1988 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 1988

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5495 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Seismic testing in Dixon Entrance-Hecate Strait. Mr. Guno –– 5495

Expo lands contamination. Ms. Smallwood –– 5496

Sale of forest nurseries. Mr. Lovick –– 5496

Environmental appeal charges. Ms. Smallwood –– 5497

Presenting Petitions –– 5497

Presenting Reports –– 5498

Tabling Documents –– 5498

Ministerial Statement

Resignation of Attorney-General. Hon. B.R. Smith –– 5498

Mr. Harcourt

Committee of Supply: Officer of the Premier estimates. (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

On vote 4: Premier's office –– 5499

Mr. Cashore

Ms. Marzari

Ms. Smallwood

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1988 (Bill 36). Committee stage.

(Hon. B.R. Smith) –– 5509

Mr. Lovick

Hon. Mr. Rogers

Third reading

Committee of Supply: Ombudsman estimates

On vote 3 –– 5510

Mr. Cashore

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Committee of Supply: Auditor-General estimates

On vote 2 –– 5512

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Ms. Marzari

Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Committee of Supply: Legislation estimates

Vote I –– 5515

Supply Act (No. 2), 1988 (Bill 59). Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Introduction and first reading –– 5515

Second reading

Committee stage

Third reading

Northwest Baptist Theological College Amendment Act,1988 (Bill PR406).

Second reading

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 5516

Northwest Baptist Theological College Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill PR406). Committee

stage. (Mrs. Gr. 5516

Third reading

Mineral Tenure Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 58). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Davis)

–– 5516

Mr. Blencoe

Third reading

Income Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1988 (Bill 62). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Couvelier) –– 5516

Third reading

Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 53). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Dueck)

–– 5517

Ms. Marzari

Third reading

Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act (No. 2), 1988 (Bill 54).

Committee stage. (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) –– 5518

Mr. Blencoe

Third reading

Environment Management Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 50). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 5519

Securities Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 55). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 5520

Mr. Sihota –– 5520

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 5524

Securities Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 55). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) –– 5524

Mr. Sihota

Third reading

Environment Management Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 50). Second reading

Ms. Smallwood –– 5524

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 5525

Environment Management Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 50). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Strachan) –– 5526

Ms. Smallwood

Third reading

Law Reform Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 27). Report –– 5526

Third reading

Pension (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, 1988 (Bill 39). Report ––

Third reading

Hydro and Power Authority Privatization Act (Bill 45). Report –– 5527

Third reading

Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 46). Report –– 5527

Third reading

Municipal Amendment Act (No. 2), 1988 (Bill 60). Hon. Mrs. Johnston

Introduction and first reading –– 5527

The House met at 2:09 p.m.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

The candidate who came in a strong second in the riding of

Coquitlam–Moody last election and will more than likely finish first in

the next election, Darrell Anderson, is here in the gallery. I would

ask the House to bid him welcome.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

It gives me great pleasure to introduce in the House today Mr. Theo van

den Muijsenberg, the distinguished consul–general of the Netherlands in

British Columbia. Mr. van den Muijsenberg is at his last posting, as he

will retire in July after a career spanning 38 years. After studies in

the Netherlands in the field of business administration, Spanish

language and civilization, he served in the Dutch foreign service from

1950 until the present. His diplomatic missions took him to Bogota,

Quito, Caracas, London, Bombay, The Hague, Rio de Jamero, Montreal, New

York, Washington and finally to beautiful Vancouver. He certainly has

traveled and been to a great many places.

I would ask the

House to join me in extending our very best wishes to Mr. van den

Muijsenberg and his lovely wife for a long and happy retirement, and

our warmest congratulations on a job well done.

HON. MR. PARKER :

I'd like to introduce today Mayor Gordon Feyer of Masset and Mayor

Gerry Johnson of Port Clements on the Queen Charlotte Islands. Would

the House please make them welcome.

HON. MR. DAVIS :

Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon are Kennith and Marion

Villines of Victoria, and visitors from Arkansas, Shannon Thomas and

her young son Andrew. Would hon. members make them welcome.

MS. A. HAGEN :

In the gallery this afternoon are representatives from concerned

citizens of British Columbia representing seniors' organizations and

other groups within the province who have been working with them on a

petition. Would the House join me in welcoming Jo Arland, Reg Gates,

Russell Hunter, Ed Apps, Ed Jantz and Heather Leighton.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

In the precincts today, and I believe in the gallery — if not at this

moment, he will be shortly — is a gentleman who has served this

government well for many years. He's been my deputy minister for the

last year or so, and he has not only been a very faithful public

servant but has become a good friend: Jim Carter. He leaves government

service the day after tomorrow, taking retirement and going into

another personal venture. I know the House will want to join me in

wishing this distinguished public servant all the best.

MR. HARCOURT : I would like members of the House to welcome Gloria and

Norm Tweedhope who are seated before us. Gloria worked for seven and a half

years for the New Democrat caucus. She helped me when I was the new leader,

set up my office and is now the legislative assistant for the members for Prince

George North (Mrs. Boone) and Surrey–Guildford–Whalley (Ms. Smallwood). They're

going up Island for a well-deserved vacation after her retirement at the end

of this session. These are the people who really make us work; we know that.

They are the ones who keep our schedules in order and our constituents happy,

and I think that we should pay a special tribute to all of the legislative assistants

by giving a very warm round of applause to Gloria and Norm.

MR. PELTON :

Hon. members, in the gallery today we have two very distinguished

guests from Perth in Western Australia, Mr. and Mrs. Mat Stephens. Mr.

Stephens is a Member of the Legislative Assembly and is also the deputy

leader of the National Party in Western Australia. I would ask all

members to make this very nice couple welcome.

[2:15]

MR. DE JONG : From time to time we celebrate birthdays, and today one of our journalists for that fine paper, the Province ,

is celebrating his birthday: Malcolm Turnbull. It's not only a

birthday: it's his fiftieth birthday, and he's made a specific

resolution that the Province

is going to be an even better paper after today. I would ask the House

to congratulate Malcolm Turnbull on his fiftieth birthday.

MR. CASHORE :

I would like to join the Minister of Social Services and Housing in

extending appreciation and congratulations to Jim Carter as he enters

his retirement. He has been in the office during the time that I have

been the critic of Social Services and Housing, and I have found him to

be very cordial, open and responsive. I have appreciated the attitude

that he has brought to his work, and I join in wishing him the best in

his retirement.

HON. MR. VEITCH : It's come to my

attention that another great British Columbian is in the gallery today,

renowned educator Henry Justesen. I'd ask the House to bid him welcome.

Oral Questions

SEISMIC TESTING IN

DIXON ENTRANCE–HECATE STRAIT

MR. GUNO :

My question is to the Minister of Environment and Parks. As the

minister knows, yesterday the federal government began conducting

seismic testing of the ocean floor in the Dixon Entrance–Hecate Strait

area of the province. The minister will also be aware that these tests

were originally scheduled for early June in order to avoid affecting

the salmon runs in that area. Did the minister make any representation

to the federal government about the possible effects of these tests on

the marine life in that area?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I'm

not aware of that issue. If you're concerned about the commercial

fishery, the question might be better posed to the Minister of

Agriculture and Fisheries.

MR. GUNO : The federal

government began conducting seismic testing in the Hecate Strait–Dixon

Entrance area. There has been some concern about the impact on the

salmon run, and so the tests were originally set for early June. I'm

wondering if the minister has any concern about that, and whether he

has made representation to the federal government about that concern.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : As the hon. member should well realize, that is federal jurisdiction. I have, in fact, discussed it with the federal minister.

[ Page

5496 ]

MR. GUNO : This involves offshore gas exploration, but it is a

matter that deals with the environment, and that's clearly within the

jurisdiction of the province. I don't think that you can have a

hands-off attitude with this issue.

Again, I'll pose this

question to the Minister of Environment. In September 1987 the state of

California put a moratorium on the renewal of seismic testing permits

within their territorial waters because of the adverse effects of these

tests on the state's fisheries industry and on marine life and the

marine environment generally. Does the minister believe that the same

tests that harm marine life in California will not harm marine life off

the coast of British Columbia?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I

appreciate the confidence you show in me, hon. member, by asking me

about seismic testing. I wish I could answer that question for you, but

I don't know what type of seismic testing they are attempting or

purporting to do. It could involve high explosives, or it could

involve just sound. There's a variety of seismic testing procedures.

For the purposes of this question period, my colleague the Minister of

Agriculture and Fisheries has indicated to you that he has discussed

the matter with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans people, and I

think that would suffice for this time. I guess both of us could take

further questions on notice if more information is required.

MR. GUNO :

Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. There have actually been no studies done on

the short- or long-term impact of seismic testing on salmon stock — the

minister has confirmed that — either here or in any other area. A panel

appointed through the federal and provincial Environment ministries

said that they had concerns about the impact of these tests on marine

life in the testing area. Will the minister end the uncertainty

surrounding these tests and ensure the protection of the marine life

off the coast of British Columbia by asking the federal government to

call a halt to these tests, which started yesterday, and by ordering a

complete public investigation, including a public hearing, to ensure

that the tests on the marine environment off the coast of British

Columbia are completely studied?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Again, I thank the member sincerely for the confidence he's placed in

me for this awesome responsibility he assumes I have; but I don't. A

provincial Minister of Environment is responsible for freshwater

fisheries — very little marine life on the salt water. That question

would be best posed to federal officials. Maybe your own Member of

Parliament, Jim Fulton, might be better prepared to address that

question for you.

