair that the taxpayers know what the minister is doing. The members opposite say they agree with open government. I know the Leader of the Opposition has provided in depth not only where he flew, but what business he was on, who he spoke to and all that kind of stuff. The minister felt comfortable to talk about that with respect to the Cariboo by-election. So my first question to him is: will you table the same information with the House with respect to all the other travelling you did between August 1989 and March 1990? I think it would be useful information, and it would help the public to understand why the minister uses the plane so frequently.

My second question is: administratively in your own office, how do you get your own office to work out with your colleague from Kamloops, the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Richmond), as to when you fly? What steps do you take internally to make sure that the two of you travel together to Kamloops, so as to prevent duplication of costs? To give you an example, I think that has been unreported with respect to October 12. I'd like to know what structure you have in place to do that and to make sure that there is no duplication of those costs.

I must say that we have seen a significant increase in the utilization of government airplanes by ministers and less and less for ambulance services. In light of the fact that there has been increased public attention appropriately focused on this matter, I'm wondering if the minister could tell the House what changes he intends to make with respect to his travel habits, and also what steps he intends to take to prevent duplication and to ensure that if a plane is going up he is not the only one flying. It has often been the case in the past that we have had one person going up in a plane to drop off the minister in his hometown of Kamloops.

HON. MR. SMITH: If my staff is listening, I would like them to, if they can, bring down my day-book and the relevant material from Kamloops, as well as the other material. I would be more than happy to lay it out, chapter and verse. Generally speaking, I can say that in the period of time to which the member refers, I undertook a broad-base process of consultation with people in terms of the justice reform implementation. I thought it was important to do that and to be able to implement the Justice Reform Committee's report in a timely way. Quite frankly, because that was done, we've had a successful implementation.

I know when I've talked to Attorney-General Scott in Ontario, who's trying to do a similar process, he has on a number of occasions made note of the fact that the process we have here has worked much better than the one they have, in terms of the implementation of those issues.

I'm not, as tempted as I am, going to bite. The member made, in tone, some derisive comment about my spouse's location of employment and made note of that in terms of work that is performed by that firm - of which she, by the way, is an employee, not a partner. She has absolutely no interest in any management decisions and has not had since the fall of 1983. Quite frankly, I think that to make those kinds of comments is sexist -to draw that sort of thing up in this kind of atmosphere, in the year 1990. I don't think you can characterize it in any other way.

The point was made about a $150,000 amount that goes to that firm for legal services. It is a contract. It was an open bid. It is, in the main, for provision of services to children under the family law portion of our civil side. The equivalent hourly wage rate is $45.

We have a number of those contracts around the province, and I thank God that we can find people who are prepared to give that service for that low hourly wage and rate and fee. Some of those problems are incredibly difficult, intractable issues dealing with the apprehension of young people in enormously difficult circumstances. Sometimes they involve cross-cultural issues. Quite honestly, the taxpayer is more than well served.

Because he was trying to leave the impression, I suppose, of some special condition, he failed to note that $208,000 went to a firm called Morelli Chertkow, where one of the partners is the president of the Kamloops NDP. The inference that was left is not worthy of pursuing, because it is factually incorrect and in very poor taste, not to overstate it.

The member asked why we don't have a part-time chairman of the expropriation commission. The reason is that as far back as 1971 the Law Reform Commission in this province, and in succeeding reports, has made it very clear that it thinks there is an important benefit and purpose in having a fulltime, tenured individual. That is what we in this House — and I think all members on all sides of the House — voted for in 1987 when that legislation was passed.

The member also raised the question of that chairman's political background in a derisive way relative to both what he's paid and what he does. I want to say that I don't judge people by their political background, by their religion, by their national origin or by their gender; I judge them by their performance. I hope that some day — and this is one of the reasons I'm in public office — we'll live in a society where that will be the norm. I think we could start in this House to judge people by their performance;

[ Page 10730 ]

judge people by what they do; judge people by how they conduct themselves in the office they serve. Don't colour them in advance because of what they did in a former place of employment, and please don't judge them by their political stripe or views or by their religion, national origin or gender, judge them by their performance.

I think that's the way we should judge Jack Heinrich, the chairman of our Expropriation Compensation Board. I think if we measure him by his performance, the measure will be positive. I think if we measure him by the quality of the work that he does, it will be positive. If we measure him by the undertakings that he has provided in terms of developing a body of law of expropriation, that measurement will be positive as well.

