[ Page 12785 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Adoption Amendment Act, 1991 (Bill 11). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Jacobsen –– 12785

Ms. Smallwood –– 12785

Hon. Mr. Jacobsen –– 12785

Land Title Amendment Act, 1991 (Bill 2). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 12786

Mr. Sihota –– 12786

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 12787

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1991 (Bill 7). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 12787

Mr. Sihota –– 12787

Mr. Miller –– 12787

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 12788

Crown Counsel Act (Bill 10). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 12788

Mr. Clark –– 12788

Mr. Sihota –– 12789

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 12794

Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1991 (Bill 3). Committee stage.

(Hon. J. Jansen) –– 12794

Mr. Clark

Mr. G. Janssen

Mr. Miller

Hon. Mr. Fraser

Third reading

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Health estimates. (Hon. Mr. Strachan)

On vote 38: minister's office –– 12804

Ms. Smallwood

Hon. Mr. Parker

MONDAY, JUNE 17, 1991

The House met at 6:51 p.m.

Routine Proceedings

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call second reading of Bill 11, Mr. Speaker.

ADOPTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1991

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The Adoption Amendment Act, 1991, creates an active adoption reunion registry which will allow adult adoptees and birth parents to request searches for each other. Adult adoptees may also seek a birth sibling who may have been adopted elsewhere, and in cases where a birth sibling has died, the adoptee may seek other siblings.

I've received many letters from adoptees pleading for the opportunity to seek out their birth parents. Birth parents also write to say that they have never forgotten a child who they relinquished years ago. Many simply want to know that the child is alive and well. Many would like to see a reunion.

Safeguards to protect privacy have been provided in this legislation. An adoptee and birth relatives may register a veto prohibiting any attempt to search them out, except in medical emergencies. Further, no reunion will occur without the full consent of both parties involved. To further protect privacy, no searches will be conducted for birth fathers unless the file shows that they have acknowledged parentage.

Counselling will also be provided to those who wish it. Counsellors will assist with the emotional impact of a reunion, as well as helping to decide when, how and if a reunion should occur.

The current passive reunion registry will be retained to allow for those who wish a reunion to occur only when both parties register mutually. The passive registry will be expanded to include birth siblings, grandparents, aunts and uncles.

Fees will be charged for the registration and search services of the registry. No fee will be charged for counselling.

In addition to the active reunion registry, the Adoption Amendment Act provides for the superintendent of family and child service to delegate to social workers, giving them appropriate authority, to conduct inquiries under the act.

A further minor technical correction protects the identity of an adoptee during adoption court proceedings.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to first of all say that we will be supporting the bill, but it is unfortunate that it has taken so long. As far as this side of the House is concerned, on two separate occasions — in both '87 and ‘89 — when we had legislation before us with two previous Social Services ministers, the previous critic for Social Services raised our concern about the need for an active registry. Repeatedly, through the two previous ministers, your government argued against an active registry. What we have seen on two different occasions is this bill slowly moving in this direction. For a number of both adoptees and birth parents this has caused a great deal of personal pain and suffering. While I say we support this bill, we would have hoped that it would have come a lot sooner.

I'd like to raise a couple of concerns about the administration of this legislation, in the hope that the minister can provide the information when we get to the clause-by-clause reading.

It's our hope that the government has, through this active registry, not put in place a bureaucracy that will inhibit reunification. What I would compare my concerns to is the legislation governing the family maintenance program that sees now something like an 8,000-person waiting-list with two and a half years before a maintenance order is enforced because of the system that your government has set up. I'd like some comfort, Mr. Minister, that this bill does not do the same thing for adoptees and birth parents wanting reunification.

In addition to that, I want to state at this time that the New Democratic Party supports both an active registry and an open registry, in that we are confident that adoptees and birth parents are capable of that reunification process, given the support and information needed to further the process.

Finally I'd like to make a comment that, in addition to assuring a speedy reunification and the kind of support necessary through this program, there should be some consideration given to helping the adoptees and birth parents in reunification. There is a recognition, I believe, both in the community and from the New Democrats, that there should be some supportive counselling in place to help the two groups in a positive experience.

With that, I'll take my place and look forward to the opportunity to hear the answers from the minister.

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

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I'm pleased that the members opposite will be supporting the bill. I think it's good and appropriate legislation that will meet the needs of many British Columbians dealing with a problem that many of us can only speculate what it feels like to have but that is very real for a good many people. I'm very pleased to be bringing this bill forward.

When we get to the section-by-section debate on the bill we'll discuss the question of the active registry as opposed to an open registry and the reasons that we have for going the way that we are. We recognize that there will be a substantial demand, particularly at the outset, for the services that will be provided under this legislation, and we will be preparing for that.

Finally, I would just quickly comment that assistance is provided for in the bill for people seeking reunion through counselling with one another. There's certainly provision for that. That, as I said in my opening remarks, is a service that will not be charged for but will be provided to the parties.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

[ Page 12786 ]

Bill 11, Adoption Amendment Act, 1991, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 2, the Land Title Amendment Act, 1991, printed in the name of the hon. Attorney-General.

LAND TITLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1991

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to second reading of the bill, may I say that the legislation was designed to extend the Land Title Amendment Act of 1990 to cover general conveyancing documents. As members will recall, the 1990 amendment act provided for one-page land transfer and mortgage documents, which came into effect on April 1, 1990. The objective of that bill was to make conveyancing documents short, legally effective and understandable. The idea was to eliminate the use of traditional documents that were all too often unnecessarily lengthy and verbose. By emphasizing plain language and standardizing the form of such documents, the 1990 reforms clearly made the land title system more accessible and more understandable to those who use it.

[7:00]

Those reforms of 1990 focused on two types of conveyancing documents: freehold transfer and mortgage. The forms contemplated by this bill are, directly related to other types of conveyancing documents, such as lease, easement, right to purchase and restrictive covenant. In effect, the bill will standardize the form and preparation of these kinds of general conveyancing documents and, in some cases, supply the legal validity necessary to make the document legally effective.

The bill provides for a compulsory one-page conveyancing document, with flexibility to add another page where necessary, in order to deal with the fine print normally associated with leases, agreements for sale and similar documents.

The bill encourages the one-time filing of frequently used contractual terms in the land title office. Once filed, they may be incorporated into a conveyancing document by reference. This will help to reduce the volume of paper associated with documents of this kind and simplify the preparation of them.

The bill also refines some of the language of the 1990 reforms that came into force last April. The refinements are based on recommendations from the legal and business communities, and are designed to perfect and clarify the objectives of these reforms.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the bill completes the legislative framework that is necessary to support the application of new technologies in the land title office. This, coupled with the standardization and plain language elements of the reforms, will produce a significantly better conveyancing system for the province and its citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. SIHOTA: I wish to speak on this bill for just a few minutes. First of all, let me say that the bill is welcome and that it will be supported by this side of the House. After all, the bill seeks to make the system far more simple and far more effective.

I, of course, haven't been practising at all for the last two years and therefore have not done any conveyances myself. But certainly, talking to the individuals in my office, and particularly to the staff, they like the fact that we've gone to a simpler system than has been in the case in the past. However, I don't think the government should assume that, because we've gone to a simpler system in terms of the documents we actually file in the land title office under the provisions of that act, it somehow makes the whole conveyancing system that much more simple. In fact, the irony of all of this is that you end up actually signing far more forms than had been the case under the old system.

In matters of liability related to real estate transactions, what happens is that you have to sign all the documents that you used to sign before In other words, you still have to go into a law office and sign the big, thick mortgage, with all of its legal mumbo jumbo, which people used to complain about; you still have to sign that. It still has to be explained to you by the lawyer acting on your behalf. Once it's explained to you, then you sign it, together with all the other necessary conveyancing documents that you used to sign before, which really stated the terms of the deal.

On top all of the work you used to do before, you have to now file the new forms. They can only be signed, funnily enough, as I recollect, in black ink; so they even have to be in the right ink. But once you've signed all the old forms, you have to now sign all the new forms that have to be filed under the act. So what happens is that although it's a lot simpler in terms of the actual filing, and although there's a simpler form — one page — that the average person can read and understand — and to that extent the policy objective is met. On top of that, the volume of paper that goes to the land title office is significantly reduced, because you're down to one page. However, all of the documents that one has to sign are just as legally and technically complex as has always been the case. Therefore, in terms of actually arriving at a regime where people can totally understand what they sign, if the minister believes that objective has been achieved, I would say it hasn't been. If the objective has been to come up with a simpler process, it has been achieved. To some measure, if the purpose was for people to have one form that they can look up and find out exactly what they have signed, then again, to that extent it has been resolved.

As for the purpose of plain language, I don't think we've ever resolved it around these amendments in the Land Title Act and in real estate conveyancing. I don't think, quite frankly, that we will ever achieve that, the discipline being what it is and the nature of litigation in the real estate field being what it is. I think it's likely that the forms will get far more complicated as, for example, has the area of liability around real estate advice and the extent to which lawyers now have to make sure that clients understand that all of the "i's"

[ Page 12787 ]

and "t's" are either dotted or crossed, as the case may be.

There's not a lot wrong with this legislation, but it really hasn't achieved some of the purported objectives. It all gets, in a roundabout way, to a comment that some people make. They assume that, because the documents are going to be simpler and the process far more expeditious, their fees for legal conveyancing will go down. The fact of the matter is that it hasn't happened, and it won't happen, because you have to do all of the documentation you used to do before, plus more.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: I hear my colleague for Vancouver East wondering whether or not fees would ever go down for anything. I think the minister should understand that....

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, it does my heart all sorts of discomfort to hear those comments from all sorts of members — including some of my own colleagues — about legal fees. Be that as it may....

AN HON. MEMBER: They only come second to ICBC rates.

MR. SIHOTA: That's another topic in terms of contingency fee arrangements, Mr. Speaker. We won't get into that, because it doesn't deal with this bill. I would have preferred to see the minister introduce legislation to do away with those restrictions on the market system that the former Attorney-General introduced.

In any event, with those comments I can assure the minister that this scintillating piece of legislation, which was only the second bill introduced by this administration under its new creative legislative package for this session — until we get to an election — will get speedy approval from us on this side of the House.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to hear the opposition being supportive of this legislation. Its intention is to make things easier for people to understand. While I'm aware of the fact that he didn't want to look totally supportive, I think the indication was that he was in favour of the legislation.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 2, Land Title Amendment Act, 1991, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1991

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, this bill contains amendments to 11 statutes covering a number of different programs. The amendments in this act are designed to clarify and improve the operation of various statutes.

I should outline briefly some of the more significant amendments. The bill amends the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act to bring the act into conformity with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, while still retaining an important enforcement measure. These amendments preserve the court's authority to imprison a person who is not paying support, despite his or her ability to do so, but also protect from imprisonment a person unable to make such payments.

The Forest Amendment Act, 1989, is amended to extend by two years the period deferring the replacement of tree-farm licences by July 1993. These amendments will allow sufficient time for the Forest Resources Commission to make recommendations to the minister respecting the suitability of tree-farm licences as a form of tenure.

Amendments to the Municipal Act will allow municipalities and regional districts to levy municipal taxes for the purpose of payment into special reserve funds established for specific municipal purposes. Municipalities and regional districts will be able to establish separate tax rates for such levies. These amendments will enhance the ability of local governments to plan in a financially responsible manner, by allowing them to budget for an allocated portion of current taxes for specific future expenditures and for working capital purposes.

The Personal Property Security Act is amended to clarify that debtor protection measures intended for individual consumers do not apply to corporations. These amendments will facilitate commercial activity by reassuring both lenders and borrowers that their transactions are not affected by these measures.

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

MR. SIHOTA: Of course, this is a miscellaneous statutes amendment act, so there really isn't a principle to speak to, Therefore, when we get into the legislation we will deal with the specifics. I just want the minister to understand that I understand the rules. Now that he's been comforted in that regard, let me just say that there are some issues that need to be addressed. The Personal Property Security Act amendments are good amendments, and I think they're long overdue. The Family Maintenance Enforcement Act amendments, in my mind, are not necessary for other reasons, because of the program. But again, I think that debate with respect to this bill is best left for committee stage. Having said that, I will conclude my comments, but will leave it open for others to comment further on the bill.