EXPO LANDS CONTAMINATION

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I have a new question for the Minister of Environment. I am

disappointed at his answer, given the fact that the provincial and

federal governments have been involved in the issue of offshore oil and

gas for some time, and he certainly should have had notice. This

government should be on top of this particular issue.

A new question, Mr. Speaker, to do with the Expo lands contamination. The chairman

of the government's Special Waste Advisory Committee has now confirmed that

there are severe toxic waste problems on the Expo site and that the cleanup

will be costly. Will the Minister of Environment confirm that taxpayers will

pick up the entire cost of cleanup and that Concord Pacific will pay nothing?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : It wouldn't matter who owned it; the owner has to clean it up, Madam Member.

MS. SMALLWOOD : To clarify, is the minister saying that Concord Pacific will be held responsible for the total cleanup?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : The previous owner will.

MS. SMALLWOOD : The minister is saying the previous owner. Will the government ensure that the previous owner is held responsible?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Sure.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I find the minister's statement quite outrageous. I understood the

minister to indicate that the people who left the waste would be

cleaning it up, but he is saying that the previous owner — the people

of this province, the taxpayers — will be held responsible. Can the

minister tell the House whether his ministry will be involved in an

emergency team to deal with the cleanup, and can the minister indicate

the timetable for that process?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

We have a couple of questions there. Number one, the people who did the

contaminating are long gone. It was done before the turn of the century

and shortly after, with coal-gas plants and that type of

nineteenth-century industrial activity, so it would be pretty hard to

find the people responsible for that contamination.

terms of cleanup, yes, the Ministry of Environment is the regulator. We

are going to monitor that very closely and will be the agency

responsible for ensuring that all lands, as they are turned over for

public use or for the use of the new owner, are safe and within our

standards. For that reason, the Enterprise Corporation had the

foresight to ask Dr. David Boyes, chairman of our own special waste

committee, to be its expert on this issue, and he is doing a remarkable

job, as he always does. I can assure you and the people of British

Columbia that when those sites are turned over, all soils will be

decontaminated or treated properly.

SALE OF FOREST NURSERIES

MR. LOVICK :

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Forests and

Lands. In a news release issued by the Minister of Forests on June 25,

the sale of the Telkwa forest nursery was announced. The ministry also

confirmed at that time that a decision regarding a sale of the other

eight nurseries would probably be made by July. My question to the

minister is just this: will he confirm for the House whether a

condition of sale is that these lands will remain in the agricultural

land reserve?

HON. MR. PARKER : I can't guarantee

what the weather will be tomorrow, or anything else that will happen

tomorrow. But if they're in the agricultural land reserve now, they're

still in the ALR today. The forest nurseries in most instances are

within the ALR, and the hope is that the private sector will continue

to operate these forest nurseries in the years to come to help provide

the planting stock for forest renewal.

MR. LOVICK : I wish I could take more reassurance from that answer than I find myself able to take. What we are

[ Page

5497 ]

asking

the minister is simply for some reassurances that what we're talking

about is not merely a great real estate flip in the name of

privatization.

A supplementary question, if I might. Again,

let me remind you of what the press release issued on June 25 stated:

"Two of the nurseries are currently undergoing land use studies. Would

the minister be kind enough to explain why?

HON. MR. PARKER :

The two nurseries that the member alludes to are the Koksilah in Duncan

and the Green Timbers Nursery in Surrey. Both nurseries are within the

municipal boundaries, and we are working with the municipalities on the

destiny of those two.

MR. LOVICK : Perhaps the

minister has a hearing problem. I thought I was clear. I am asking: why

that process — not about the fact that it's being conducted with the

municipal authorities. Are we talking about rezoning? Is that on the

agenda? Again, why are we conducting those studies?

HON. MR. PARKER :

They are local issues. We are not looking for rezoning of those

properties. We're looking for a solution with the two municipalities as

to the destiny of those lands. It's appropriate that we work with those

municipalities because the Green Timbers Nursery is a heritage

property, and Surrey wants to retain it that way. We're quite prepared

to work with them. Basically, we're having discussions with them. We're

not looking for rezoning for a real estate transaction, if that's what

the member is alluding to.

MR. LOVICK : I think we're

finally getting somewhere. Will the minister assure this House that

those properties, albeit they are privatized, will continue to perform

the vital service they currently do for the forest industry?

HON. MR. PARKER : There are no guarantees in life.

MR. LOVICK : It's nice to encounter the philosopher-king on the other

side.

Another short question, if I might. I wonder if the minister could tell

us some more specific things: who is presently conducting these land use studies;

what the terms of reference for those studies are; and when those studies

will be completed.

HON. MR. PARKER : Discussions are taking place between officials in our ministry and representatives of the municipalities.

MR. LOVICK :

It seems we must carry on this kind of pas de deux in which we avoid

each other. My question was: will you tell us who is conducting the

land use studies? You've done so in a vague kind of way. Will you also

tell us what the terms of reference are? Will those terms of reference

be made public? Will the results of those studies be made public?

HON. MR. PARKER : The matter is under discussion with various municipalities.

That's just the state of affairs: it's under discussion. There are no

set terms of reference; it's under discussion. We have an opportunity here

for the municipalities to vent their concerns and deal with an issue that's

within their mandate, and we're working with them for a common solution.

You don't need terms of reference. You don't need any hard-and-fast

rules to enter into discussion with municipal officials on the matter of lands

within their municipalities. It's simply a matter of open discussion between

our officials and theirs — no big secret. There's nothing dark and sinister

about it. It's just open government.

[2:30]

ENVIRONMENTAL APPEAL CHARGES

MS. SMALLWOOD :

A question to the Minister of Environment. In this House on June 21,

you mentioned that an oral hearing before the Environmental Appeal

Board could be arranged for the Islands Protection Society in Vancouver

for $7,000. Is this the same fee that would be charged to other public

interest groups. or is this a special penalty fee for the Islands

Protection Society?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : No, it's a special protection fee for the people of British Columbia.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

How does the minister reconcile charging exorbitant rates for these

appeals with the ombudsman's recommendations that pesticide use appeals

should be decided in hearings that are open and accessible to the

public — hearings in their own community?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

It's reconciled. We've had seven hearings now, at a cost of about

$100,000, to accommodate the Islands Protection Society. They have been

unable at any time to introduce new evidence. So in order to not cause

this tremendous expense to the Crown and to the taxpayer of British

Columbia, we're insisting that this particular group — who really have

not done a very good job in terms of trying to do what they want to do

— pay a deposit. Anybody else could attend. But they have rather

sullied their own record.

MR. SPEAKER : The first member for Victoria seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. G. HANSON :

Would the House join us in welcoming 18 individuals representing the

Inter–Cultural Association of Greater Victoria, which, as you probably

know, is having its annual festival in the concourse and area around

the Provincial Museum. It represents the multicultural flavour of

Canada. Would you all join me in welcoming them and their good work.

Presenting Petitions

MS. A. HAGEN :

I ask leave to present a petition to the assembly this afternoon. This

petition comes from concerned citizens of British Columbia who

represent many residents in care homes: the Old Age Pensioners'

Organization; the Council of Senior Citizens' Organizations in B.C.;

various organized groups, such as the B.C. Nurses' Union and the

Hospital Employees' Union; and many citizens and organizations who have

joined them in this petition. It reads:

"We,

the undersigned concerned citizens of British Columbia do hereby

petition the government of British Columbia to rescind the increase in

fees and proposed means tests for patients in long-term-care

facilities. Many of these patients are on minimum and fixed incomes.

Increased fees will reduce the amount

[ Page

5498 ]

available to provide for their necessary personal and medical

needs, while a means test will subject them to a demeaning and intrusive inquiry

into their personal affairs."

Mr. Speaker, there are 41,171 names represented here.

Presenting Reports

Ms.

Marzari, Chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts,

presented the first report from the Select Standing Committee on Public

Accounts.

MS. MARZARI : I move the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

MS. MARZARI : By leave, I move that the rules be suspended and the report adopted.

Leave granted.

MS. MARZARI :

Mr. Speaker, this is the 113th report from a Public Accounts Committee

to this House. I present this report with mixed feelings. As Chair of

the Public Accounts Committee, I don't feel I am completely satisfied

that the appropriate time and resource has been brought to this

investigation of public accounts. I think that this is basically a

brief canvass of some of the issues that the auditor general has

brought before the House and has been delegated to the committee.

has briefly canvassed the Coquihalla issue. It has briefly tried to

canvass the B.C. Enterprise Corporation. But I believe that in the 11

hours that we have had, it is not really an accurate and fully

canvassed statement of the state of public accounts in our province. I

would like to say that strides have been made in this past year. That

the report is before you is in itself something of significance. I

would like to point to the excellent efforts of the staff of the

ministries, the comptroller-general and the office of the

auditor-general, and to the excellent work of our own Clerk of the

committee. I hereby present. . . .