Relative to the question the member had on the family law enforcement program, I'm concerned. I'd asked people to send me their complaints. The member said he sent them directly to the program, and that he sent 38 of them. I had asked the program to provide me with what they received. The program tells me they've only received seven formal ones and one phone call. I'd like to get from the member the complaints he has, because I'm concerned that the program has not got a record of the 38 complaints that he says he has sent to them. It's really important to us to get those complaints and deal with them, because it's the only way we can improve the program.

The member asked me questions about the dispatch of aircraft. It is dispatched by the central dispatcher, not by each office, and that is what we rely on. I and the Minister of Forests and others from the interior frequently fly on the same plane. Indeed, my or his assistant in Kamloops frequently picks us up and delivers us to our offices in the same vehicle, so we don't have duplication at the other end.

I think it was February or some such date to which you....

MR. SIHOTA: October 12.

HON. MR. SMITH: Anyway, there's one that is being referred to in the media. I trust it's the same one we're talking about.

MR. SIHOTA: No, it's not. I told you that.

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, if it's October 12, then perhaps my staff can, as they're bringing this in.... I'm going to lay out for you precisely what I do at the other end, because I think it's a very good question whether those trips are simply to go home or whether there is actual work done at the other end. I'm delighted to be able to answer the question, because goodness alone knows there is work done at the other end. I am going to be happy to lay out in considerable detail what takes place in terms of government work.

One was raised — I can't remember the date now; I think it was February 2 or something, 1990 or 1989 — which referred to planes going at two different times. The Minister of Forests is going to be very pleased to discuss in his estimates the purpose of the trip he took early in the morning; and when my day timer comes down, I will be getting the details for you about what I did in the afternoon of that particular Friday, Saturday and Sunday — I work every Saturday and most Sundays, in fact.

The reason I wasn't able to be on the 8:30 aircraft was that unfortunately I agreed to appear on a television program in Victoria, hosted by a chap by the name of Jim Hume, with Vaughn Palmer. I won't make that error again, but that is why I was in Victoria. Following that, I had meetings here in Victoria. I say I won't make that error again, because both of those individuals have decided that rather than tell the facts, they will just put out the sleaze. I guess that's the price you pay in this business.

[11:45]

As I'm waiting for my office to bring me the details from those day-timers, I should say that just before July 1, whatever last Thursday or Friday was....

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, I don't want to table it, member; I want to explain it, because I think it's important it be done, so that you don't get confused by any of it or it doesn't in any way get taken out of context. I'm going to welcome the explanation of it.

In the meantime, I want to give you a flavour of what happens, because I think this past July 1 is a good example. Here in Victoria, I should point out, there was severe criticism in the paper that the local MLAs did not bother to show up at various events of an official nature that were going on. I suppose that criticism in the paper was exacerbated to some extent because Victoria itself does not have a government member that they can call upon to be at some official functions. But they were concerned about that.

Around the province, there are a number of similar kinds of things that go on on July 1. In addition to that, what I did this past Saturday....

Can you jump up?

HON. MR. DIRKS. Mr. Chairman, I'm very interested to hear the Attorney-General continue, if he would, please.

HON. MR. SMITH: I want to lay it out because it's not atypical at all; it's pretty consistent with what happens. Early on Saturday morning I went to Vavenby, where we have had flooding in the past. The former president of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association — Bill Sedgwick, whom I went to school with — and his son were killed in one of the floods. It was a terrible tragedy. I was invited, on behalf of the minister and government, to go up and take a look at some issues there relative to rehabilitation of the road and some other things that could be done, and to look at what impact, if any, clear cuts had on the water levels, the highway, the roads and so on. I did

[ Page 10731 ]

that. We had a good meeting with the representative from the provincial emergency program.

Following that, I met in Clearwater with a parents' group from the high school and members of the school board, as well as representatives of the student body, to assist them with the development of their teen centre program, following which....

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) says: "What do you think the rest of us do?" I don't think the rest of you would do anything any different. The issue that I'm dealing with here is one that I think is important.

Following this, we had a meeting of the hospital society, at which we dealt with a number of matters pertaining to the extended-care facility in Clearwater. The rest was taken up with a twinning ceremony that I was asked to officiate. As well, I was involved in a provincewide program on behalf of the Crown to kick off the 1,000 Days of Sport program, which is going to be a significant benefit to the city of Victoria. In fact, there's $40 million from lottery money going into that program for the Commonwealth Games, as well as for the games in Abbotsford-Matsqui.

Those were the kinds of matters that were dealt with. Some of them relate to constituency matters that all of us do, and others are specific to government issues. In addition, I officiated with the members of the bench at the closing of the County Court of Yale, as I had done in Victoria. I met as well with representatives of the bar from the county — not only from the community but from elsewhere — who found it more convenient to meet with the minister there than to come to Victoria for the purpose of discussing the important changes taking place relative to the Provincial Court. Those were some of the matters that were undertaken.