MR. MILLER: In terms of more detailed questions, we will pursue them at committee stage. But I would

[ Page 12788 ]

note that the amendments to the Forest Amendment Act seem to contain an issue that needs to be dealt with, and I will take this opportunity to point it out.

It was in 1987 that this government embarked on a particular program with respect to forestry, and announced a particular policy having to do with the allocation of tenures. It's a very important issue in terms of forest policy. Having encountered a great deal of difficulty in getting the public to accept that policy, the government then turned to the appointment of a commission and a great deal of study. I would simply point out that this act again defers for another two years one of the fundamental questions about tenure allocation of forest land. It would seem to me that it demonstrates a need for the government to move a little more quickly in coming down with a stable forest policy, so that those many decisions that need to be made — particularly the large capital investment decisions in forestry — can be made. I think that strikes at the principle somewhat, and we'll pursue it further in committee.

HON. MR. FRASER: I'm pleased to note the opposition supports the general intention of this bill, and I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 7, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1991, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call second reading of Bill 10, Mr. Speaker.

CROWN COUNSEL ACT

HON. MR. FRASER: This bill implements recommendations made by inquiry commissioner Stephen Owen as a result of his inquiry into prosecutorial discretion.

In his report on criminal prosecutions, commissioner Owen confirmed that the justice system is working well and operates with integrity, professionalism and public confidence. Nonetheless, he recommended that measures be taken to allay any perceptions of injustice, such as those which led to the inquiry in the first place.

Bill 10 is a result of those recommendations and is intended to promote better public understanding of the criminal justice system, to ensure the independence of the prosecutorial system and to promote public confidence in the system.

[7:15]

In brief, this bill gives to the Assistant Deputy Attorney-General of the criminal justice branch the criminal law powers necessary to operate the prosecutorial system; establishes the scope of the criminal justice branch of the Ministry of Attorney-General and confirms its independence with respect to all prosecutions; sets out the responsibilities of the Assistant Deputy Attorney-General and Crown counsel; confirms that the Crown has the discretion to choose whether or not to prosecute an offence; empowers the Attorney-General to establish a process so that a decision not to prosecute may be appealed by the police; requires that directions regarding a particular prosecution given by the Attorney-General or Deputy Attorney-General must be made in public in writing; and authorizes the Assistant Deputy Attorney-General to appoint a special prosecutor where it is in the public interest to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I commend this bill to the House and move the bill be read a second time now.

MR. CLARK: To begin debate, I think this bill is a positive step forward in terms of legislation in this House when it comes to the criminal justice system. I can't help but say that it is, in my view, a victory for Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. It is in fact a victory — and I think a personal victory — for the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. It is because of his actions and tenaciousness, and because of his private prosecution that we had the Owen inquiry, and it is the Owen inquiry that this bill responds to. I think it is a very positive step.

When we are dealing with members of this House or members of the executive council who are under investigation for whatever actions, it is absolutely essential that the public perceive that the treatment of members of this House is not any different than the treatment accorded an average citizen of British Columbia. That was not always the case. There have been suspicions and concern from members of the public. As Mr. Owen pointed out, those have to be dealt with. This bill, as I see it, is a very positive step in terms of dealing with the genuine concern the public has that not only are politicians treated equally, but are seen to be treated equally before the law.

I would say, however, that it is clear from reading the Owen report and the bill — not being a lawyer — that there are areas the minister and the ministry chose not to include in the bill. For example, in the Owen report it is recommended that a special prosecutor always be appointed when a member of the House is under investigation. I note the bill says "may" appoint a special prosecutor when it comes to members of this House — with the advice of the Assistant Deputy Attorney-General. I appreciate we can do this in committee stage. That discretion is not necessarily wrong, but in terms of trying to deal with public perception of the justice system and the spirit of the Owen report, I would have preferred to have that discretion removed and the Owen report adopted completely. That still gives some cause for concern in the public's mind.

I don't want to question anybody who works in the Attorney-General's ministry; clearly Mr. Owen looked at all those questions and said that the real concern is perception. This bill deals with that perception, but it does leave that escape hatch in terms of discretionary judgment on the part of the Assistant Deputy Attorney-General for criminal justice. That could have been cleared up, and I'll be very interested to hear the

[ Page 12789 ]

minister's comments when it comes to that question in committee stage.

To sum up, I see this as a positive step; it is something for which the opposition can take full credit — particularly the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew — and it could be even a little stronger and fully implement the findings of the Owen report.

MR. SIHOTA: This is landmark legislation, and it fundamentally changes the way in which the office of the Attorney-General operates. It's legislation that really is worthy of significant comment and, I would hope, significant debate. I'm going to make one comment in passing, and I want to get to a point I really wanted to make at the outset. In passing let me just say that it's unfortunate that the House is as empty as it is tonight; there are other events going on, and I know hon. members are there. Unfortunately there are very few people here to speak on it. It's unfortunate that no one else on the government side actually got up to speak on it, because it's fundamental legislation. It's landmark legislation; it significantly changes the way in which the ministry operates. Now I want to dwell on that for a moment.

Before I do, I want to put on the record that this House should be unanimous — and I'm sure it is — in its applause to Stephen Owen for the work that he did during the course of his discretion-to-prosecute inquiry. He did an excellent job on a very tough issue, and the public in this province is going to be well served in the future as a consequence of the hard work Stephen Owen did around this material. This was not an easy issue for Mr. Owen to deal with. Lord knows there was enough politics around the issue that had to be factored out, and I may come back to that a little bit later on.

More importantly, when he was having his commission of inquiry, Mr. Owen was acting as a non-lawyer. That's not his background — a lawyer. He was examining for the first time in this province — to my knowledge — an area of endeavour that has been historically the purview of lawyers. It is true to some extent that lawyers have their own way of dealing with things and that Attorneys-General, be they Social Credit or NDP — the one that we've had in British Columbia — have had their own way of dealing with the sensitive charges that often come before an Attorney-General and the struggle that must obviously go on in the mind of an Attorney-General as to how to deal with a sensitive case, particularly when it involves a cabinet colleague, a senior public official or an administrator. Needless to say, the legal profession has its own way of dealing with issues, and there's been a history in the way the handling of these types of cases has evolved traditionally in British parliamentary terms — the terms of the office of the Attorney-General. Sometimes you don't like to see a change; you're comfortable with the way things operate. You can always argue that things have worked reasonably well in the way that they operate, and therefore there's a lot of reluctance to change, I would dare say that if a lawyer — and I don't mean to denigrate the very profession that I am also a member of — was looking into this matter and involved in having to make some decisions around discretion to prosecute, there would be a willingness — as there would be in my mind, to be honest with you, because there's a bias that you pick up when you go through that training.... There would be a bias towards preserving the status quo. I think it's absolutely essential, therefore, when you're looking at the status quo.... In cases like this it makes sense for someone who isn't captured by those biases, who isn't a part of that training, to take a look at it from the outside and give it a fresh review.

What we got from Mr. Owen was not just a fresh review. We got a thorough review from Mr. Owen around the way in which things used to be done in this province. We got out of that some excellent recommendations on that very sensitive issue that I spoke about a few minutes ago. That issue, if I can put it in more concrete terms, is the issue of not only making sure that justice is done, but ensuring that justice is seen to be done — how it is that one avoids, as was indeed the case in the triggering event that caused the chain of events that started last March 19 and worked its way through the summer.... You make sure that the public has an understanding of on what basis certain decisions not to prosecute were made.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Historically in our system, in Britain, there's been a particular way of dealing with these kinds of issues. The attitude in that jurisdiction has been that there is a director of public prosecution, an individual who is totally separate and distinct from government. The view is that an Attorney-General should play one role and the director of public prosecutions, as an independent official, should play another role. The Attorney-General, being the chief legal adviser to cabinet, ought to advise cabinet as to legal matters that come up around the cabinet table, in a role, if I can use this as an example — as I see the Premier's in the room — perhaps not that much different than the role she engaged Mr. Williams for in terms of seeking his advice on certain constitutional matters, if I can put it that way. In the British model the objective has been to have the Attorney-General be the chief legal adviser to government, to cabinet. You have someone within cabinet who gives you advice on the nature of certain legislation, the propriety of certain actions, the constitutionality of other matters. That's the role that the Attorney-General plays. It is legal advice and also quasi-political advice, because there are political considerations that may come into play around the cabinet table. But the matter of prosecution, criminal charges, under that model is left to an independent person who has nothing to do with cabinet, namely a director of public prosecutions, an individual directly accountable to parliament and not accountable through cabinet.

That's one model. When Mr. Owen had to take a look at this entire affair, he had to decide in his own mind whether or not that model should be embraced and accepted in British Columbia.

There are other models that other jurisdictions have looked at. This may come as a surprise to some, but

[ Page 12790 ]

there is a mode of thought in our British parliamentary system that actually goes to the point of arguing that the Attorney-General should not be a member of cabinet. That's another model: to keep the Attorney-General totally outside cabinet so that those political decisions that cabinet has to make are made in the political context. If there are any concerns about the legality of certain actions, then what you do is what the Premier did with Mr. Williams: you hire somebody else to come in and give advice to cabinet, and they're retained by cabinet as the client. Under that model the Attorney-General sits outside cabinet. That's the second model.

As a third model, we've chosen a variant of those two. We have said that traditionally in the British parliamentary system the Attorney-General is to be a member of cabinet because, after all, a politician wants to be in the thick of the political decisions that are being made in cabinet, and that is valued as an opinion. Secondly, the Attorney-General plays the role of separating himself or herself from those cabinet decisions when it comes to prosecution by not informing cabinet of prosecutions or sensitive cases. In other words, that is kept within the Attorney — General's mind.

Different Attorneys-General in British Columbia have played that role in different ways. The former former Attorney-General of British Columbia, if I can put it that way — the former member from Oak Bay — had a different approach about these kinds of things. In a very famous speech, which I would encourage the current Attorney-General to read, delivered to the University of Victoria.... I don't have it here with me, but if memory serves me right, I believe it was in May 1979. I could be wrong about that. No, sorry, it was 1984. In a very famous speech that he gave, he talked about his role as the Attorney-General and the way in which he dealt with these types of sensitive cases. As I understood it from that lecture, it was his view that he made the decision to prosecute or not to prosecute, that those came to his desk, and the buck stopped at his desk. He made those decisions and was of the view that he was accountable in this Legislature for those decisions. If a decision was made not to prosecute, he and only he would be the person who would ultimately make the decision. He and only he would be accountable for that decision. He would not apprise cabinet of what was going on, because he felt that that impeded the traditional role of the Attorney-General in British parliamentary terms.

[7:30]

From my way of thinking, that was a valid, way to operate the Ministry of Attorney-General. However, in the course of events in this province, there were a number of incidents which got one to rethink that position. Let me just quickly sketch those out. I don't want to take this time to kick the government or some of its members around the room, because that's not really the purpose here. I'll try to put this legislation into historical context because it needs to have extensive comment; it ought not to be like the other two pieces of legislation that we have managed to move through this House relatively quickly tonight.

Two incidents that came to light are very important. One was during the tenure of the former member from Oak Bay and is the most important one in my mind. An event came to his attention which related to an acquaintance or a friend, if I can put it that way, of the then Premier, which was followed by a phone call from the then Premier to the then Attorney-General about an investigation relating to that colleague of the former Premier. The former Attorney-General — the former member from Oak Bay — was offended that the Premier would inquire about an investigation concerning a friend. He considered it most inappropriate for that to occur and, quite frankly, he was right in advocating that position. If you reflect back on the models that I've just laid out and the approach that he took — which at the time was correct; in fact, many would still say that it is correct today, in terms of the approach — the position he took was wholly in keeping with the kind of approach he brought to the office of Attorney-General. At that point he advised the House — as he should have, because as he said himself in that famous speech at the University of Victoria, the buck stopped at him, and he was accountable to the Legislature for decisions about prosecution.... He correctly took it upon himself to advise the House that there was interference — if I can put it that way — by the former Premier in a matter involving Mr. Toigo. He took it upon himself to say that because of his concern about the way in which the then Premier handled that issue, he was prepared to offer his resignation as Attorney-General, because he was not comfortable with that type of interference. He was applauded for being forthright and for bringing his concern to the House. In my mind, he is still applauded today for the way in which he handled that issue and tendered his resignation. In my view, it was in keeping with the traditions of that portfolio as it had been developed in British Columbia since the time of Mr. Bonner, if I can put it that way.