MR. G. HANSON : And the members.

MS. MARZARI :

And the members, who, I should add, found it difficult to come in this

morning for an early morning meeting after the debate lasted until 1:10

last evening. I present the report to the House as it stands.

MR. REE :

Just a short correction. Debate lasted until 1:15 last night, and I

didn't see the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee in the House.

Motion approved.

Hon.

Mr. Couvelier tabled the financial statements for the Educational

Institutions Capital Financing Authority and the Housing and Employment

Development Financing Authority for the fiscal year ended March 31,

Hon. Mr. Davis tabled the annual report of the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation for the fiscal year 1987-88.

Ministerial Statement

RESIGNATION OF ATTORNEY-GENERAL

HON. B.R. SMITH : I have a ministerial statement to make.

Mr.

Speaker, for over five years I have had the honour to hold the post of

Attorney-General. This is an office of great sensitivity and neutrality

in the administration of justice. I now find that I can no longer carry

out my duties, as I clearly do not have the support of the Premier and

his office, who do not appreciate the unique independence that is the

cornerstone of the Attorney-General's responsibilities in a free

parliamentary democracy. Therefore I am submitting my resignation as

Attorney-General and am stating that I do not wish at this time to be

considered for another cabinet post in this administration.

removing myself from this office now it is my hope that I may protect

its unique independence. I believe that there is a strong danger that

the Premier wishes to bring the conduct of the office of the

Attorney-General under closer control by his office and so weaken the

independence of the Attorney-General. I know this result, Mr. Speaker,

can be accomplished in a number of ways, certainly in part by

reorganizing this ministry into several weaker departments with divided

responsibilities. I also know that this can be accomplished by shifting

ministers and other senior personnel. I believe these plans have

already been laid.

Only by stepping down, only by speaking

out now, can I hope to prevent a course which will weaken the

independence and erode the tradition of the office of the

Attorney-General. I'm not a political renegade. I have loyally

supported and campaigned across this province for the policies of this

government. But during the past week, amid speculation of cabinet

reorganization, I have had a chance to review some of the comments that

have been made by the Premier and others concerning who might occupy

the office of Attorney-General. Any fair-minded observer would find

these comments an implied lack of confidence in myself, but even more

so a diminished concept of the office of Attorney-General.

Clearly

the Premier believes that this office can be well filled by someone who

does not have legal training. This observation is hard to accept when

there are four members of the government caucus who have legal

training. I know from my experience that the Attorney-General requires

considerable legal and constitutional sensibility in giving advice to

government, or else the Attorney-General will simply be repeating,

without understanding, the legal advice of others.

I also

know that during my term of office I have tried to give sound advice. I

have always striven to protect the honesty and integrity of the

administration. I have also reached out to ordinary citizens who are

frustrated and alienated from the justice system. Major law reform has

been passed in the past few years, from controlling pornography to

providing a fair expropriation procedure; from modernizing the law of

commercial arbitration to creating a maintenance collection system to

help single parents. I have battled for strong parole policies and

sponsored our first law to support victims of crime.

I know

that these policies have been widely acclaimed both by the public and

by the party, and that my performance has nothing to do with the

reasons why the Premier wishes to remove me from my post and weaken my

ministry. The reason instead has to do with a fundamental

misunderstanding as to why my office must remain independent and

neutral. I can only conclude that the two occasions most mentioned do

give the real indication of this misunderstanding.

Firstly, in March when the Chief Justice handed down his decision on abortion funding, it was my duty to uphold that

[ Page

5499 ]

decision, and in doing so I believe I strengthened the government.

On the second occasion, in early April, it is a matter of record that I

did have discussions with the Premier concerning Mr. Toigo. I did tell

the Premier that I could not, as requested by him and announced by Mr.

Toigo, confirm that no requests had been received for a criminal

investigation. Indeed, I could neither confirm nor deny these types of

allegations in this or in any other case.

For me to have

acted differently and to have done what I was requested to do would not

only have dishonoured my office but also would have placed in peril the

office of the Premier. I explained my position on several occasions to

the Premier when those events occurred. I fervently hoped that I had

established and explained the importance of the neutrality and

independence of my office to the Premier. I now believe that I have

failed to make that impression.

I can only conclude that it

is because of the way that I independently carried out my duties that I

am slated to be removed from those duties. I also believe that it is

planned to reorganize this ministry, separating the control of the

police and prisons from the rest of the justice portfolio. But by

speaking out now, and stepping down now, I may still deter these plans

and save the integrity of the office of the Attorney-General.

should point out, Mr. Speaker, that I am resigning as Attorney-General

and removing myself from serving in a new cabinet at this time. But I

am going to remain a member of this Legislature. I'm going to sit in my

caucus and I'm going to serve and support my party. I'm going to

continue to support government policies and to speak out when

necessary, not just on justice issues but to fight for free trade and

to promote positive privatization as well as supporting progressive

social and environmental policies.

Mr. Speaker, when I

first entered local politics over 20 years ago, my father, who is now

deceased, told me that in politics you have nothing if you do not have

your integrity. When Richard McBride resigned on a point of principle

in the Dunsmuir administration in 1901, his father said: "My boy,

resign everything but your honour." I am resigning as

an act of honour.

MR. HARCOURT :

That is indeed a surprising announcement, and we are taken aback by the

resignation of the Attorney-General. I may say that it was a courageous

move from a man I have known for many years — as a matter of fact, as

neighbours when we were youngsters growing up in Oak Bay.

The

reasons that the Attorney-General has given for resigning from the

cabinet are indeed substantial and important to the integrity of our

parliamentary democracy. He outlined three instances, one being the

decision of our court in British Columbia on abortion funding and the

very strenuous advice that the Attorney-General gave at that time to

the Premier — that the Premier must obey the rule of law — and the

judgment of our courts under our constitution. Second was the integrity

of the office not to confirm or deny that an investigation is taking

place, which is a long-standing tradition. And third were the musings

of the Premier and others about not needing a lawyer to do this job,

that it could be done by lay people. That is true to a certain extent,

but I think that the Attorney-General — now the member for Oak Bay —

has outlined the unique status of the Attorney-General in our

parliamentary system: an independent adviser, not just to the cabinet

but to the Lieutenant-Governor, on behalf of Her Majesty

and of the institutions of our great democracy. That integrity cannot

be sullied, decentralized, decimated, cut up and pushed into the

Premier's office for greater control to carry out the Premier's wishes.

That integrity is absolutely inviolate, and the Attorney-General was

right to make that the essence of his remarks to this Legislature today.

[2:45]

From

our side of the Legislature. I would like to say to the member from Oak

Bay that this was a difficult decision from one who has been involved

in public service for many years as a mayor and a member of the

Legislature, who has served in a number of cabinet positions and as

Attorney-General for a number of years now. We admire this startling,

sudden but courageous decision.

Orders of the Day

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

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

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

(continued)

On vote 4: Premier's office, $6,756,134.

MR. CASHORE :

Prior to lunch I had an opportunity to say just a few sentences, and

the point I was making was that the Premier's plan to strengthen the

family, in my opinion, indicates a lack of trust in two major

government ministries, Social Services and Health.

reason for coming to that position is that this initiative was

announced during the current session and prior to the budget having

been approved, at a time when there was ample opportunity to have

incorporated any reasonable long-range planning into the budget that

the Premier presented through his Minister of Finance on budget day.

say that, also recognizing that there appeared to be a philosophy

during the time that the budget was presented that would move towards

the consolidation of funds. Indeed we have had legislation before this

House indicating that to be the process, except that in this one

instance the Premier went against the grain of what was seemingly the

process regarding consolidated funds and set up a special fund that

came under the Ministry of Finance. But presumably the money out of

this $85 million fund, this new initiatives fund, would be made

available for the Initiatives for Strengthening the Family program.

There's

an expression in theology, a Latin phrase, creatio ex nihilo ,

which

means created from nothing. It would seem to me, given the events

leading up to the Premier's program for strengthening the family, that

the Premier indeed had invented the family from nothing. The Premier

had invented an entity on which he then decided to focus his attentions

— and I would say his political attentions — because of a political

problem he was having at that time.

So the first question I

would like to put to the Premier is: given the fact that the family has

existed in this province for a long time, it leaves me very curious as

to why the family was discovered following the events that resulted

from a Supreme Court of Canada's decision on abortion. Why did the

Premier choose to discover the family at that time, to go beyond and

indeed to ignore the normal planning budgetary procedures

[ Page 5500 ]

and

set up a special fund — some would call it a slush fund — outside the

Ministry of Social Services and Housing and the Ministry of Health? I

would also like to ask the Premier: would he have initiated this

program if he had not found himself in difficulty over the decision to

cease funding abortions?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : The

position that I've taken has been consistent. I never run from

political problems. There are obviously those from time to time, and

they offer us only further challenge. I guess the further challenge is

what we saw following the controversy on abortion, but we said then

that we would be introducing a program that would provide people with

information that would identify alternatives to abortions.

had similarly talked about providing opportunities for people to

receive marriage counselling, especially those who might not identify

themselves with a particular church. We had already had discussions

many months prior with the Council for the Family.