Typically, about 40 percent of the time I use commercial aircraft. If you include going to Vancouver — I almost never use government aircraft to travel to Vancouver — it would be significantly higher; it would be about 60 percent of the time that I use commercial aircraft. But into the interior to do government business, it is sometimes much better, faster and important to use that other form of aircraft.

The other option, of course, is to come less frequently to the capital and spend more time there. I frankly don't think that's such a bad option, either. I think that there are some things we undertake — for instance, in Vancouver, where the bulk of the population is — which we should perhaps undertake more in the interior as well.

Those are some of the matters that the member asked questions about. I want to just close out by saying that I'm very concerned about the issue of the expropriation board. I do think that it's correct to have a tenured individual there. I think the tenured individual who is there is doing a good job. I think the individual is one who should not be judged by anything other than his performance. I don't think he should be judged on any other matter, particularly those prohibited by the human rights code of our province. I think that he should be judged by the work he does, and I think he does good work. If there are complaints from the member opposite about the work he does, then of course I would be delighted to hear anything specific. To critique someone on the basis of their political beliefs is inappropriate for this chamber. I think we should try to rise above it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before I recognize the member for Esquimalt-Port-Renfrew, I'd like to remind both sides that both sides have now had the same opportunity, and they've been irrelevant to vote 12. I would expect that we could do the business of the people much more efficiently and quickly if we would stick to vote 12.

MR. SIHOTA: Speaking of doing the business of the people, every member of the Legislature, including me, was involved in riding activities, in Canada Day celebrations and in all that kind of stuff in their respective communities. I'm sure that if you talked to the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno), the member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen), the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D’Arcy), the member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Barlee) or the member for Cariboo (Mr. Zirnhelt) from our side of the bench.... They're all up there doing stuff in their own ridings. That's not the point, Mr. Minister, and you know it. But for some reason you think you need to filibuster your own estimates and take 15 minutes to deal with the issue.

The simple point is: did you need to take a government jet on that occasion? Did you need to spend $1,000 for a taxi service to take you up there, or could you have got yourself a ticket on Air B.C. instead and flown up to Kamloops, saved the taxpayers all sorts of money and left that government jet available for ambulance service or something else? That's a simple question.

You said you would lay it out chapter and verse, and then somehow you took that to mean only February 2 and October 12. I will table your travel logs from August 1989 to March 1990, because I know the government has hidden them again somewhere in the back rooms where no one can get access to them anymore. I'll provide them to you. I would like you, just as the Leader of the Opposition did some time ago....

AN HON. MEMBER: You can't table in committee.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm sorry, I can't table in committee. I'll send it over to the minister so he's got it.

I would just like to encourage the minister to go through each one of these dates and tell us what events he was at and why it was necessary.... I'm not talking about just October 12 or February 2.

Interjection.

[ Page 10732 ]

MR. SIHOTA: Good. I understand that you're committing yourself to doing it for every day. Just lay out why you had to take the government jet up as opposed to commercial lines; that's the point. We don't have to listen to it all in the House. You can just table the information.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Just table it all in the House, because I'm sure that to go from August 1989 to March 1990 might be a bit too much to do. But we'd like that information, if you could be kind enough to provide us with it.

With respect to the family maintenance enforcement program, I don't know where you get your numbers. As soon as I get consent from those people, which I don't think is a problem, I'll forward the 38 letters I referred to to the family maintenance enforcement people. I'll provide that information to them, and they can check. I'm surprised that you catalogue it by complaint by MLA, but I guess there must be a reason for that.

Let me also say, as I said earlier, with respect to the Expropriation Compensation Board that if you want to appoint Mr. Heinrich to do it. That's your prerogative. You take the risks when you make that decision. If you want someone consistent — because consistency is an important factor in adjudicating on those matters — that's fine. But you don't need to pay the guy $94,000 a year when you can save a lot more money by just asking him to do it on an hourly basis. If he was doing a high volume of work, it might be a different position. But when he adjudicates three times in 1989-90 and three other matters are resolved otherwise, it seems to me that it might be better to say: "You can do all of these, but you can do them on an hourly basis until such time as it's worthwhile to have you on a full-time basis." In other words, $94,000 a year now for six cases is totally out of line with what one would expect.

Mr. Chairman, I notice it's 12 o'clock, so I will move that the committee rise, report progress and seek 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. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.