Let me go on from there and relate to the House the second incident, which dealt with another Attorney-General. Again, I don't intend to make these points on a personal basis. I think that it's important to put the legislation that's before us and the events that faced Mr. Owen into their proper context, so that we understand why certain events occurred.

On September 20, 1989 — if my memory serves me right — there was a report in the Vancouver Sun concerning the former Minister of Tourism. As a consequence, Mr. Marson undertook an investigation, and as a consequence of that, there was a further inquiry and investigation by the RCMP. It became known to the public and to members of the Legislature that the RCMP had made certain recommendations in that case — a fact that was confirmed by the then Deputy Assistant Attorney-General responsible for criminal justice in British Columbia. But the public did not know the reasons for the RCMP's decision and did not know the basis on which a prosecution was not proceeded with. Of course, as we subsequently learned, that decision was ultimately made by the Deputy Attorney-General, Mr. Hughes.

Be that as it may, the fact is that there was a perception in the public mind that justice was not seen

[ Page 12791 ]

to be done with a cabinet minister who had given a quarter of a million dollars in lottery moneys to his friend and former campaign manager. The public thought — and I think correctly — that if it's not against the law to give a quarter of a million dollars to a friend and campaign manager, it should be. That was the view that the public took. They were surprised — as I was, to be honest with members in this House — that one could give a quarter of a million dollars to a friend and campaign manager and not face any criminal liability for that.

There was then a series of events that occurred after that information came out, and those events are well known and are well recorded in the discretion-to-prosecute inquiry conducted by Mr. Owen. So we don't have to belabour the point and go into all the details of what occurred subsequently. Suffice it to say that there was an effort on my part to lay a private information and proceed with a private prosecution against that member.

Again, the underlying theme throughout all this was the matter of whether or not justice was both done and seen to be done in the case in question.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I'm giving a very serious speech here. I would really hope that the Premier would listen, rather than heckle. I would encourage her to reflect on some of the comments being made. I want the Premier to understand this — if I can jump way ahead — and as my colleague from Vancouver East has already said: this is legislation which we will support. I think it's really important to understand how important this legislation is in the context of the role of the Attorney-General and the context of British parliamentary history in the Commonwealth, if I can put it that way.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Madam Premier, if you want to get into this debate, you get on your feet and get into this debate. It would be nice for once to hear from you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Through the chair, please.

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: Let me continue. The matter of private prosecution was central to that case. There was an action on my part, if I may say, with respect to private prosecution, and indeed, in that case there was a justice of the peace who actually ordered that to occur.

HON. MR. FRASER: They are never refused.

MR. SIHOTA: The Attorney-General says they're never refused. I would be happy to provide the Attorney-General with volumes of case law which show cases where they have been refused. You know that, Mr. Attorney-General, as well as I do.

The policy, which up until that time had never been refused — if I can quote the words of the Attorney-General — was a policy directive of the Ministry of Attorney-General, which stated that when a justice of the peace processed a charge, the policy of the ministry was that the ministry then moved in and conducted the prosecution. This bill converts that policy into law — appropriately, in my mind.

Why is it appropriate? It's appropriate because in this society we have had a particular way of doing things. We have said that if someone is charged with a criminal offence, and the criminal process is triggered, then the informant, be it a police officer or private citizen, should not have to bear the cost of criminal litigation. The cost of that ought to accrue to the state, because it is a function of the state to conduct criminal litigation. Otherwise we would have the same kind of situation that we have in civil litigation, where only those who can afford to take matters to court would. It would indeed be a sad state of affairs if affordability were the determining factor in deciding whether criminal prosecution should go. We've taken the view, as a society, that criminal prosecutions are conducted by the state, as opposed to civil prosecutions whose costs fall to the individual.

That was the policy then; this legislation now makes it law. If that policy had been acted upon then, I think we would have seen a significantly different course of events prevail in British Columbia, and the incident the Premier referred to in her heckling probably would never have happened, if that policy had been implemented, or indeed if this legislation had been in place.

Why is this legislation before us? It's before us because Mr. Owen had to deal with that very issue. One, he was faced with a situation where the public view was that justice was not seen to be done. The decisions about prosecution had been made privately in the back rooms of the Attorney-General's office. Two, there was a concern on the part of the ombudsman, who did not conduct his inquiry under that auspice but rather under the provisions of the Inquiry Act, that it was essential that, in cases involving private prosecutions, the principle I've talked about — a private citizen not having to bear the cost of litigation — ought to be embraced.

How did Mr. Owen deal with the first problem of Justice being seen to be done and taking the decisions out from the back room that were so much of a concern at that time and a change from the practice of the Attorney-General in British Columbia as it had been, as I argued earlier on, in Mr. Bonner's time?

One of the options before Mr. Owen was to go to the British model — the director of public prosecutions — which would entirely separate the prosecution discretion from the political role of the Attorney-General. I must confess to this House that at that time I was of the view that that was the way we should go, and that perhaps we had arrived at a time when it made sense to go to the British model, given what had transpired in the province and the public psychology of the day.

[ Page 12792 ]

Mr. Owen did not agree with the premise I held. However, to his credit, he was not prepared to embrace what everybody saw as the alternative, which was on the other end of the spectrum — namely, to keep the status quo. As I said earlier on during the course of my comments, it took someone who was not a part of the profession to actually find a third option — a different way of handling it — that wedded the traditional sense of what we see as the Attorney-General's role to the obvious problem that had arisen not just in the case involving some of the members in this House, but in cases that had come up countless times in other jurisdictions in the Commonwealth, where you deal with these types of sensitive cases.

Mr. Owen arrived at a rather unique position of the role of a special prosecutor. That role is embodied in this legislation, and that is great. I think it's appropriate that this legislation begin to reflect that role, because in some ways it provides some guidance to other jurisdictions that have had to struggle with this issue. Most notably, for example, Nova Scotia has had to deal with this issue, and in an indirect way, Ontario has in terms of the new legislation it introduced to deal with the matter of Crown counsel. The most direct application of this to another province would be in the Donald Marshall case in Nova Scotia.

Be that as it may, the important point here is that Mr. Owen actually arrived at a formula that captured what we had always enjoyed in British Columbia under the British parliamentary system — in other words, the ability of the Attorney-General to administer the affairs of criminal law in the province. But at the same time, it paid homage to the principle that justice must be seen to be done.

In his report, he made some recommendations. One was the creation of a special prosecutor. I certainly agree with the government's intention to put that in legislation here. He went further to argue that not only should there be a special prosecutor appointed in all cases involving cabinet ministers and senior government officials, he also said that if a decision is made not to prosecute because justice must be seen to be done, the report should be made public vis-à-vis the decision not to prosecute.

[7:45]

Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with those two points. First, the point about....

Now that I've got the attention of the House again, let me continue. I must comment on the two points.

He said in his report that in all cases where there is an investigation involving a cabinet minister or senior official, a special prosecutor must be appointed. As much as I can applaud the government for moving toward the establishment of a special prosecutor, I must say that it is disturbing to see that they have taken away the recommendation with respect to all cases. Mr. Owen had hoped in his recommendation that all cases involving cabinet ministers would be subject to a special prosecutor and then subsequently to the release of the report. This legislation waters down that recommendation and leaves it up to the discretion of the Assistant Deputy Attorney-General to decide when that should occur. It gives him the parameter of public interest to decide when that should be, That's unfortunate. The entirety of that recommendation should have been crystallized in law because Mr. Owen dealt with the fundamental issue of justice being done and being seen to be done. That was not followed through in its totality.

Mr. Owen also said in his report that in all cases where a decision not to prosecute an official has been made, the report must be made public. Again, the reason was that he felt the public should have the fullest confidence that the justice system looked at a particular case and made a decision. The public should know the basis for the decision so as to be assured that there were no politics involved.

Mr. Owen made those recommendations because he felt the public had to have the fullest confidence. He was right to demand that the report be made public, even though some may feel the sting of that recommendation. If I may say, I felt the sting of the recommendation, obviously, because he did a make a report public that was one opinion, held by Mr. McCrank, contrary to six others.... Be that as it may, there is a political purpose that I'm sure members opposite would agree can be served by their using that opinion for their public benefit. But it was a good recommendation on his part, even though I and another member in this House felt the sting of having other opinions from other lawyers made public.

But it was right; it was the correct recommendation on the part of Mr. Owen, because it gave the public the full benefit of the facts. It gave the public the full knowledge of the basis upon which a decision was made. Although some of that could be used by us or by the members opposite for a political reason, that may be the price you have to pay. The recommendation is right.

Given that the recommendation is correct and that the public should know, it is indeed disturbing to see that that recommendation is not embodied in this legislation. The government should have gone the full measure in accepting the recommendation that when any cabinet minister or senior official is investigated, there be a special prosecutor, and that if a decision is not made, then the public should have all the reasons why.

On the first branch — all being investigated — the government has watered that down somewhat to say, "where the public interest dictates." On the second branch — release and publication of the report — there is no mention of that in legislation at all. It hasn't just been watered down; it hasn't been dealt with in the legislation.

I subscribe to the view that it ought to be in the legislation, quite frankly. But I would hope that so long as this administration has a few days left in its term the policy would still stand, and if it's not in the legislation I would look to hear from the Attorney-General a commitment that though it may not be in the legislation for whatever reason, it will still remain policy, so that in those cases where a decision is made, under this legislation, to investigate and no decision is made to prosecute, what Mr. Owen recommended would still remain policy. I think it should be law, and I would be

[ Page 12793 ]

moved to say that were I ever in a position to speak to it from. the government side, I would argue that it ought to be law. But in the interim I would hope that that policy will prevail, because otherwise it is a failing of what Mr. Owen did: the good work that he did and the excellent recommendations that he came up with.

There are a number of other points that I want to inject into this debate. They are, in my mind, peripheral to the comments that I have made so far, but I think that again we would be best served if the comments were put on the table now so that the Attorney-General has notice of some of the issues that I'm going to be raising during committee debate on this matter.

The Attorney-General, during his introductory comments on this legislation, indicated that in the event that a decision not to prosecute is made, there is an appeal process for the police to argue that that decision was wrong. That recommendation comes not from Mr. Owen per se, but from the Hughes report on access to justice. That was also a good report; I agree with the Attorney-General in that regard. But it is sad to say that if you look at the legislation there's no appeal process. It says you do have the right to appeal, but then it says in a subsequent section that no appeal process is set up at this time. I would look to the Attorney-General to clarify that point during committee debate on this bill, because I think that the recommendation that Mr. Hughes made in his report should be embraced.

There were other recommendations that Mr. Owen made in his report that are not captured by this legislation. For example, recommendation No. 4 in his report indicated that in the event that a decision is made not to prosecute the offence that the police recommended and a lesser offence is accepted, or the entirety of it is rejected, then the reasons for rejection should be made available. That again is not captured in the legislation.

That is distinct from the point I talked about earlier; this is a distinct recommendation that those reasons should be made available to the police. Obviously it affects them in their ability to take advantage of the appeal mechanism that I just talked about a few minutes ago. In that regard I would again hope that although it's not reflected in legislation, the policy within the Ministry of Attorney-General remains. In my mind, that recommendation is a critical one in order to allow the police to have some comfort of knowing why a decision to appeal was rejected.

This is again a peripheral point, but an important one. Some who have interviewed me, at least, in the last few days on this bill, have come to the view that the laying of private charges is no longer possible in British Columbia. I think the public should understand, as I am sure the Attorney-General does, that it is still within the purview of any citizen in Canada or in British Columbia to lay a private information — to go before a justice of the peace and say that they believe a criminal offence has occurred.