We know

that the Ministry of Social Services was extremely concerned and was

seeking ways of bringing back home runaway kids who found themselves on

the streets.

We faced all those problems. They didn't

happen all of a sudden or one at a time, but we provided one program to

attempt to address those concerns and others, called Strengthening the

Family. We funded the program. I think it's a noble goal. I'm not

suggesting that we'll alter or change all things or improve it just as

all people would have it, but I believe we, as people in government,

have to care. We have to do whatever we can, and if we can take a

leadership role and bring about some good, or even if we can provide

some people with alternatives to abortions or prevent abortions, help

counsel the family through the Council for the Family and help them in

their marriage, or bring home a few runaway kids. . . . I don't know

what the price is, but I think it's well worth it, whatever the price,

and it's certainly a program that I support wholeheartedly.

MR. CASHORE :

I know the Premier is not able to hear all the debates that take place

in the Legislature, but I want to assure the Premier that for two years

now during the estimates of the Ministry of Social Services and

Housing, we have canvassed the minister on some of the needs that the

Premier says he has tried to respond to in that Initiatives for

Strengthening the Family program.

We have pointed out in

this House to his minister that programs for the family in British

Columbia have been decimated since 1982-83 and that there is a very

real need for responsible, incremental, evaluative planning. I'm

talking about the planning that happens within a ministry which

demonstrates trust of the people who work within the ministry and which

enables them to have the resources they need to fulfil their mandate.

The response we have received has been that it has not been possible to

respond to these needs that we have pointed out to the Ministry of

Social Services and Housing because there simply isn't enough money to

go around. I'm sure the minister has expressed in this House and

privately on several occasions that there was sufficient money to go

around. The Premier has not responded to my question.

What

happened after January 20 of this year that caused this Premier and, he

would want us to believe, the members of his government to have a

complete about face with regard to the need for spending funds on some

of these social programs? We have been pointing out this need for many

years. What happened after January 21 that caused this about face? The

Premier has not addressed that question.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

There was no about face. We developed the program based on a number of

things that have certainly been presented to us as problems, and I am

very proud of every component of that program. I'm sure that you

members of the opposition may have varying views on some of those

problems we wish to see addressed in the Strengthening the Family

program. You are entitled to your own views, but I think that we as a

government are certainly determined to proceed with the program. We're

very proud of the program. We didn't need a reason per se, but we

certainly saw a number of problems that could be addressed in this

approach.

MR. CASHORE : It is apparent that the

Premier is embarrassed about this line of questioning and wants to not

answer some very specific questions.

Interjections.

MR. CASHORE :

I think it's also embarrassing that his members choose to laugh on cue.

I understand that they're all under a great deal of stress right now

and that there are a number of things bothering them. But if they would

quiet down a bit, maybe the Premier would be able to hear my next

question.

AN HON. MEMBER : Say something of value and we'll quiet down.

MR. CASHORE :

I think we are talking about something of value when we're talking

about the family; there's no question about that. I know that the

Premier will agree with me that both sides of this House have talked

about the family for years, so nobody is claiming ownership with regard

to that. I think that will be agreed. But I think the Premier will also

recognize that the question I have been asking is a difficult one,

because it compares and contrasts the government initiative with regard

to this issue to the whole tendency within government this year to want

to consolidate funds and get away from having special pots of money

here and there. Right in the middle of the budgeting process, this

special pot of money, $85 million, was set up.

I would like

to suggest that this fund is nothing more than a political pork-barrel.

It's money that is put there so that the Premier, when he gets into

political difficulty with regard to social policy on families, on

children. . . . When the heat is on, he is then able to reach into it,

control it, use it and spend it in a way that it is designed not

primarily to deal with the issue it is said it is to deal with, but. .

. . It's a pork-barrel to deal with the Premier's political problems.

AN HON. MEMBER : Oh, oh!

MR. CASHORE :

That was a very interesting groan, but I would point out that a few

moments ago we heard from the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith), who

used these words when he was referring to the Premier. He said there

was "a fundamental misunderstanding with regard to the function of the

Attorney-General." I would say that I would echo those words with

regard to the fundamental understanding of the Ministries of Health and

Social Services and Housing, inso-

[ Page 5501 ]

far

as the $85 million slush fund was set up outside of their purview.

Somehow they were able to flank our Premier at a press conference to

try to get all of the possible hype out of that that one could possibly

get, but for no other reason.

[3:00]

The

people working in the Ministries of Health and Social Services and

Housing in this province would give their eye teeth to have access to

that fund so that they could apply it according to some of the

incremental, careful, evaluative planning they have been trying to do.

The Premier knows all too well that there has been a recent

reorganization within that ministry, and in some ways that

reorganization is failing because it lacks the resources that are

needed. Yet Mr. Carter and others did their very best with the limited

resources they had to try to serve the families of this province

through that reorganization. They were not given the resources to do

it. The Premier, because he is having political problems, takes the

money and puts it into a special pork barrel so that he can deliver

that money when he wants it, where he wants it and because he needs it.

This

is a shameful thing that has been a hallmark of the nature of this

legislative session with regard to the way the Premier of this province

has functioned. I would like to ask the Premier if he can explain to

this House in what way this program, this $85 million fund, does not

indicate a fundamental misunderstanding with regard to the Ministries

of Social Services and Housing and Health?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

There is no fundamental misunderstanding by the Premier or my office

about any minister or ministry, or any program of any minister or

ministry. I don't have any difficulty with that. I am very proud of our

program — and it's certainly a very effective program as well — called

Strengthening the Family. Despite the opposition from the NDP, because

they are very narrow in their views on. . . . I am only disappointed

the member didn't have the courage to make reference to those programs

that he might have been referring to. I say again, I have no difficulty

with assuring that, as part of the program entitled Strengthening the

Family, we do provide information to those seeking abortions, to give

them some knowledge about the alternatives. I make no apologies for

that. I appreciate it's more than what perhaps the opposition would do,

but you speak for yourself on that particular issue, and I guess you've

already done so.

I can only say that we not only talk about

strengthening the family; we do something about it. I repeat: I wish we

could do much more, and I wish we could be 100 percent successful. I

know we can't be just that, but we'll certainly give it every try.

Everything we can do to help in that regard we will do.

MR. CASHORE :

In 1982, under the Ministry of Social Services and Housing, $17,837,000

was spent for family support services in this province. That was in

1982. In 1986 — and let's remember that we need to make adjustments for

inflation — the amount was $10,688,000.

I repeat my

point: there are excellent people in the Ministry of Social Services

and Housing who have been working extremely hard to try to deal with

the burgeoning needs of families which the Premier has pointed out the

minister has identified by going down into the downtown area. No

question about that; I am sure he would identify them by going down

there.

We have been telling the Premier ever since he

became Premier that the previous administration's decimating of family

programs was a process where you sow the wind and you reap the

whirlwind. We have been telling you that, and we have been telling you

that the way you address that issue is to address it through careful.

incremental, evaluative planning within the ministry. That's how to

address it.

It's obvious that the Premier isn't going to

answer the question, but I would like to refer to a couple of points

that he's made in saying why these extra pork-barrel funds were needed.

He referred to the B.C. council for strengthening the family. I want to

point out that the B.C. council for strengthening the family has had

the support of this government, I believe most recently through the

Ministry of Health. I also want the Premier to know that members on

both sides of this House have stood in this House on statement days and

spoken in very complimentary ways about the B.C. Council for the Family.

think the B.C. Council for the Family is in that fragile situation

where, when we are not involved with it politically but supportively,

it is able to do its best work. But where the politics, the large P

politics, come into the issue, it compromises their ability to do their

job well because it can become suspect. Such is the case in the

Premier's constant reference to the B.C. Council for the Family's

marriage preparation program, because the Premier knows full well that

that program has been on the drawing-board for a long time. He knows

full well that the conference that took place in March that reviewed

the draft of the manual for those married counsellors who would have

the benefit of that program was on its way for a long time prior to the

plan to strengthen the family. He knows that that was in place; he knows

it was underway, but he also knows that he decided to co-opt it when it

became expedient to do so.

Mr. Chairman, this is why I find the words of the Attorney-General very helpful:

"fundamental misunderstanding." Here we have a fundamental misunderstanding

with regard to the appropriateness of the way in which such an issue should

be addressed. It's a fundamental misunderstanding that doesn't only

hurt the people from the B.C. Council for the Family. It doesn’t only

hurt those people who might or might not — because of what has been going on — participate

in that process. It is a fundamental misunderstanding that hurts the social

fabric of British Columbia, because it calls into question the integrity of

something that, before it was damaged by that poison touch, had been most worthwhile

and should not have been interfered with.

stand where I am today and tell the Premier that whether or not the

so-called plan to strengthen the family had ever come into existence,

the marriage preparation program of the B.C. Council for the Family

would have happened: it would have gone ahead anyway. The Premier has

simply decided to use that and take credit for it and incorporate that

into some political hype.

The Premier has also referred to

the abortion issue and the efforts that the so-called plan to

strengthen the family have put forward with regard to dealing with this

issue in our society. Again we have an issue here where the Premier has

taken very vulnerable people in our society and decided that it is

expedient to use them for his political purposes. What people who were

dealing with such issues need is not dealing with that issue as a

political football, but quiet, careful evaluative, comprehensive

planning that is done properly within a line ministry.

[ Page 5502 ]

the Premier is so concerned, I would like to ask him why an

organization that is second to none and internationally recognized for

its educational role in preventing unwanted pregnancy. . . . I would

like to ask him why his government fails to support Planned Parenthood.

That is a program that is appropriate across a wide spectrum of people

in our society. It's a program that has a proven track record, and it

is a way of dealing with an issue prior to it becoming the issue that

it is when it becomes a debate around abortion. I feel that if the

Premier was really intent on strengthening the family, he would be

recognizing the validity of supporting that organization and he would

also recognize that that organization has had support from this

government in the past but, sadly, does not now.

Mr.

Chairman, I would like to ask a very specific question to the Premier.

It was a question I put to the Minister of Finance during the

estimates, when we were looking at the $85 million new initiatives

fund. I'll just wait so that the Premier can hear me ask this question.

The question is this: during the few days after the announcement of the

plan to strengthen the family, the Premier was seen on television and

in newspaper ads throughout the province. Often these ads are referred

to as the "smoking-jacket" ads; these are the ads where the Premier was

advertising the program and getting a great deal of public exposure.

During the estimates, when we were talking about this $85 million fund,

I asked the Minister of Finance if the $20 million that had been

announced for the Initiatives for Strengthening the Family was the

source for the advertising at that time. He said that it was. I then

asked him how much of the money from that $20 million went into the

advertising. He said that he would take the question on notice. So far

I have not received a response. I would like to ask the Premier: how

much of that $20 million went into paying for that advertising program

in this province at this time when children are going hungry?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I don't have the exact amount, nor will we have it, I suppose, until

it's finished; but this information will definitely be available

through public accounts.

MR. CASHORE : I would like

to turn now to something that the Premier said on the hungry school

kids issue: "If there are children going to school hungry, that means

that they are not being looked after by their parents. I don't know if

it's really that difficult for people to get a lunch together for their

children. They are not really caring as they should be if this is

happening. Either they are using the money for things they shouldn't be

using it for or they're sleeping in when they should be preparing

lunches, letting their kids go off without it." I would like to ask the

Premier if he still feels that way.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I'm afraid that this bit of research came from one of the newspapers

and doesn't accurately reflect what was said with respect to the

question about the school lunch program.

MR. CASHORE : How does the Premier feel then about that quote, which he states does not accurately reflect how he feels about it?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I'll just try to repeat very quickly what

I've said before on other occasions. There are probably many reasons why

some youngsters arrive at school without breakfast or without a lunch. We won't

know what all of the reasons are unless we can assess each situation separately,

I suppose. In reference to the remarks made by the member, I might have listed

examples of some of the things that could happen. Sometimes, I guess, it's

because the money gets spent. Other times it's for other reasons which,

as I said, we won't know until each situation is looked at.

[3:15]

This

is why we've continually said if we could get school teachers,

counsellors, as well as our people in the Social Services ministry

working together to identify these situations, then our people could

very caringly assist the family and provide not only for the youngster

who comes to school without a breakfast or a lunch, but similarly

ensure that there's a breakfast or a lunch during the Easter break, the

summer holidays, the Christmas break and weekends, or that we are able

to provide for the children at home who are likewise doing without

breakfast or lunch.

To simply say we'll institute a

breakfast program and a lunch program for all the schools throughout

the province. . . . Obviously you wouldn't recommend, again, that it be

a program for downtown Vancouver only. It must go beyond. If there are

problems in Vancouver, there could well be problems elsewhere too. So

the program would have to consider the whole of the province. But to

simply say we'll institute a government lunch program and get the

fridges, the freezers, the directors, the assistant directors, the

trucks, and we'll build the kitchens and the bureaucracy. . . . That, I

appreciate, may be the socialist approach, but I believe we should look

at these people as individuals and attempt to address each situation on

an individual basis. The results would be better not only for the child

and the family, but also, as was mentioned, for the children at home.

MR. CASHORE :

I'm sure the Premier realizes that there are some people, children

included, who have to have food before they can start to benefit from

some of the other things of life. It reminds me of the Premier's

suggestion that mothers of some of these children might best turn to

Jesus, and that would begin to resolve their problems. But Jesus said,

in reference to a father, in the Bible . . . . He talked about a father

being asked for bread and giving a stone. What has happened is that

people, all of us, have need for counselling services and other kinds

of services, but our primary needs are for food. If somebody is asking

for bread, I think that's a pretty important request and one that must

be taken seriously. When somebody asks for bread and is given a

counsellor, I don't think that's really addressing a primary need in a

way that is compassionate or understanding or in a way that is going to

in any way strengthen the family.

I find, Mr. Chairman, if

I can sum up, that the gist of what has been happening through the

Premier in this province during this session has been what some people

who are at the low end of the income scale have considered to be in

some instances physical abuse, because of the problems they have had in

trying to deal with their physical needs. Sometimes it has been

received as verbal abuse, because of some of the kinds of things that

have been said about turning to Jesus and whatever it was that was said

exactly — things that have suggested that maybe it was because they

were irresponsible. We hurt people when we say things like that.

any segment of our society, yes, there are people who are

irresponsible; we know that. That's a given. Politicians, ministers of

the church, people in trust companies and also people of the low income

scale — we know that's a given. But

[ Page 5503 ]

when

we start to target those people and use language about them that tends

to use a lowest-common-denominator philosophy, that's extremely

hurtful, especially to those single mothers and fathers struggling to

get by, some of them, after their shelter is paid for, on as low as

$4.64 a day. That's extremely difficult, and no amount of counselling

for a lot of those people is going to be able to put food on the table.

it is a kind of abuse when people hear that this program is being put

in place, when family support services were axed back in 1982-83. This

new program is put in place that is outside the aegis of the ministry —

it's not even ministry staff. It's not only that people are asking for

bread and being given a stone, but they're asking for bread and they're

being given a very, very difficult burden, a heavy rock. Mr. Chairman,

I find this most inappropriate.

We hear the Premier going

on from time to time about what he perceives as a positive economy

within this province. But that type of thinking espouses the

trickle-down theory that the low-income people will benefit when

there's economic prosperity. We haven't seen that happening. We haven't

seen the people at the low end of the income scale benefiting from what

prosperity there is in this province. I think the Premier would do well

to take a look at why that might be.

Certainly it's not

going to strengthen the family or return principles of fairness when

our Premier insists on setting up slush funds for his own political

purposes, when he will take $50 from mothers on welfare with. . . . At

one point, the plan was for mothers with babies 15 weeks old, forcing

them out looking for work, but now it's with children 6 years old,

requiring that there be a whole new dimension of latchkey children.

Mr.

Chairman, the situation that we find families in in this province is

absolutely deplorable. The initiatives to strengthen the family are

simply not addressing that need. The infrastructure of this government

is being undermined by the way in which the Premier has gone about

this, as evidenced by the $85 million slush fund.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Chairman, I've heard some rather irresponsible statements, I

believe. When we hear it said that families in B.C. are in big trouble.

. . . I appreciate that there are problems. There are families with

problems, but to somehow label all things as being so chaotic and that

families everywhere are having trouble. . . . There are many people

working hard to get by and doing very well, and they're to be

commended, because these are trying times. They are difficult times.

For

you, hon. member, with your background, to suggest somehow that there

aren't many people trying very hard and doing a commendable job, given

the difficult circumstances as they exist out there — well, I'm a

little bit surprised, to say the least. But then again, I appreciate

perhaps that some of what's said is of a philosophical and political

nature, and hopefully one day you'll find your way away from where

you're at with that political party.

You talk about

counselling instead of bread. We never said we'd give counselling

instead of bread. In order to make the point, you quote from the Bible ,

and you give an example which you liken to counselling instead of

bread. It's not counselling instead of bread, and to use the Bible in

that way, I think, is to somewhat abuse the Bible , because we've never

said that. You know that was never intended. It's been explained time

and time again.

There are 83,000 children in a welfare

situation in this province. I agree that's too many, and we're striving

to see it otherwise. Out of the 83,000 children, you and your members

have been talking about 600 to 700 children who you say might be

identified in Vancouver.

We're saying that we want to

assist those families if there's a problem with no breakfast or no

lunch during school time, For that reason, you've repeated time and

time again that you want some big government socialistic approach

whereby we get into a big bureaucracy. I have yet to hear you or anyone

from the other side answer what we do on weekends. Or do you care what

happens during the Easter break or the summer holidays or the Christmas

break?

Do you care that if a child comes to school who, for

some reason or another — we don't know what the reason is — is being

denied a breakfast or a lunch, there could be two or three other little

children at home who don't have the benefit of this big government

program that the NDP wants to see introduced. It's another welfare

program costing millions of dollars and taking it away from people who

would similarly need some help. I refer to your suggestion when you

quote the Bible and liken the bread to the rock and the counselling to

the bread, and I say again that it's nothing like that.

want to work with those families to see how we help them, not only with

one child, but with other children and not only when they are attending

school but when they are not in school. That is a responsible approach,

and we stand by it. I commend the Minister of Social Services and

Housing for instituting the various initiatives that he has in order to

see this done effectively.