That right, which is a right of every citizen — which, parenthetically, I also exercised — is not being denied by this bill. It's important to note that that right has its foundation not only in constitutional history in this province and in our Commonwealth, in that it goes right back to Magna Carta, but it is also embodied in the provisions of the Criminal Code. Because the province cannot amend the provisions of the Criminal Code — nor would it want to in this regard — that right survives. Any individual today can still go and lay a private information; they just can't prosecute it. For reasons I embellished earlier, that is indeed appropriate. It ought to be the policy of the Crown to do that.

I put those points to the members of the House. Quite frankly, I put them, as I said at the beginning, because it would be a pity to see this legislation just whoosh its way through the House without the kind of comment and applause it so aptly deserves. It is the product of some very good work on the part of Mr. Owen. It fails in a number of areas that I've already talked about. We'll deal with that in committee stage; maybe we'll even put forward some amendments. But as long as the report is there, I would hope that it's policy.

It does, as I said at the outset, represent a significant and radical departure from the way in which the ministry has operated in the past. There are some in this province who will bemoan that. I suspect to some degree people like Alec Macdonald and Brian Smith — both of whom I've had the privilege to work with — may in some ways not rejoice in the fact that all of the power that used to be vested in the Attorney-General.... Some of it is not there now, in the sense that there has been a delegation of authority to the Assistant Deputy Attorney-General in terms of public interest matters.

I think that if you look at it in the historical context I put forward earlier, you can understand why those people may feel that way. They may not, but I think they both understand — I know the former member for Oak Bay clearly understands, from my conversations with him — why we've gone to this approach.

Finally, let me say this: there is also a constitutional argument as to why this legislation may not even stand a constitutional challenge. You see, there is a maxim of constitutional law that says that one cannot redelegate delegated power. Under our constitution the Attorney-General has been delegated the power of administering criminal law in the province. That power has now, to some extent, been redelegated to an Assistant Deputy Attorney-General under the legislation.

I would hope that no one will take it upon themselves to question the constitutional validity of the legislation and succeed. It is certainly within anyone's right to take it to court, I guess, so there might be a technical constitutional question around the law. But I'm one who believes that in this case this law is good for the adjudication and development of the administration of criminal law. So in that regard, it's good stuff.

I for one have always argued — in a speech that I would be happy to give in this House one day — about the application of the Charter of Rights, and its role around criminal law and technical defences, because I don't believe in technical defences. One day this legislation may even provide someone with a highly technical defence and an out around a charge. I put

[ Page 12794 ]

that on the record, because it's a concern; but I would hope that we would not see that day.

There are a lot of important principles around the legislation; I've tried to speak to them. On the whole, I think I can arrive at a position where I can live with the legislation, but I would have hoped that the government would have gone a step further and implemented all of the recommendations of Mr. Owen.

HON. MR. FRASER: I'm glad to hear that the opposition will be supporting this very important legislation. I thank Mr. Owen for the work he did on his inquiry and also Mr. Hughes with respect to the work he did earlier. There's no question about the fact, however, that the legislation you now see before you, which is a combination of the work of the ministry officials and Mr. Owen, was unanimously supported by both Mr. Owen and ministry officials. It is considered to be the best position that we can advance with respect to the recommendations he initially made.

[8:00]

It was an interesting history lesson we heard, I regret in some ways that the member didn't think about reading the history before we got into such a great debate all those many months ago. There's no question about the fact that a great deal of pain was visited upon members of the House for reasons that may not be in doubt in some people's minds.

Certainly when it comes to things like police appeals, there is no question that they always had that opportunity to appeal if they wished. This makes it clear that they can appeal to the Deputy Attorney-General where they decide they wish to question the decision of the prosecutor with respect to not proceeding with a prosecution they thought was proper. There certainly is an accountability-independence stance that the Attorney-General and the ministry have to take.

In everything I've read about justice in Canada, and I am advised of this by almost everyone, the justice system in British Columbia is one of the best-run — if not the best-run — in the country, and it has always served the population of British Columbia well. Far from being a status quo ministry, the Ministry of Attorney-General in this province has always been in the forefront of change and advancement of the cause of  justice from almost the beginning. Certainly one model that we can take is the model we have in B.C. But from what I've seen, heard and learned in the time I've had the honour to serve the province in this capacity, I'm satisfied that the job is being done well.

I must say that I am astonished that the opposition would take credit for this. In fact, many things being done by legislation now were done as a matter of practice and policy. I find it really amazing that as a consequence of their actions, they take credit for this. Indeed, when we talk about standards of justice and one standard for all, it was known by members of the opposition that the Deputy Attorney-General made recommendations that they forgot about when they were doing the private prosecution route. But I guess we can hear more about that. I really would recommend to everyone in this House to whom I sent a copy of the Owen inquiry that they read it. Those who want to read it but don't have one may wish to go to a library to pick one out.

With that, Mr. Speaker, and with much more to come, I guess, if we wish, I will move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill 10, Crown Counsel 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. STRACHAN: Committee on Bill 3, Mr. Speaker.

BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1991

The House in committee on Bill 3; Mr. Vant in the chair,

Sections 1 to 8 inclusive approved.

On section 9.

MR. CLARK: This section deals with money coming from the vehicle-emission testing program forming part of the sustainable environment fund. I'm rather curious about this. In the course of this debate, I don't want to do the Ministry of Environment estimates debate, but I would like to ask the minister some questions about the program and the funding.

We haven't seen the details of the vehicle-emission testing program yet, but all indications are that it will be extremely expensive in terms of the capital facilities which will have to be built, the potential costs to the motorists and the equipment that will be purchased. Again I won't belabour, because it will be debated under the Ministry of Environment, but I'm curious about the government portion of fees being charged under the vehicle-emission testing program forming part of the sustainable environment fund. I wonder if that's the net revenue from the program after costs associated with the capital or any costs incurred by the Crown. There will be no revenue or profit from the vehicle-emission testing program to put in the environment fund — at least not for a long time — while we pay for the capital cost of the program.

HON. J. JANSEN: The purpose of this section of the act is to enable the transfer of fees. The fees are yet to be clarified by regulation. The reason they're going to the sustainable environment fund is so that the expenditures related to that program can be charged there. What we had anticipated early on in the program is a fee of around $15, which would be paid by every driver in the province. The proceeds of that $15 fee would be used to amortize the costs of the facilities, the ongoing administration costs and the ongoing government costs associated with that. The act is to enable that process to work and to take these expenditures out of that fund.

[ Page 12795 ]

MR. CLARK: As I said, I don't want to belabour it because we can have the debate in ministry estimates, but I'm curious about the capital costs of the program. It's going to be extremely capital-intensive and likely expensive. Of course, we don't know yet whether there will be private contractors paying for it and the whole range of.... I don't quite know, and I guess this isn't the forum, but I would like some assurance that this isn't.... Perhaps the minister could answer this question. Are there any capital costs incurred by the program that will be incurred by the sustainable environment fund, or at least the carrying costs of that capital, so that this is a net amount going into the environment fund rather than a way of inflating the environment fund by the fees associated with the testing program when the testing program will, for all intents and purposes, probably lose money over the short run?

HON. J. JANSEN: When the proposal went out for call to the various contractors, it was asked that the fee be structured as an all-inclusive fee which would include both the amortization of the capital facilities required, a number of testing stations throughout the lower mainland and the ongoing operational costs. So the money going into this account will be transferred back to the contractor for him to pick up the amortization of the costs — things structured over a three- or four-year program. I don't have the specifics, and you will have to ask the minister responsible when it is. But essentially it's a section 22 account — the money going in and the money coming out — so there are no capital charges to this fund. It will be transferred to the contractor for his costs associated, but no more than the $15 obviously.

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask a couple of questions. This is interesting and has been rather controversial in terms of rural property taxation. Just for the record, if you look at it from the 1920s to 1981, the rate was $1 per $1,000 of assessed value. Mr. Chairman, who is from the Cariboo, I'm sure is aware of this. Then it went to $1.20 in 1982 and $1.30 in 1985; then it's interesting that under this administration it went to $1.40 in 1986, $1.70 in 1988, $2.30 in 1989 and now $1.75 in 1991 as a result of this bill. Keep in mind that not only has the rate almost doubled under this administration, but this is at a time when property values are rising, so we have an increased assessed rate — a doubling of assessed rate — and an increase of assessed value.

I'm from Vancouver East, so I haven't had to deal with these, but I can imagine, Mr. Chairman, that you've experienced constituents — probably hundreds, maybe thousands in your constituency — who have noticed a dramatic increase in rural property taxes under this administration.

What I'm curious about is that this bill goes partway to rectifying some concerns that people have, and I appreciate that as the government moves into the time when they are required to call an election. This bill gives some relief, so I'm not here to oppose it. But what I'm really interested in is the logic behind the government's move. As I said through the Chairman to the minister, we have seen almost a doubling of rural property taxes in a very short time — in the last decade. Clearly, there is some thinking going on behind this and some thinking behind the relief. So I would be interested in the minister's rationalization for moving away from the trend of dramatic increases over the last few years to some tax relief in this year.

HON. J. JANSEN: The rate, as indicated by the member for Vancouver East, dropped this year from a mill rate of 2.3 to 1.75, and that was to deal with the very significant escalation in property values and assessment values and to keep our revenue constant. The only revenue increase we have for that particular area is the new construction, which is about 3 percent. So the mill rates were adjusted to deal with that.

What we're experiencing, though, is that to have a general rate in effect throughout the province is not very fair, because the Gulf Islands and some of the electoral areas on the lower mainland are seeing very significant assessment increases. We don't have any way to offset that particular assessment increase with the lowering of the mill rate except to do it provincewide. So the intention is that we would enable varying tax rates by area where there are significant assessment value increases.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Indeed property taxes have gone up. Being a rural property owner, I have seen that happen, Mr. Chairman, as you yourself probably have. We have seen that increase in 1989, where rural property taxes were virtually doubled overnight. In the eighties, when property values were declining, this government put taxes up, so as to recapture the.... The federal government at the time was attempting to reduce taxation, attempting to control the inflation rate. This government was adding to the inflation rate by increased taxes. They almost doubled it in a one-year period from 1988 to '89 and now are attempting to reduce it to almost half of what it was, but it's still double what it was in 1981.

The minister states that there will be varying rates throughout the province, if I understand him right. What criteria are going to be used to establish which areas of the province will see increases, which areas will remain the same and which will see reductions? Are we doing it geographically? Are we doing it on an assessed basis? How will the government propose to have different rates in different parts of the province?

[8:15]

HON. J. JANSEN: The intention is to keep it revenue-neutral. You can do that by school district or by electoral district; there are a number of different choices. Presumably the school district option is the one that would make the most sense.

The member talks about the increase in property taxes in rural areas. Well, if you had any property tax

[ Page 12796 ]

bills from the organized areas, you would see a pretty rapid rise in rates in those areas as well. But I should put it on record that our rural taxes pay less than half of the costs associated with the services that they get. So if you put that on the municipal.... The cost is about $100 million, and the revenue that we get is in the order of $40 million to $50 million. There is quite a significant spread still.

The intention of this is to deal with those sharply fluctuating assessed values. They happen, as I said earlier, in the Gulf Islands and some parts of the lower mainland. I don't know about your particular area, whether the assessed values have risen that dramatically; I suspect not, not as much as the areas here. That's the intention: so that we can adjust the mill rate to reflect that higher assessment value and keep the revenue neutral.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Just to clarify the first point, Mr. Chairman, is it the intention of government, where assessments rise more rapidly — that is to say, the true value of the property and the improvements has gone up — to reduce the taxation there; and for those who, like me, have chosen to live in a less desirable area, where the property values don't increase as rapidly, to increase the taxation there? Those who live in an area where they are going to realize a large return on the sale of their property are going to pay a lower tax rate than those that would not in fact capture that large revenue on the sale of the home — is that the intention of the ministry?

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Chairman, the intention would be that if the government's revenue requirements were going to be $40 million, for argument's sake, we would establish a mill rate to ensure that that particular revenue requirement would be equally maintained, or assessed, throughout the province. For an area where there's a lower mill rate, it would be averaged in terms of the areas of the higher mill rate, so that we keep the impact and the burden on the taxpayers constant. The way we have it now, there is a disproportionate burden placed on those areas where there is very rapid assessment growth.