You talk about verbal abuse. You

say that when you go someplace and talk about Jesus Christ being the

answer, that's verbal abuse or whatever you said, or however you said

it, or however accurate. I believe you said it; you might have been

quoted or words to that effect. It does make a difference whether you

are accurately quoted or not. You said that because you know very well

that it was a misquote, and that this was said when I was addressing a

Christian businessmen's breakfast with the mayors of the Kootenays in

attendance.

That's when the statement was made, and I don't

make any apologies for the statement. It was accurate then; it is

accurate now. It's only inaccurate when you use it and twist it and

change it in order to make a political point, regardless of the expense

or who you offend. There are just as many people, I would suggest, hon.

member, who don't mind somebody mentioning the name of Jesus Christ as

there are who might be offended by it. As a matter of fact, I would

suggest many more don't mind it. Especially if you consider the context

and where it was given, I would suggest it was the proper thing to say

then, and it would be now. In all honesty, you would have to agree.

MS. MARZARI :

The Premier has just suggested that something uttered at a

businessmen's breakfast is legitimate anywhere, and it's perhaps more

appropriate at a businessmen's breakfast than it is in the House.

Businessmen's breakfast?

AN HON. MEMBER : A Christian businessmen's breakfast.

MS. MARZARI :

Oh, a Christian businessmen's breakfast is the place to tell women to

turn to Jesus. That's what the Premier is saying. It's appropriate in

that situation, perhaps,

[ Page 5504 ]

Mr.

Premier, but I don't think it's appropriate for the rest of the

province. Perhaps you should have checked the press and their presence

before you said it then, and you wouldn't be embarrassed in the House

here. You can keep it as a secret.

I think that action

speaks louder than words, and I think that budgets reflect action. My

questions to the Premier have strictly to do with his budget. The

Premier has total discretion over the budget, and this is very rare.

Most ministers don't have complete discretion over a large budget. Most

ministers have strings attached to their various budgets. Most

ministers have to go through their votes and their ministries to look

at their budgets and their programs. But the Premier this year has

almost broken all records in terms of having a specific vote for

innovation, for his innovative projects, or whatever it is called.

Within that $85 million the Premier has, almost at his own discretion,

as his own spending money, a $20 million discretionary fund which has

been loosely labelled "family strengthening" — the family strengthening

fund.

[3:30]

To this point there

has been a lot of discussion around the family strengthening fund.

There have even been page advertisements in the local newspapers about

what it is going to be spent on, vaguely broken down between

advertising, advertising, advertising and advertising. I would like the

Premier, if he would, to break down very specifically for me what that

$20 million looks like.

It is not good enough to say, "Go

to the Public Accounts next year," because that won't do us any good

right now. It's the Premier who has that $20 million, I would suggest,

and that $20 million is being spent right now. I would appreciate it if

the Premier would tell this House what categories that $20 million

breaks down into. Where does the advertising stop? Where does the

"buck up granny" program begin? Where does the "keep mom prolific"

program begin? Where does the "eat a counsellor for lunch" program

begin? If he would just break that down for me, then we can get into a

decent discussion on what in fact that $20 million looks like.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Before I answer that question, could you tell me what these programs

are again? "Eat a counsellor for lunch," "keep mom prolific," and

what are the others? I can't comment on those programs. There are no

such programs.

MS. MARZARI : Many comments have been

made about that $20 million through the press over the last number of

months, and many different reporters, Lynn Cockburn included, invented

some of those names. I have added, with my own sense of innovation and

imagination, a few others. I have still others which might not be

appropriate for this House to hear, but if the Premier would explain to

the House how the $20 million gets broken down, he can dispel some of

the myths that have been built up around the family strengthening

program.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : We differ obviously

in that I don't do my research from the press or the columnists, and I

guess this is where you get the names and the figures. My total budget,

if you will refer to vote 4 — I'll read it again. The total voted

expenditure by group account classification is $6,756,134. With that

being my total vote, how could I comment on a $20 million figure when

that is $13 million above the amount of my total vote?

MS. MARZARI : Is the Premier saying he doesn't have a $20 million

family strengthening program?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

That's correct, Mr. Chairman. It's not a part of my budget and I would

refer the member to vote 4 where she can see this for herself. It's

better to do some homework by referring to these estimates and books

rather than going to the newspaper for your research.

MS. MARZARI :

Can I remind the Premier that this is his program and it was announced

by the Premier himself in the "father knows best" ads he did on TV some

months ago. The family strengthening program was very much a part of

the Premier's own innovations budget, so I would very much like to know

where the $20 million is going.

Is the Premier suggesting

that the $20 million doesn't exist? Is the Premier suggesting that the

$20 million has been absorbed into other ministry budgets? Is the

Premier suggesting that that project and that program never existed in

the first place? What is the Premier suggesting with these comments

that this is not a part of his budget?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

It is not a part of my budget, so I don't believe it should be

canvassed under my vote. I am sure the opportunity was there under

Health and Social Services and the Ministry of Finance; that's when it

should have been raised. It is not a part of the Premier's vote. Nor

was the announcement made by the Premier alone; present there was the

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck), the Minister of Social Services

and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) and myself.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

If the chair might be helpful in this matter, hon. members, could I

point out that vote 74, it appears, contains the $85 million which has

been alluded to on a number of occasions, and part of this $85 million

I believe is where we find the $20 million. Vote 74 was dealt with

under the Ministry of Finance and was approved at that time.

MS. MARZARI :

The innovations budget, then, that the Premier has been using to

develop his family strengthening program has not been put into the

Premier's budget itself. I must say that the Speech from the Throne

certainly suggested that the innovations project and the budget were

appended to the Premier's office itself. Perhaps that was a mistake in

the Lieutenant-Governor's speech to the House at that point.

would like to come back to some of the comments that have been

discussed by my colleague from Maillardville–Coquitlam. During that

discussion the Premier found it perfectly appropriate to discuss these

issues, even though they came under a vote that wasn't appended to his

own office. I would like to intervene in the debate that was held about

whether children need bread, counselling or the Bible . I think what is

important here — this has come back to us again and again, and

certainly it has been raised in front of this government on a number of

occasions — is that children comprise 40 percent of the total number of

people on welfare. Eighty-three thousand children are living in

poverty. There are probably more living in poverty than that, but that

is the number of children on welfare.

I would like to ask

the Premier if, using the family-strengthening budget, he has made any

initiatives towards looking at the level of poverty in which these

children are living. In other words, has the Premier done or

commissioned any investigatory work on the rate of subsistence at which

these children are living? Has he looked at children and poverty in

this province in a research sense, in any reasonable way, with the

funds at his disposal?

[ Page

5505 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : The same member who is asking the questions accused

me of taking too much into my office when we assumed intergovernmental relations,

which is something that obviously belongs in the Premier's office because

it's ongoing between us and Ottawa, particularly, on a regular basis. If

we should all of a sudden assume the functions of the Ministry of Social Services,

what would the outcry be? Where would the member be standing and what might

she be saying then? No, that's for the ministries to decide.

MS. MARZARI :

Were the advertisements by the government — the smoking-jacket adverts

that appeared on television a few months ago — taken out of the

Premier's office budget or the Social Services and Housing budget?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : It wasn't out of the Premier's budget.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Just before we continue, hon. members, I would like to make a couple of

comments, if the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey would take her

seat.

I appreciate the sincerity with which the debate is

being put forward by the persons who are questioning the Premier, and I

also appreciate the fact that the tenor of this debate that came

forward at the very outset when it was stated that it would be

wide-ranging, etc. . . . Most of these matters, it seems to me — and I

would suggest to hon. members — have been fairly well canvassed up to

this point. Perhaps we could bring our discussions more in line with

vote 4 itself, which deals with the office of the Premier.

MS. MARZARI :

I have a few more questions, Mr. Chairman, that have to do with the

family planning film that was made and put into libraries throughout

the province. The Premier has already referred to certain programs

around family planning which I imagine are being done through the

Health budget. Is the Premier aware that that the family planning

film refers only once to the possibility of a woman seeking to

terminate her pregnancy — to the possibility that she might be capable

of doing so? Is the Premier aware that the family planning film

reflects a family situation that isn't necessarily typical of women in

this province?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Perhaps the hon. member would like to tell us what, in her opinion, a typical family is.

MS. MARZARI :

I don't think I really want to take up too much time of this House, but

it happens to be the case that more than one in four marriages does

break up; that in my own neighbourhood there is a fifty-fifty chance

that a child is not in a two-parent family. Either a child is in a

one-parent family or a child has three or four parents and is living

part of the time with the mother and stepfather or whatever particular

combinations.

It is a truth of our society that one of the reasons for the dislocation and

some of the alienation that people feel is that those in government have this

notion that there is still such a thing as a mommy and a daddy who know best

and 2.4 children in a family, living happily in a house with a small mortgage,

and driving one or two cars. That is one of the problems that we're faced

with in our community. Presenting that as some kind of ideal, or worse still,

as some kind of norm, simply doesn't reflect the realities of our community.

The

fact that 83,000 children in this province live in poverty and that

24,000 single mothers are on welfare should be an indication to this

government that something is seriously wrong. I think that if the

Premier were serious about strengthening the family, he would be doing

some coordinative programs with all his departments, not perpetuating

the myth of a family construct that doesn't exist any longer, except

perhaps in 25 percent of the cases. He would be dealing effectively

with some of the problems that exist because that family construct

doesn't exist any longer. He'd be trying to deal with new ways of

bolstering new kinds of family formations, such as the single mother,

living in a family at 50 to 70 percent below the poverty line, as the

SPARC report recently indicated, regaining dignity.

mother with three or four children. . . . This is what Pat Chauncey and

her group, the Child Poverty Action Committee, talked to us about a few

weeks ago. A mother with two children, on welfare, in the city — and in

the rest of the province as well, because there isn't that much of a

variation — is living around 50 percent below what she needs to live

with. She is actually getting cash through the door every month that's

50 percent below what she needs in order to have anything like a normal

existence. She is making choices every day of the week, especially at

the end of the month before the cheque comes, about whether her

children will have lunch or she'll have lunch, and it's obvious that

the children have lunch. She's making decisions every day of the week

about whether she goes to the food bank or goes to friends. That is not

a normal family existence, and yet it is an existence that we

perpetuate for 24,000 single mothers in our community.

That's

my definition. I think that if you're serious about strengthening the

family, Mr. Premier, you do other things. You build a different type of

program. You do a different kind of research. You don't perpetuate a

myth at a Christian businessman's breakfast about what families are and

how they live and how they should live. That doesn't reflect the

reality of the women who are not at the breakfast, who are home trying

to make ends meet. It just doesn't reflect. You can take your

counselling and the rest of it, but you have to give them money. The

poor need money.

[3:45]

I have two

specific questions, and then I will end. These are questions from

constituents. One constituent wanted to know if any provincial money

will be going to the capital costs of building or operating a single

women's home that will bring young girls' pregnancies to term. Will you be

capitally or operationally investing in a new home for unwed

mothers?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Where possible, we

use homes already in existence. There may be circumstances where new

homes could be considered; I suppose it would depend on the community.

There could be communities where they don't have any such homes and

where it may be too distant to find another home.

MS. MARZARI :

Is the minister at all aware of a program which supposedly will be

taken out of this $20 million that has already gone by in vote 74,

which would subsidize grandmothers $267 a month for taking care of

their grandchildren?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : No, I'm not aware of any such program, nor am I aware of any announcement of such a

[ Page

5506 ]

program, nor am I aware of anything having been said by anyone that

sounds anything like the member has suggested it could be. I have heard

reference to the fact that there could be a situation where if we could

somehow keep the family providing for the child while the single mother

finds employment, and if this could be done in a way whereby it

wouldn't be abused but where instead we could keep the love of family

available to the child and the child in surroundings familiar to the

child, this would be a good approach and it might be considered. If

that's interpreted to be as the member describes it, it shows,

unfortunately, a lack of understanding.

MS. MARZARI :

Well, Mr. Premier, we haven't gotten very far with this questioning. I

don't really sense that the Premier has an understanding of what could

have been done with that $20 million for strengthening families.

When

the Premier was first discussing women bringing pregnancies to term who

otherwise might not choose to, what was he thinking of in terms of

programs? He did suggest that homes would be set aside and that there

would be particular incentives. At the same time, the inconsistency

there was that the incentive was somewhat removed when the $50 was

removed if one was on welfare.

Could the Premier talk in

any depth at all about what services really do exist for women who

choose to have their babies, aside from homes for unwed mothers and

possibly a little money to their mothers to take care of the children

while they are looking for work? After all is said and done, and all

the dust is cleared on this $20 million, has the Premier got any idea

of what services have in fact been coordinated? Does he have any idea

of who's taking advantage of them?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

This is being worked on by Social Services and Health, and that

information should be sought from the appropriate minister and ministry.

MS. MARZARI :

One last intervention. It looks to me as if the Premier isn't

completely aware of the consequences of the expenditure of that $20

million. It looks to me as if there hasn't been a lot of reporting back

going on. The Premier isn't completely aware of what coordination has

taken place. It seems to me that the $20 million under vote 74 has just

been tossed to the wind, and I have ambivalent feelings about it. It

may be just as well that the departments have been allowed to get on

with their own agenda and their own plans, as my colleague for

Maillardville–Coquitlam has suggested.

I would put to you,

Mr. Chairman, that the Premier has not coordinated a program, that he

does not have a family strengthening capacity, that his definition of

family is grossly out of touch with the last half of the twentieth

century, and that, in fact, we have a serious problem here: that of a

Premier saying one thing, not following through, doing another and

allowing the chips to fall where they may. In my opinion, that is a

gross waste of taxpayers' dollars.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I'm afraid I'm not prepared to let the Premier

off quite so easily. The Premier has avoided questions; he has been reluctant.

He has dodged; he has talked about relevancy. The Premier has essentially turned

this province upside down and then tried to use a bail-out of taxpayers'

money to talk about a program that doesn't even relate to need. I'd

like the Premier to tell this House why he had insisted on this program and

named it "Strengthening the Family," when what we have seen very

clearly is that it relates very little to the needs of families in this province.

I'd

like to ask the Premier why he decided to initiate this program, rather

than putting money where it's really needed: in the programs that

already exist and in the organizations already doing good jobs. Why did

the Premier choose not to give money to organizations like Planned

Parenthood?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I think it's very

interesting. I don't mind all of this discussion. It's becoming very

clear where the opposition is coming from. We heard from the second

member for Vancouver–Point Grey who is obviously under the impression

that somehow families can't be strengthened. The only way is to give

them more money — right — and that money will cure all things. You can

give people money, and this will strengthen the family in every

respect. Nothing else needs doing.

We've heard from the

member for Surrey–Guildford–Whalley who says that Planned Parenthood

has all the answers. Why don't we simply turn everything over to

Planned Parenthood? We are, obviously — and this is nothing new; it's

always been thus — very different from the NDP, who tend to be very

pessimistic about all things, and who tend to take a lost or losing

attitude to all of the things that we might do as government for those

we represent. We are of another philosophy, and we are of a different

spirit. We tend to view things more positively and in a more optimistic

way.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

I believe that

the program can accomplish a great deal, and that it will. It's being

worked on presently by two ministries. There are many parts of the

program which will assist different people in different ways. We are

saying that we are not giving up on these families, and we don't

believe that somehow 75 percent of all families in B.C. are as the

member for Vancouver–Point Grey says them to be. That's her impression

of a family. It is different, and it's not quite that way. It's not as

though you have 25 percent out there that have one type, and 75 percent

are somehow all different as she's described them; and therefore, the

answer is more money. We don't believe that, and therefore we're

approaching it differently. You don't agree with the approach we're

using. You say more money; we say we don't believe that, and we're not

prepared to change. So it will stay as it is.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I was certain that the Premier was interested in the questions being

put to him, the discussion of the Premier's estimates, and we'll wait

to proceed until the Premier can pay attention.

initiating this program, the Premier has indicated that he does not

have confidence in the work being done by his ministry. Would the

Premier clarify that and tell the House whether or not the initiation

of this program indicates a lack of confidence in the existing programs?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I had the privilege of being the minister of what was then called Human

Resources — now Social Services — and I made it a point to travel all

over the province and call in at every Human Resources office and meet

with the people over the coffee table in the coffee room. I met a lot

of wonderful, very dedicated people working under extremely difficult

circumstances. But I still have faith in those people. I still believe

there's much they can do to assist those families that you talk about,

which you say can only be helped by the government establishing yet

[ Page

5507 ]

another branch called the breakfast and lunch branch, I guess. That's what

you think the answer ought to be, and you're asking me if I have faith in

the workers and the programs they administer. I'm the one that has faith.

You're the one that lacks faith. You believe you know better and that these

workers somehow can't address it.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

By developing this program that you call Strengthening the Family, by

having this pot of money available, you have developed that other arm,

that other bureaucracy, that other level. Instead of dealing with the

structures and the programs that exist, instead of supporting those

people that you talk about, you developed another package, another

program. In essence, it's a slap in the face for those people who are

doing all that good work. Those people would dearly love to have the

support, the recognition and the money available in this pot that you

have initiated for whatever reasons. All the doublespeak in the world

isn't going to change that reality. That's the reality you have created

by developing this so-called program.

The question again,

Mr. Premier, is: why did you choose to develop this separate program,

this separate pot of money, this tiny little program that absolutely

pales when compared to the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of

Social Services and Housing, the talent and resources that are there,

the programs that exist in our community through volunteer

organizations? Why did you decide to create this little pot instead of

supporting the organizations and the talented people that you have on

staff?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : This is an extra. This

is a further assist. This is to recognize that there are things we can

do and must initiate through the Ministry of Social Services to assist

families, to bring about the sorts of supports that will strengthen

families. How these NDP opposition members can be against strengthening

the family all of the time and how they somehow consider all is lost

and there's nothing we can do is beyond me. However, when I think it

through, considering the source, I begin to develop an understanding.