MR. G. JANSSEN: So in fact the taxation would no longer be on the assessed value of the home or the property. If I understand the minister correctly, what he has just said is that in areas where there are high assessment increases, we would try to keep the taxation rate down; where there are low assessment increases, taxes would increase more dramatically. It sounds grossly unfair, and it sounds like we should actually just get rid of the Assessment Authority and impose a flat tax. That would make it fair to everybody, regardless of income, of the ability to own a home or of a person's option to move into an expensive property or to choose to live in a more modest environment.

Why have the Assessment Authority putting a value on the home? If I understand the minister correctly, he has just said that the assessment will not have any bearing, or it will have less bearing, on the taxation rate that the government sets.

HON. J. JANSEN: That's an interesting comment. The member for Port Alberni is saying that we should just allow the process to work and that the areas of the Gulf Islands and Sproat Lake in his own constituency should just pay the bill and not worry about the high assessment values in Vancouver. If you recall, the city of Vancouver was here several times asking that we limit the tax increase to those properties, because they were caught in the spiral of assessment values. Now you're saying: "It doesn't matter, just let the process work. If those people in the Gulf Islands can't afford it, then they should move off their properties."

We're trying to establish a little more fairness in the system. If you have an objection to fairness, then maybe you should stand up and say so. We're trying to even the burden of taxation by staying relatively neutral in terms of our revenue demands. In areas where there is a disproportionate increase in assessed value, we adjust it to compensate for that.

MR. CLARK: I'm just kind of curious. It appears to me that it could be cumbersome and difficult. I don't have any problem with the theory behind dealing with the vagaries in the market. It seems to me that it potentially puts you in the difficult position of dealing with that every year by, say, a school district or whatever you like.

I'd be interested in the minister's notion of proportionate treatment. Let me put it this way: let's say, on average, that rural property taxes cover 50 percent of the cost of service that the provincial government has to pay. Is it that sort of ratio, 50 percent of cost of service, that will determine the mill rate in each of the regions, so that they're all paying relatively the same percentage of the cost of service? Is that what the minister means?

HON. J. JANSEN: No, Mr. Chairman. We don't have the ability to capture each area, each school district, by expenditures. There's no methodology outlined here in terms of how we would deal with some of these inequities, but this legislation enables you at least to address it. If you were to say — and I'm just using this as an example — you wanted a 3 percent lift in revenues to pay for the additional RCMP in total across the province, you may have to adjust the mill rate down to raise 3 percent in the Gulf Islands and Sproat Lake and not touch some of the assessed values in other areas. So you try to get a 3 percent lift out of everybody by adjusting the assessed value; essentially that's what's happening.

MR. MILLER: It's not really my field, but the relationship intrigues me. I know we had a lot of debates when you brought in the ability for a council to set different rates for different classes of property. If I'm not off the mark in terms of that here, what you ended up having is a debate essentially about how much you're going to charge each particular class of property. Although there are many classes of property, the primary ones are residential, commercial and industrial. That can make for some pretty lively debates at a council meeting where everybody is pleading their

[ Page 12797 ]

case and saying: "No, lower it for us; raise it for this other group, " etc.

I'm assuming from reading the clause that this applies; I'm not too certain. Perhaps the minister could enlighten me in terms of the taxation of industry in non-municipal areas. It's probably fairly rare, but no doubt some situations do exist. Are industrial enterprises charged a flat rate? Do they come under this section of the bill, and do you then get into the discussion internally in the government about essentially how much you're going to tax or at what rate you are going to tax the various classes of property?

HON. J. JANSEN: I'm sorry, I'm trying to understand the question. If the question is whether we have a different mill rate for industrial class, yes, we do. It's about twice the residential rate. It is a mill rate. It is charged and would be fixed. So if that's the question, the answer is yes.

MR. MILLER: So there's a fixed mill rate on industrial property. When clause (2)(b) talks about the relationship between tax rates, is it dealing with the relationship in an area, or is that part of the larger relationship as set out in the explanation?

HON. J. JANSEN: The relationship between tax rates is what we're talking about. You could have the Gulf Islands, for example, being half the rate of the lower mainland or half the rate of the Cariboo. That's what we're talking about in terms of relationships between rates.

MR. MILLER: Just to be certain, then, that clause doesn't relate to the relationship — let's say we call it a region, for the sake of this discussion — internally in the region but rather the relationship of that region to other regions. Is that correct?

HON. J. JANSEN: That’s correct.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Just a quick question and some clarification from the minister. He mentioned that school districts or, as he said earlier in my questioning, electoral areas.... Which is it? Will electoral areas or school districts be used to determine the different tax rates throughout the province?

HON. J. JANSEN: That hasn't been decided; it would be established by regulation. I would think that school district areas would make more sense than electoral areas, but I don't know. It hasn't been studied.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I'd just like an assurance from the minister.... Obviously, whether the government opposite or another government is in power, it seems that electoral areas would not be the way to go, because you'd get into all kinds of arguments and issues about which electoral area. If the minister could give us an assurance that electoral areas will not in fact be used, we can move on to other sections.

HON. J. JANSEN: To establish an area, you have to make sure that the components of that area are fairly common. I would suspect that an electoral area would be too broad and would have too many variables in it to deal with this accurately. I can't tell you what the regulations will be; I can't tell you what cabinet is going to do. But obviously, as I said before, I would think electoral areas don't make much sense.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

MR. MILLER: This is risky business. I'm sure no other members of the House are going to stand and speak on this section, but I have to ask a couple of questions. I wonder if the Minister of Finance could advise the House whether or not the Premier has made representations to him about...

MS. MARZARI: Which Premier?

MR. MILLER: The current Premier.

... the onerous taxation rates that some people are complaining about.

HON. J. JANSEN: The Premier would always make representation about onerous tax issues, as do all of us. Every person is concerned about high taxation. I think that the member may want to take a survey among his own members, particularly the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey, who may have some strong feelings on this particular revenue measure. Sure, no one likes to pay taxes; that's understandable. This issue is causing a burden on a lot of people.

[8:30]

MR. MILLER: I have always held — perhaps it's not a wise philosophy — that if your vices are important to you, you should be prepared to pay for them. I suppose in a sense I wanted to make sure that the comments of the Premier the other day were simply not — or would not or could not be taken.... I think some people were taken in a number of years ago when there was a suggestion about cheaper beer prices which never came to pass as well.

I do have a serious question with respect to this. It just strikes me that at some point there's.... I don't know whether they call it the law of diminishing returns. At some point it would seem to me that you're going to get into a situation where in fact you induce criminal behaviour. I don't want to overplay that, but clearly if the price gets to a certain point, people are going to get into smuggling and the old black market. Have you talked to police authorities about that with respect to your taxation policies on these products? I would think that at some point, quite legitimately.... I think it was noted in an article in the Globe and Mail today. The contention of this article was that if you discount the tax increases on alcohol and tobacco in calculating the inflation rate, the inflation rate was something like 0.3 percent. These tax increases of some 43 percent over a relatively short period of time have

[ Page 12798 ]

surprisingly generated a significant amount of revenue to government.

Nonetheless, I think there's a legitimate question there. Do your Finance officials ever do that kind of consulting in terms of what might eventually be a negative consequence of continually milking these particular products — "sin taxes," as they're called?

HON. J. JANSEN: I guess there is a market curve much like we see in the sale of spirits. When the price gets too high, there is a weaker demand for the product. I suppose there is some activity of smuggling and cross-border traffic. That happens and may increase as a result of this.

But I was talking to somebody the other day and asked about the price of tobacco and a package of cigarettes. He said it was high, but it's still a good buy. If you want to pay that much money for that particular habit.... I know the member for Prince Rupert enjoys it, and now he can feel more enjoyment in his habit in that he contributes 34 cents to our budget every time he buys a package of cigarettes.

Interjection.

HON. J. JANSEN: The member for Langley over there says the same thing.

But I'm sure there is a curve. You see it very sharply in spirits in particular. You don't see it so much in cigarettes, but it's definitely there.

MR. MILLER: My colleague for Vancouver East talks about elasticity of demand. When I was younger I went to England just to see the world. At that time you could buy cigarettes in England in little packages of five. They were called Woodbines. Any old Englishman can talk to you about Woodbines. All we're going to see is a change in marketing, so I don't think these things will affect demand at all, Mr. Chairman. But you've satisfied me with your informed responses. I know the Premier is not campaigning and coming to your office and demanding that you lower the taxes on these products.

Section 11 approved.

On section 12.

MR. CLARK: I can't resist rising on this section of the bill, Mr. Chairman. This Section is the "notwithstanding clause." It says that notwithstanding the Taxpayer Protection Act, the provisions of this act will prevail. That means that we came into this House in March and saw a debate on a tax freeze. Do you remember that debate, Mr. Chairman? Just for the sake of interest, I looked at the debate, and the member for Burnaby-Willingdon, the former Finance minister, said:

"Taxpayers throughout Canada are complaining of the excessive burden of taxes. Increased taxes and new taxes...have pushed taxpayers' tolerance to the absolute limit. Our government intends to relieve the burden on taxpayers and give them the assurance that their taxes in British Columbia will not rise."

That's what the then Minister of Finance said on March 21, 1991. And here we have a bill which increases taxes just a few short months later.

I was looking through to see if the member for Burnaby-Willingdon was the only member of the executive council to speak. I saw that the Minister of Government Management Services spoke at length. There are pages of it here — saying the taxes are too high, and now we've decided to freeze taxes, and we're going into an election on this taxpayer protection plan. Then when you look through it, you see the member for Surrey–White Rock speak on it. Then you look a little further and there was the former Premier speaking on it. On and on they got up in the House and said: "Vote for us. We're going to freeze your taxes." Then we're sitting in the House three months later, and we have a bill that raises taxes. But instead of having the guts to come in and repeal this legislation that froze taxes, they brought in a little clause that says, "notwithstanding that tax freeze, we've decided to raise all these taxes."

It's very interesting to see, Mr. Chairman. It's not good public policy to see little clauses like this exempt this legislation from other pieces of legislation. Of course, that other legislation also has a debt-reduction plan, but then in the budget we saw a debt-reduction plan that increases debt. So at least we're consistent in our inconsistencies in this chamber.

But I couldn't let pass this section of the bill, which really makes a mockery of that session in March when we passed that taxpayer freeze. So maybe we could have the minister explain to the House why we have this section of the bill here. Rather than simply repealing the whole bill and being done with it, why do we have this notwithstanding clause in this piece of legislation?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, could I believe my ears? The NDP complaining about taxation and debt! If you put two loonies face to face like this and then multiply by $9.7 billion — the debt of Ontario, incidentally, the highest debt in the history of the land, the debt that will take our country into ruin unless it's repaired — they go from here to Ottawa and back twice. That's the kind of debt the NDP delivers.

This bill at least says that we're going to keep this government and province going; that we're going to make sure that the taxpayers, the children and our future are not burdened by a debt that will crush them — unlike the NDP in Ontario, who were helped by our friends across the way, according to their leader.

This will not happen here. This is a government that cares about tomorrow. It cares about today. Even though the NDP doesn't care about what the debt does, even though they promise to spend billions on buying their way into office.... It won't work. This bill is here to protect today and protect tomorrow. I thank the minister for being so thoughtful when it comes to this particular act.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I think there are some legitimate questions regarding finance bills.

[ Page 12799 ]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order!

MR. MILLER: I would draw your attention to....

MR. CHAIRMAN: On section 12.

MR. MILLER: That's right, section 12, which is an override if you like. It's an excuse not to follow the provisions of what was referred to as Bill 92, the Taxpayer Protection Act. I believe the purpose of this clause is a complete negation of what members of this government said in this House a very short while ago. I think it's important, because when Bill 92 was debated in this House, certain members on the government side had things to say about it. For example, the Minister of Government Management Services said that the policies of the government were going to carry the day. She said on page 11867: "It's going to be based on bills like Bill 92." The minister said at that time that this government was going to go to the people on the basis of Bill 92, yet the bill they're handing us, and which we're debating today, overrides Bill 92. I'm a bit puzzled and perplexed, as I'm sure members of the public are.

I quote further. The Minister of Government Management Services said, in the course of that debate on Bill 92: "I want to say that the public are tired of political rhetoric. They're tired and distrustful of governments at all levels...the public no longer feel that they can believe those people who should be most trustworthy in our society...they no longer believe politicians, because of the promises....

The Minister of Government Management Services put her finger on a very important issue, and that is that people don't trust politicians and political parties that make promises and don't carry them out. That's what we're faced with in section 12 of this bill. It is a denial of the promises made in the House in March of this year by this government. I assume that the current Minister of Finance supported that. I'm sure he voted with every bill that his government brought forth.

There are some critical questions raised, because the premise of Bill 92, as it was put to this House, was based on some principles that this government seemed to want to enunciate very clearly. Very clearly the Minister of Finance of the day said in the House: "As well, the act prevents the provincial government from introducing any new taxes whatsoever." The Minister of Finance of the day said that Bill 92 — and this is unequivocal, Mr. Chairman — would prevent the provincial government from bringing in any new taxes whatsoever. Clearly that was not the case. That bill did not prevent this government from bringing in tax increases.

I should also note that the Minister of Finance of the day also said: "Later next month, when I bring down this government's next budget" — unfortunately he never got a chance to — "because of the type of good fiscal management that this act puts into law" — this act directly bearing on the budget that that minister promised to bring in — "the accounts for the year ended 1991 will be balanced."

Clearly Bill 92, the Taxpayer Protection Act, which froze taxes, also had a bearing on the budget which they said they were going to bring in and which would be balanced. Neither is the case. They brought in tax increases and the budget isn't balanced, and that raises some serious questions for the public who watch these proceedings. When they see ministers stand and say that this act does such and such, they have a tendency to believe them. The seeds of doubt have been cast out to the public by this government.

[8:45]

One other question occurs to me. At the time we were debating Bill 92, the Minister of Finance at that time said: "This act is consistent with previous legislation introduced in this session, in that it respects the ability of the taxpayer to pay." The Minister of Finance, in March, brought in a bill which froze taxes. He said the reason they brought it in was that it respected the ability of the taxpayer to pay. Obviously they must have done some studies, because a lot of members at that time talked about the ability to pay and there was other legislation that we debated that was based on the ability to pay.

I'm struck by this. If Bill 92 reflected the taxpayers' ability to pay, does Bill 3 reflect their inability to pay? How can one bill based on their ability to pay have no tax increases, and this bill, which has tax increases...? Does that mean their ability to pay is something that shifts with what this government determines? In two months, despite the fact that we're in a recession and people are being laid off, particularly in small resource towns, has this government concluded that people's ability to pay has somehow increased — their ability to pay higher medicare premiums and higher corporate taxes? Somehow we're in a better position now to pay those tax increases than we were in March, when you said they had to be frozen?

I am constantly struck, because as the Minister of Government Management Services said, people are tired of rhetoric. She said, and I think it's worth repeating....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, you are getting a little repetitive. You're starting to repeat yourself. Have you got a question for the minister on section 12?

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, if you recall the substance of what I've had to say so far, you'll discover that there were probably half a dozen questions in there. I see the minister making notes. I've asked some very simple and succinct questions with respect to the confusion that the taxpayer must be feeling, when in March the government said that Bill 92 prevented any future government from bringing in tax increases, and yet this government has done that.

I wonder: legislatively, were we trying to take people for a ride? Were we not being candid and truthful when we said that at that time? I'm curious, and I've asked the question, Mr. Chairman: given the fact that Bill 92 was described as being within the means of the taxpayer, and this one clearly raises taxes,

[ Page 12800 ]

has this government, through this legislation, exceeded the ability of the taxpayer to pay?

Mr. Chairman, I've even heard you say some of these things in this House.

Finally, in describing Bill 92, the Minister of Finance of the day — in March; that was two Finance ministers ago — had this to say. I'm wondering, given section 12 of this bill, whether or not this applies. Perhaps the minister might want to respond to that as well. The words are from the former Minister of Finance: "That's not the British Columbia way. That's not the Social Credit way. Let me state that a vote against this bill, which is a vote in favour of tax increases, is a vote against the rights and desires of the people of this province."

Mr. Chairman, my question is: does Bill 3 now fit into that category described by the former Minister of Finance, as being against the rights and desires of the people of this province? That's what he said in March, and this bill seems to fit that. Perhaps the Minister of Finance might want to respond.

HON. J. JANSEN: Isn't it interesting; taxpayers are confused. You're right; the taxpayers are a little confused. They're confused by that ragtag bunch over there not taking a position on anything. Every time they come forward and speak negatively on issues in this House, they have no alternative position. They have no positive position. They're always talking about negatives. Again, it's interesting to hear this evening that they have no position on anything. They have no ability to come forward. We believe that the taxpayers of the province can judge correctly what kind of party that is.

They're indicating that the taxpayers are confused. The taxpayers are confused, and they're wondering what kind of magical money tree they have that can put programs together and pay for them ad nauseam, because there is no money tree. They're wondering where they're planted. Maybe they're planted in Prince Rupert. Maybe we should bring one of those money trees down here, because we'd like to see one. The opposition....

Interjection.

HON. J. JANSEN: There's the money tree there; he's holding up a money tree with yellow lines on it.

The opposition knows there are three options. One is that we can eliminate programs and cut staff, and at this point in time, I have heard just one side of that. Every single time they stand up and debate a minister's estimates they want to spend more money. All they want to do is spend money. Every time they stand up and talk about minister's estimates they want to spend more money. They're just a new generation of socialists.

How would we do this? How would we pay for this big, multibillion-dollar expansion? Is it going to be deficits?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Is this a point of order?

MR. MILLER: On a point of order, I distinctly recall you chastising me as being somewhat off the mark in terms of section 12. I believe I justified the very specific questions I directed at the minister. Now the minister is making a speech about I'm not sure what. I would prefer him to answer the questions....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, Mr. Member. I pointed out that you were starting to repeat yourself. You were getting a little repetitive. So far, the minister hasn't repeated himself.

HON. J. JANSEN: I guess the other alternative is that if we don't want to raise revenues.... I haven't heard them talk negatively once tonight about any of the revenue measures. They have not said: "We don't agree with this revenue measure contained in this bill." They wait until they come to this part which deals with the necessity for revenue measures. They find it offensive that we have to provide new revenue measures.

As we get to this point, if we don't want to raise revenues, then what do we do? We don't want to cut programs. In fact, they want to spend more on programs. What do we do? The answer is this wonderful thing called deficits. Their philosophy became very true to the taxpayers of the province when they assisted Ontario with the philosophy of their budget. They assisted that scandal-ridden government in Ontario. What does this new generation of socialists over there who are looking at the budgets do? They advised them to spend deficits. Just go ahead: more deficits and more deficits.

That's not what we intend to do. We believe we have a responsibility to the children of the future in this province. We're going to be fiscally responsible. We're not going to fall into that trap of these people who want to spend more money, not having the money to spend.

That is why today we are introducing this section bill: to ensure that there are fair revenue measures to pay for programs that are fundamental to our society. If they have an objection to a program, don't ask them to stand up and tell us how we can take $200 or $300 million off a program area of one of the ministry estimates. If they would stand up in the House and move an amendment to eliminate $300 million, I'd like to hear it tonight. They would need that money somewhere else in their program expenditures, but perhaps they would like to say that and indicate where they want to spend the money.

MR. MILLER: The issue is that I would assume the Minister of Finance and his predecessors would have been in the best position to know what the provincial economy was like, what the revenue measures looked like and all of the issues that must be considered when you're constructing a budget and a tax regime.

What I am baffled about is how they could have brought a bill into this House in March imposing a freeze on taxes. Let's step aside and deal with that charade right now. No government should ever try to carry out the charade of bringing a bill in and saying

[ Page 12801 ]

that the bill binds future actions. It clearly does not — nor can it ever — bind future actions. That was hoax number one: that they could bring in a bill with the political dressing that somehow it would bind the actions of future governments. That clearly was not the case; it took this government only two months to break their own legislation. So perhaps we could dispense with them using that charade again.

But the question is really — and we're asking the Minister of Finance, who we assume knows: how could you be so far out? How could you be so dead wrong? How could you propose freezing taxes in March, and then in May break the freeze? I'm just wondering if there was a breakdown in the ministry. Was there some inability to forecast beyond a week? What caused this fundamental, complete reversal of policy in about a month's time? If it was simply the fact that your forecasts were wrong or that Bill 92 was a political bill and was not intended to be taken seriously, surely the taxpayers — the public — are entitled to an explanation.

We are quite prepared to deal with — as would be our responsibility if we were the government — taxation measures, and hopefully we would be able to stand here and give the reasons why we would have done certain things. It seems to me that's fundamental; you should explain the reasons. The public is curious. All they want is some admission that perhaps you didn't know what you were doing; or blame it on the fact that you weren't the Finance minister and that guy didn't know what he was doing. But surely it is not too much to expect a simple explanation of this complete reversal of policy. It seems a denouement of everything every Social Credit member said when they stood in support of Bill 92. I don't know; perhaps some of the Socred members who supported Bill 92 would ask those questions as well. Are we the only voices here trying to get answers to these important questions?

HON. MR. FRASER: I've got a question for the minister, and I would apply it to everybody in the province. As the minister said, what would you do — go into massive debt and cut programs? As he said they don't know. They seem to know that piling on debt and spending a lot of money makes sense somehow, but the taxpayers know that it doesn't.

[9:00]

Interjections.

HON. MR. FRASER: Now that may be amusing to the member for Prince Rupert, the member for Vancouver East and possibly the member for Vancouver–Point Grey, but it's not amusing to the taxpayers. They want balance and consistency, and they want hope. The question is: who will they choose? And I know the answer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd just like to remind all members on both sides of the House of standing order 43. This, of course, is in the second edition of Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, and I don't need to mention the author's name. But I would like to call the attention of the Committee of the Whole to the conduct of a member who persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition, either of that member's own arguments or of the arguments used by other members in debate. So I remind you to get back to section 12 of Bill 3.

HON. J. JANSEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We take your admonition in terms of being focused in the discussion, and I intend to be.

The member asked what has changed to cause this taxation requirement? What has changed is the need for a hospital and the cost of that hospital in his community, the need for expenditure in education in his community and the need for expenditure in forestry in his community. Now the member can tell us today where he wants this cut to occur in those particular areas of responsibility, because then we can eliminate these revenue measures. Tell me where you want to make the cuts. It's very simple, members. We can simply eliminate hospitals and schools, and we can carry on reducing other areas of expenditure. Then you don't need the revenue measures.

I find it very difficult to understand what they're thinking, because they keep on going in reverse. They want to spend more money on the backs of the future taxpayers of the province — deficit spending. And where are they getting it from? Deficits. It's a great way, isn't it?

That's the way your budget transition team advised the treasurer of Ontario. You fundamentally believe that the way of the future is to have deficits. This is a revenue measure to responsibly handle the programs of expenditure that I'm sure all of you approve of. But if you don't, I'd like to see you stand up in your place and tell us where you want the cuts to be made, where you want the hospitals to be closed. Give us some indication of where you want these things to happen.

The opposition party, without a leader, is always looking into the past; it doesn't have a forward-looking view, or any vision at all. It is negative about everything, but it never has an answer. If for one moment in this sitting we could have just one tiny glimpse of where they stand.... Just outline in the briefest way for us what your fiscal policy is. You've identified $4 billion in additional expenditure. Where are you getting the money from? Four billion dollars by your leaderless leader....

So, Mr. Chairman, as I said before, if there is a keen willingness not to have these revenue measures, I ask only one thing: tell us how they're going to pay for the programs. If they don't want to pay for the programs, which programs do they want to eliminate? Because we won't accept a deficit as the solution; we won't accept that. If they want to stand up and advocate further deficits, we won't accept it.

That's the reason for this particular bill. I know that in balance the members opposite will support it, because they realize that there is a responsibility to do this.

MR. G. JANSSEN: The members opposite — the Finance minister, with the help of the Attorney-General

[ Page 12802 ]

— talk about cuts, cuts, cuts. I think they're talking about cold cuts; they're talking about baloney.

Mr. Chairman, you mentioned being repetitious. What could be more repetitious in this debate than one bill coming in, being removed and being replaced by another bill; one minister in, another minister out — in and out, ministers of the moment?

The Attorney-General says you spend or you cut programs. No, the other answer — and what this bill addresses in section 12 particularly — is to raise taxes. It doesn't cut any programs. It increases spending and it raises taxes. Will the Minister of Finance stand on his feet and admit that the purpose behind Bill 3 is to raise taxes in the province of British Columbia to pay for programs?

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure what his question is. I don't know if the member understands his own question. What he's asking is whether or not the revenue measures contained in this bill would enable us to pay for programs. Well, isn't that an interesting question! What section of the act does he not understand? Is it to pay for the expansion of the hospital in his own community? Yes, absolutely. It's to pay for the expansion of the hospital in his own community.

Do they agree with a fiscal policy of deficits? Are they opposed to honest revenue measures that pay for programs? I don't understand the question. The tone and the lack of depth of the question would indicate to me that, yes, they have a different agenda. We can fool around with taxes, as the Finance critic indicated; we can fool around with taxes and make it fair. Have you ever tried to make taxes fair, Mr. Chairman?

HON. MR. FRASER: That's what the man from Vancouver East said, wasn't it — play around with taxes?

HON. J. JANSEN: Isn't that interesting!

Interjections.

HON. J. JANSEN: The member for Prince George North — what does she want to do? Does she want to eliminate the hospital in her community? Every time I hear concerns, it's not a question of reducing expenditure; it's a question of asking for increased expenditure. I know the Minister of Health is very interested in expanding service, particularly in the far north. Does the member wish that we would reduce the far-northern expenditure allowance? Is that what she would like to see? I haven't heard one representation from her respecting this initiative, but it was others who did, and as a result, government listened and took action.

All we hear over there is spend, spend, spend. But when we're coming to the revenue side, they're very, very quiet. Except: "We could fool around with taxes. We could make it fair. We'll charge the corporate side more. We've only got $4 billion in additional expenditures to cover. We could find that by making the taxation system fairer." Well, $4 billion in personal taxation is quite a bit of money. It's eight times what the corporate sector now pays. It's double what the personal sector now pays. Is that what you want to do? just double or triple the corporate sector and double the personal sector?

You're very, very quiet, except: "Trust us. We'll come up with the right solution." Well, the people of the province aren't going to trust you, because you haven't given them reason to be trusting. You haven't given them reason to stand up and be counted, because you never come forward with a policy. You never come forward with anything you firmly believe in. You never pound your desk and say, "This is what I believe, and this is what we stand for," because you don't have a position. That is the reason we put this bill in.

Interjection.

HON. J. JANSEN: We have put this taxpayer protection in, member for Esquimalt, to ensure that we pay for our programs. That's correct. If you want to....

Interjection.

HON. J. JANSEN: The member has made a very uncomplimentary comment. I don't think he understands what it means to do that. I won't repeat it in this House, but I think he full well knows what he said. Unfortunately, he has a difficulty understanding between right and wrong.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you wish to...?

HON. J. JANSEN: I won't make any further comment on that particular thing, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. FRASER: On a point of order, the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew accused my colleague of lying. He should withdraw it.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, if I may explain.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I would like an explanation.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, I was talking about the practice of a government saying one thing 60 days ago and another now. If it offended the member I'd be happy to withdraw, but the point was....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would the member please take his seat. I want to remind the member that it's unparliamentary to utter what he uttered. It would be very appropriate to withdraw that very uncomplimentary comment directed towards the Minister of Finance.

MR. SIHOTA: ...that you heard that disturbed you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: No, I'm not. I just want to know what he wants me to withdraw.

[ Page 12803 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am sure that the Attorney-General heard it, and he raised a point of order. It would be appropriate for you to do the honourable thing and withdraw.

MR. SIHOTA: I withdraw.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Mr. Chairman, you admonished this side of the House earlier for being repetitious. Perhaps you could advise the minister about being evasive. I asked him a very specific question: where was he going to raise taxes? In the tone of the committee stage here, we hear both the Finance minister and the Attorney-General talking about spending, where the money's coming from or whether or not they're going to make cuts. Section 12 clearly allows for tax increases. When we were discussing Bill 92, which this bill is going to in some aspects replace....

AN HON. MEMBER: Override.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Override is a good word, Mr. Member.

The former Minister of Finance — one of your predecessors, and I know there have been a few, Mr. Minister — said that Bill 92 not only prevents us from raising taxes but will not allow for the introduction of any new taxes. Are we to see in Bill 3 the provision for the raising of taxes? The Minister of Finance alluded to $200 million or $300 million that was necessary. We know there's a $395 million deficit according to the Finance minister. The Premier says it's a $1.2 billion deficit. So somewhere in between those two is the purpose of Bill 3: to raise that additional money in order to balance the budget.

[9:15]

HON. J. JANSEN: Maybe I should spend an evening explaining the BS fund to the member for Alberni at the same time, because I'm not sure I understand the question. I indicated earlier that Bill 3 includes revenue measures contained in the bill. In order to do that, we require this notwithstanding clause, which is section 12. I fail to understand his question or his reason for it. If he would tell me what particular revenue measure he has concerns about, I'd be pleased to comment, or, alternatively, if he wants to identify an area of cost-saving that we can look at in health, post-secondary education or advanced education, I'd like to hear that as well.

To this point in time, I haven't heard anything else, except "why, and I've answered that question. We're simply not committed to the deficit philosophy that the socialists on that side of the House are. We understand our fiscal responsibility and our responsibility to our programs. This particular bill ensures that the programs we all value so much are going to stay intact. If you're going to have a problem with it, member, I would be pleased to hear your comment.

MR. G. JANSSEN: The minister speaks about a deficit reduction plan and being fiscally responsible We have a deficit of $395 million to $1.2 billion. I suspect it's $1.2 billion, if we want to listen to the auditor-general. The minister also asked earlier if I wanted to cut back the programs of the hospital in Port Alberni. No, I don't. I appreciate that.

But unfortunately there was the annual general meeting of the West Coast General Hospital just last week, former Minister of Health and now Minister of Finance. Through this government's inaction in providing funding, 18 beds will be closed at that hospital. A news media release was issued by that hospital. The membership, including some Socred-appointed members to that board, agreed that the government should supply enough funding to provide the health services in Alberni. Is the minister saying that he will provide that necessary funding to keep those 18 beds open in Alberni?

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the member wants to raise that question when the Minister of Health has his estimates. I can tell you that the increases in health care are just $560 million in this year's budget. That may seem like not very much when you have a $10 billion deficit like Ontario, but it does include a lot of hard-earned tax dollars.

The revenue measures in this particular bill are fair. Maybe the member opposite doesn't understand that. He thinks that we can somehow nationalize the MacMillan Bloedels of the world. He thinks we can nationalize our major corporations, and that somehow through that nationalization we can magically protect our jobs and protect our programs. It doesn't work that way. We don't live in a socialist fairyland, where you rely on the backs of the future taxpayers and you nationalize your industries. That type of philosophy disappeared about 30 years ago. It's still there, and once in a while it pops its head up. It popped its head up in Ontario. It pops its head up once in awhile when you hear a mistaken comment by one of the members when they decide they've taken a position on something and then suddenly realize they shouldn't have done that because they want to be sure that they're not seen by the taxpayers to be the radical bunch they are.

But they're caught up. What does it do to the bill, the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley asks. I'll tell you what it has to do with the bill. It talks about taxation fairness; it talks about a protection of our programs. If you have some problems with that, you should stand up in the House and tell us how you'd rather tax the MacMillan Bloedels of the world. How would you want to tax the Janssen's jewelers of the world — small business people who provide the taxation so we have the ability to maintain our programs?

Sections 12 and 13 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

[ Page 12804 ]

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 3, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1991, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

On vote 38: minister's office, $360,045 (continued).

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I'll advise the committee that the staff from the Ministry of Health went home earlier this evening, but I'm prepared as the minister to accept questions and answer them as best I can during the moments remaining to us, and of course to return to committee tomorrow with more appropriate answers supplied by officials. Maybe we can enter into some philosophical debate in the next moments and be productive to some extent. With that said, I'll take my place and accept any questions the members of the committee may have.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Whatever you guys want; I'm easy.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm certain that the new Minister of Health has all the answers I'm looking for, especially following some of his literary brilliance in the paper of late, as he speaks to some of the needs around health-related issues in Surrey. I was pleased to see the minister writing in response to my letter to the editor, even if he didn't speak directly to the issues I raised in that letter. But let me ask him now specifically.... Earlier during the estimates, the minister recognized that Surrey is facing some rather extraordinary problems as far as health care delivery goes, because of the incredible growth that our municipality — indeed the whole south Fraser — has experienced over the last number of years.

[Mr. Serwa in the chair.]

While I certainly am prepared to talk about why we are facing some of those problems — the lack of planning and advocacy for that area — I'm particularly interested to hear more from this minister about the South Fraser Strategic Planning Group and some of the work they are doing. I was interested in a comment the minister made earlier about that planning group, in that he called it a ministry planning group. My understanding was that it was initiated by the hospitals in that area, and that they were doing some of the work that the ministry had neglected to do around planning the delivery of services. I would like the minister to clear that up a little bit, as to the mandate of that group and who initiated it. I'm hoping the minister will talk a little more about the distribution of health dollars by region.

You also acknowledged in an earlier response to one of our members that your ministry was trying to work on some of those inequities. I would like you to address some of the specific needs for the south Fraser, as you see them in your new capacity.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The member must have misunderstood me; or maybe I wasn't being specific enough when I spoke of the South Fraser Strategic Planning Group, because they are not of the ministry. As a matter of fact, I met with them last week, as you are probably well aware. If I have left an incorrect impression with the committee, I certainly want to correct that now. The South Fraser Strategic Planning Group has made a submission to the ministry, but they certainly are not part of the ministry.

They have a request to us for $4 million, which we are analyzing now. It's an excellent request. As a matter of fact, it coincides with work that the Cariboo Regional Access Committee did in Prince George and in the regional districts of Fraser, Fort George and the Cariboo, of which the first member for Cariboo was very much a part. It's looking at the issue of comprehensive health care; it's looking at the issues of a large community.

The South Fraser Strategic Planning Group are looking far beyond their immediate borders and the boardrooms of their own hospitals. They are looking at the whole of the health care service-delivery system in their area and how, by being a larger group and bringing all the attention and concerns of that large geographic area to one group of administrators and board members, they can identify not specifically better programs for one hospital but better services for the whole area. I really encourage that, and I encouraged the group when they met with the ministry staff and me last week. I've also encouraged the group in the central interior to do the same thing.

I found the submission a most comprehensive look at health care in a very large area; it was refreshing in the sense that the various groups had gone beyond their own institution and looked at their whole community in terms of what they wanted to develop. I would encourage them to continue that type of thinking and planning, and I also assured them that we would look at their submission with some encouragement and do whatever we could to implement the moves that they've made.

As I said, I couldn't be more encouraging of that group. It's the type of thing I used to see in Advanced Education, Training and Technology, where all the college presidents, for example, set aside their own of institution, set aside their own very strong feelings. One institution looked at the system as a whole, and on the basis of that was quite successful. When a minister goes to cabinet or Treasury Board with the concerns of not just one institution but in fact the whole industry — the whole constituency — they are far more effective. That's what the South Fraser Strategic Planning Group presented to me. I've been most encouraged by

[ Page 12805 ]

what I've heard, and with what I've said, we can offer some positive news to them. We are examining in some detail the submission that they made to us. I found that encouraging. I want to tell the member who posed the question that I was pleased with that submission, and I want to see more submissions like it come to the ministry.

[9:30]

MS. SMALLWOOD: Initially, the strategic planning group was made up of the different hospitals in the region. As far as I know, that's still the makeup. I'm going to ask you some questions about Surrey Memorial Hospital in particular, and then I would be more than happy to talk about some of the broader health needs in our community. That is the way we have to go; we need that kind of broad support for health care generally.

It's very clear that Surrey, because of its population base, is going to take some creative thought to deal with its health care problems. At this point, by population we have considerably less than half — possibly only a third — of the provincial average of hospital beds, I want to talk a little bit about what that means to the people in Surrey and about the implications of those numbers.

Just lately, we had — and this was in Surrey Now — a story talking about the needs of Surrey Memorial Hospital and the ongoing deficit that that hospital experienced. I say ongoing because in the past number of years I've been on my feet in this House asking the Minister of Health — whether it was your predecessor or the minister before that — to deal with the needs of that hospital. At this point in time, that hospital is classified as a primary-care hospital. It's very clear that the hospital is providing secondary care in some areas, and there needs to be a serious look at reclassifying, and therefore, funding to go along with that reclassification in recognition of the services that the hospital provides and the growing need for a secondary-care hospital in our community.

In the story that I was, quoting from Surrey Now, June 12, some doctors were quoted in a memo circulated by the medical staff at Surrey Memorial Hospital as saying that it's almost a dangerous place to practice. That reflects some of the stresses that hospital undergoes on a daily basis in trying to deal with the demand for service and their inability to keep pace with a fast-growing community.

I'm sure the minister knows that it is predicted that within the next ten to 15 years, Surrey will have a larger population than the current population of Vancouver. What that means by comparison is that when Vancouver was the size we are now, they had four hospitals; we have one. I think that for an area that has a large number of taxpayers who are asking for equity and a return of their tax dollars into their community....  They need some recognition of that and some attention paid to services.

I happen to be a strong believer that even if the money was made available, we could not hope to see the increase in hospital beds keep pace with the growth immediately. It's very clear that we've got to start to look around our community at some of the options. I raised some of the options at the Royal Commission on Health Care when it was in Surrey. I'm talking about some of the empowerment and preventive programs that could be put in place to keep people out of hospital in the first place. Some of the work can be done directly with community groups to identify why people end up in the emergency ward and to try to cut down on some of the environmental causes, such as accidents. There are some other issues our communities could take charge of and have a real effect on.

I want to share a comment with you that one of the local emergency ward doctors made to me. I was just hoping that the minister would hear this, because he said that he was more than happy to engage in a philosophical discussion, and here's your entry.

We've got a rather active emergency care doctor in Surrey, his name is Dr. Vroom. He has on several different occasions been involved with school groups around traffic safety and other issues. He's quite a community activist. I was talking to the doctor when he was taking me on a tour of the new emergency ward out there, and he was showing me a problem that we have in that hospital. As he outlined the problem, it became really clear that perhaps the whole philosophy of health care may indeed be wrong-minded.

In our new emergency ward we have situations where often the ward is full to capacity; there is no room to move people into the hospital, because the hospital is full also. This is a regular occurrence out in Surrey. What happens then is that they have the old emergency ward, and they start to move people into that ward, as a holding room. That emergency ward, for the most part, is full to capacity also. People stay in that holding pattern for a week, sometimes longer.

When I toured the old emergency ward, it was full of senior citizens, and they were bed-to-bed throughout that whole dark room — because, you see, there are no windows in the old emergency ward. The people kept in that ward for over a week get so disoriented they don't know whether it's day or night. It's not a very nice place to stay, and I don't think it helps. I think the minister would agree that it doesn't help the recovery of those patients. It doesn't help their health status to be in that holding pattern in our hospital.

Dr. Vroom said something to me that was interesting. He said that with all of those people sitting back there, at almost $1,000 dollars a day, waiting for a room — some of them, I might add.... The reason I was at the emergency ward was that in one week we had three calls from people who were in that back room waiting for a space, and two of the three were terminally ill. One gentleman's family called, wanting us to intervene to get him a room so he could die with some dignity. I'm digressing a little bit, but I want you to understand the seriousness of the situation out there.

One of the things that Dr. Vroom said is that we can choose to hold a number of those patients there at $1,000 a day, or we could rent the penthouse at Surrey Inn, move a number of those senior citizens out, with nurses, and pay a heck of a lot less money, and those

[ Page 12806 ]

people would be in a healthier, brighter, much cheerier place. What I learned from that exchange is that instead of focusing on our goals through the health care system — and hopefully our goal would be to improve health — we're arguing about supporting or expanding a hospital, which in this day and age and certainly in my community is never going to meet the needs.

When the minister says that he is pleased with the work of the strategic planning committee, I'm hoping that the ministry also.... I've lobbied quite strongly for some kind of creative intervention that sees people in other, healthier settings, supported in their home, and that deals with things other than in a solely hospital perspective.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The member makes a very compelling argument. On a philosophical basis I certainly have to agree with her. I'd like to point out one thing, Mr. Chairman, which is that hospital beds can cost up to $1,000 a day — or a patient in a hospital bed can be costing the system large amounts of money — but patients in the condition that the member describes would certainly not be costing $1,000 per day. Let's get that on the record.

In terms of the general issue of providing better health care, more support services and appropriate care, particularly for terminally ill people in need of a palliative program, I couldn't agree more. Everything we are doing as a ministry in terms of our planning and construction budgets is designed to bring innovations and efficiencies to the health care system and to ensure that we are not putting people with long-term-care needs into acute-care beds. Our record in that regard is remarkable.

I would also like to just briefly.... I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if we could have a bit of order here. It is rather....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Health is engaging in debate. Hon. members, may I have your attention, please. The Minister of Health is engaging in debate on his estimates, and we would like a little bit of order in the House. We would appreciate it if you would try to keep it down to a loud shout.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Perhaps those members who wish to carry on other meetings could do so in another room. That would certainly help.

Basically, though, if we look at hospital programs — and I'm just looking at the estimates book now — we've gone from $2.3 billion to $2.5 billion. So we have seen about a 10 percent lift in hospital programs, and we will continue to do that as we are able to and as revenues from the province are provided to us.

But as the member asked about efficiencies, innovations and appropriate care, I can certainly assure her that in all cases we are attempting to do this. At Surrey Memorial, in stage two and stage three, we are planning expansion of services. Those will all be designed with the most appropriate, efficient and innovative care in mind.

Also, I agree totally with the member's contribution to the debate about the growth of the area. Surrey, as I recall from my Advanced Education days, has residential land available for at least 100,000 more people. So I accept what you're saying about the rapid growth. It's probably the hottest neighbourhood in North America —  to describe it that way — with the greatest potential for growth. Clearly, it's going to have to be a priority of our capital planning and our capital funding. I have no disagreement at all with some of the comments you've made about better services to the people of Surrey.

[9:45]

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to add my support to the Chair and the Minister of Health in asking the members — in particular the past Premier of the province, who earlier chastised some of our members for not getting on with the business of the Health estimates.... Perhaps the past Premier would like to conduct his audience outside, and we could get on with the work. We would be really pleased if he would show us that courtesy.

Interjection.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Since the past Premier has not chosen to leave, maybe he'd like to listen to what's going on in his previous home of Surrey. I think he'd find it quite interesting to see what kind of a health system and what kind of situation we're facing as a legacy of both his government and, indeed, his representation when he did represent the municipality of Surrey.

We have well over 2,700 on a waiting-list now at Surrey Memorial. That represents something like 18 months, and it represents a lot of time off work for many family people. That is a serious problem within our community. The hospital, besides not having the beds available to service the waiting-list, has a situation where....

Interjections.

MR. JONES: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I found your admonition of the group in the corner very gentle. A number of members are not sitting in their seats and are not listening to the debate. I don't want to accuse them of abuse of the Legislature, because we all care about this place, but I would urge for a stronger admonition of that group.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Member. Your advice is taken seriously. I think the people's business is serious business, and the Chair would appreciate proper decorum in the House. Thank you very much.

HON. MR. PARKER: I'd like to take this opportunity to say a few positive things to my colleague the Minister of Health. Id like to tell the House and the minister that in Skeena we appreciate the support his ministry has put forth in the communities of Smithers, Hazelton, Kitimat and certainly my hometown Terrace.

[ Page 12807 ]

A few months ago in Stewart there was very nearly a tragedy, when a propane explosion devastated the hospital. The Minister of Health was quick off the mark with support for that community, and their hospital is being replaced as we speak. That's because of the positive policies and fiscal management of the Ministry of Health and certainly of this government.

The support Terrace has received over the years has resulted in nuclear medicine facilities being available in the northwest. It hasn't been available before. We have some 12 or 14 specialists we didn't have before. We have extended and intermediate care under the same organization that looks after the acute-care hospital, so that the dollars are fewer in overheads and more in service. We now have a program that means that people from the north and other parts of the interior can be afforded the same medical care as those in Victoria and Vancouver, with travel and accommodation assistance.

If we take a look around the province, we'll find that the health care delivery is excellent. Anyone of us can stand up and point a finger at a particular episode that isn't the way we'd like it to be. There's a positive side to everything, of course. Those particular points are the ones we concentrate on to see how we can improve the system. The system is one of the best in the world. That's been substantiated by people far more qualified than any of us here in this House.

I'd just like to add a little positive note tonight to the Minister of Health. We think you're doing a great job. We thank you for the cooperation and support you give all the communities in the northwest, and we look forward to working with you.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I thank the member for his comments. It occurs to me, though, that the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley was sort of hit by a flying point of order. I'll take my seat and let the member continue.

MS. SMALLWOOD: It strikes me that with all of the protests at 6 o'clock about wanting to get on with the work, perhaps we could have some support from the back quarter there for extending the hours past 10 o'clock, so we could get on with some....

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: They call themselves the hind quarter.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The hind quarter — okay.

The point I was making is that the current stats for Surrey Memorial show something like well over 200 visits a day to the emergency ward. There are only 13 beds, there. That really begs the question about what happens to those people, those children, the older people who come to that emergency ward looking for some kind of assistance. It makes it very clear why the medical staff at Surrey Memorial are now talking about that hospital as an almost dangerous place to practise. I can't underscore strongly enough the need for some assistance in Surrey.

I'm aware of the time, but, having sat through several sessions waiting to raise these issues, I'm going to continue.

The minister acknowledged in his letter to the editor that we have a serious problem — in addition to the hospital and the growth — with mental health facilities and services in Surrey. Whalley mental health services was the second-hardest-hit by the deinstitutionalization of Riverview. Not only do we not have the facilities or the services to deal with a number of those patients that have been deinstitutionalized and are now living in our community, but with the continuing downsizing of Riverview, there doesn't seem to be any relief in sight. Over and above the medical services needed for those people, we need community support programs, housing and homes for a number of those people — because in increasing numbers it is the mentally ill that we see living on the streets.

The minister says in his letter that while he recognizes the impact of that deficit in services for children in particular.... I believe you said in your letter that you have not lost any of the sessional psychologists. That's not what I am told by the mental health services in Whalley. I am told that the contracts were not taken up. I am told that it was through negotiations with another branch of government that the sessional psychologists' fees were increased and that mental health services could no longer pay those fees. So we actually lost a number of sessional psychologists, increasing the waiting-list for severely damaged children up to 12 months.

I am also told by some of the community support services that on occasion they are not adding to the list any longer, because they have grown beyond the capability of that clinic to manage.

I wonder if the minister, while recognizing the work that is done by the strategic planning group, can indicate whether or not they are also talking about mental health care for the community and what he sees the government doing to try to alleviate this problem.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: If there is a discrepancy in my letter, and with other evidence that the member has had, I will be more than happy to discuss that before coming into the estimates tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock. We'll have the information for the benefit of the committee.

In terms of the south Fraser group's submission to me and other programs that they wanted to discuss, the $4 million covered a variety of issues and a variety of programs and did, I am sure, include better mental health provisions. I can't recall it exactly, and I don't have the material with me, but I will bring it tomorrow for debate because it's a proposal that I do want to share with the committee. As I said earlier, it's exciting and it's innovative. So the committee has my undertaking to provide the details, and I would be more than happy to discuss the South Fraser Strategic Planning Group's proposal. It was quite exciting, and it involved more than hospital programs. It involved continuing care, long-term care and many other health-delivery innovations. I will provide that for the member's benefit tomorrow.

[ Page 12808 ]

Inasmuch as we are approaching the appointed hour, I will move adjournment — unless the member has any further questions. Is there anything else you wanted to...?

AN HON. MEMBER: Tomorrow.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The member indicates that tomorrow will be fine, so with that said, I'll move 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. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 9:57 p.m.