[4:00]

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Before we proceed, I'd like to remind the member that we are discussing

vote 4. Up until now the Chair has been very lenient with questions and

answers. I am only a humble servant of this House, and I have the

standing orders to follow, and I would like to do so, so I would ask

the member to continue, but stay within the rules of the House.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

Mr. Chairman, I would assure you that I will conduct myself in the

debate in the same fashion as it has been conducted over the many hours

already dealt with in the Premier's estimates. I thank you for that

reminder.

I want to tell the Premier that the New Democrats here represent equity, justice

and fair treatment. Your program, Mr. Premier. . . . You have very clearly chosen

not to support all the hard-working people in the two very important ministries,

the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Social Services and Housing. Since

you have decided instead to develop this small program that duplicates some

of the work that has already been done in this province, some of the work that

has been under attack by previous and existing Social Credit administrations.

. . . What you have done, Mr. Premier, no matter how you put it, no matter how

you try, by suggesting that it doesn't exist or trying to twist the words

and suggest that by our concern, our demanding accountability for taxpayers'

money and fair treatment for the families and the women of this province. .

. .

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, hon. member. I cautioned the member prior to her rising for the last time. I would ask her to speak to vote 4.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

Mr. Chairman. I am referring to the Premier's office and I would ask

for the same latitude as previous speakers. We are talking about the

expenditures of the Premier, the Premier's policies and the Premier's

conduct in the past year, and deciding. indeed, whether the taxpayers'

money should be spent in supporting the Premier's actions in the years

to come.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Please proceed, hon. member.

MS. SMALLWOOD : Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

What

we are concerned with here is this government's policies and the

Premier's leadership reflecting the spending of this government and

reflecting the Premier's declared concern for the families of this

province. I'd like to ask the Premier, seeing as the program we have

been discussing in the last while — the Strengthening the Family

program — is very clearly a program that deals with policies directed

at women and at alternatives to abortion. and has nothing whatsoever to

do with strengthening the family, and seeing as this program has to do

with the Premier's policy on abortion, whether the Premier can indicate

to this House that the government is tracking what is going on in this

I'm

afraid it makes it very difficult to deal with the Premier's office

when the Premier is constantly dealing with other business. This is the

people's business. Mr. Premier.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Order,

hon. member. We are dealing with the estimates of the Premier under

vote 4. If you could address your remarks through the Chair, and keep

your remarks to vote 4, it would be appreciated. Please proceed.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

Thank you. Mr. Chairman. On the Premier's office, on vote 4, I would

like to ask the Premier whether he has instructed — through his

office, through the expenditure of the votes before us — his ministers

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Chairman, the member for Surrey–Guildford–Whalley has been talking

about a $20 million expenditure on a program worth $20 million, when

all I have in my budget is $6.7 million. So it's fairly clear to me

she's talking about another budget which might have been canvassed

another time. If she didn't, then perhaps she didn't perform her

responsibility as critic for that particular function. So I can't

really comment on that. If you missed the boat, it's too late; you had

your chance. We dealt with that, and I'm not going to sit here and talk

about the Ministry of Social Services and how well that ministry is

dealing with these programs and what a wonderful job they're doing,

because that's within that ministry and they decide. So I can't comment

on that.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The point is well taken, Mr. Premier. Hon. member, on vote 4.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I am under the impression that the Premier is the first minister of cabinet; that while we are

[ Page

5508 ]

dealing with the Premier's office, which now has support, resources,

that are parallel to no other Premier's office, we are talking about

the policies of the office, the policies of the Premier and the

policies of this government. I will restate my question. Has the

that important medical service — abortions — in this province?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : You said "important medical service." Would you explain what you were referring to'?

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I made it very clear, Mr. Premier, that the request is for the

government's policy and the policy of the Premier's office. Have you

instructed the Ministry of Health to keep track of this important

medical service — the service being abortions?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Chairman, I don't need to instruct the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr.

Dueck) or the Ministry of Health on a matter such as that. They

obviously do that all of the time. They do their job and they do it

effectively.

MS. SMALLWOOD : Mr. Chairman, again,

this is a very important issue in which the Premier, the first minister

of cabinet, the person responsible for this government, played a major

role in the past year. Can the Premier tell this House whether or not

the government has a policy to deal with . . . ? Can the Premier tell

this House whether he has instructed his government to deal with the

laughing matter, Mr. Premier. This is a reality that many women in this

province have to face: the lack of service. It's a very difficult

decision and, Mr. Premier, your government is making it worse. Can the

Premier tell this House whether or not this government is dealing with

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to second-guess what the member might be

driving at. Obviously I've tried to answer the questions, even though

many of them are outside of my office. She's again making reference to

some program in Health. She calls it a health program, a medical

program, abortion. I guess we could have a debate about that, but I

don't want to get into it. What she's saying is: have we addressed the

that's what's meant, and I could answer it specifically — whether the

Ministry of Health or the government is prepared to open abortion

clinics in every town, city, hamlet, village and crossing in the

province. If that's what you're saying — are we prepared to do that? —

then ask me that question. If you want us to say yea or nay to whether

we are prepared to see abortion clinics opened in every city, town,

village, hamlet and railway crossing, then tell us.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I'm very pleased to have the Premier put that question to the House.

Let me tell you what New Democrats think. New Democrats believe that

women and families deserve accessible, safe health care covered by the

Medical Services Plan in all communities. Absolutely, without question

— and that includes abortion services. What we believe is that those

services, including the ones you have identified in your little

program, which doesn't begin to deal with real needs, such as

counselling, education, day care.... That's what we believe in. We

believe that families in every community need real support and real

services.

My question is whether or not you are prepared

show some leadership in this province by providing that service in

every community. It is our view — the view of the New Democratic Party

— that community clinics are the best way to go; that community clinics

that deliver a broad base of services are both the most practical and

the most efficient way of delivering services.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Hon. member, we are discussing the Premier's estimates, not the policy

of the NDP. Can we direct the question to the Premier on vote 4.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I'm just answering the Premier's question. The Premier wanted to know our point of view, and I gave it to him.

I'd

now like the Premier to tell us whether or not he is prepared to show

leadership in this issue and make the service accessible.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I suppose there are a number of things that might be considered before

such a question would be decided upon. The views of individuals could

enter into that debate, as I'm sure would the consideration of cost and

such other things. What I hear you saying is that you're prepared to

cancel other health programs in order to see these abortion clinics

established.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Well, you gave me a big thing about what the NDP would do. I imagine

you would have these clinics in all the cities, villages, towns,

hamlets and everywhere. Would we support that? No.

[4:15]

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I'll just wait until the Premier has finished his discussion to

continue the debate. My mother always told me it's rude to talk to the

back of somebody's head.

MR. CHAIRMAN : You can speak through the Chair. The Chair is listening.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I'd like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and emphasize that what we're

doing here is the people's business. We're dealing with taxpayers'

dollars and the Premier's office.

The Premier has said —

and very clearly — that one of the very few major initiatives from this

government in the last while has been the strengthening of the family.

We have told the Premier that there are real needs, and that those

needs are economic needs in support of the parents of those children.

Since he did get involved with this debate and direct the government

along the lines of the strengthening the family program, is the Premier

prepared to enter the discussion and encourage his ministers to look at

programs like affirmative action, pay equity and job training for women

so that they can support their families?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member has talked about

this being important public business, and no one in this House would

deny that in theory, at least, that's what we're supposed to be

[ Page 5509 ]

doing

here. I've heard you repeatedly ask the hon. member to deal with the

point before the House, which is vote 4, as I understand it, and not

vote 74. If the public well-being is truly on the hon. member's mind,

Mr. Chairman, I would ask you to remind her that the issue at hand is

vote 4; it has nothing to do with vote 74. That issue was dealt with at

length by this House previously. If we have a genuine desire to do the

people's business in a responsible way, it does seem to me we should at

least stick to the subject.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The point is very well taken, Mr. Minister. Would the member please continue with her remarks.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I would like to advise you that this is the last time I will rise on

the Premier's estimates, and I do so to put on the record a very grave

concern. What we have seen here during the debate around the Premier's

estimates and around the debate on the Premier's office has been a

wide-ranging, extensive debate around many of the government's

policies, the policies of different ministries — no more diffuse and no

more direct as it relates to the minister's budget than the debate we

have undertaken in the last 15 to 20 minutes. What we have seen by the

repeated interruption and points of order by members from the opposite

side and by the Premier's inability or refusal to answer these very

serious concerns is a decision that the Premier has made: that while it

is important to talk about Peter Toigo, while it is important to talk

about ethanol, while it is important to talk about several other

issues, it is not important to talk about families and women.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Well,

Mr. Premier, that's not acceptable. I will, along with the other

members of the opposition, continue to rise to give voice to those

concerns. The Premier can laugh and carry on and conduct other

business, and the Chair can continue to call to order, but we will

continue to raise those issues.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, you have just committed an almost unforgivable sin in chastising the Chair.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I would withdraw and apologize to the Chair.

Vote 4 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 34

Brummet

Savage

Rogers

L. Hanson

Dueck

Richmond

Parker

Michael

Loenen

Crandall

De Jong

Rabbitt

Mercier

Long

Veitch

McCarthy

S. Hagen

Strachan

Vander Zalm

Couvelier

Davis

Johnston

Weisgerber

Jansen

Chalmers

Mowat

Ree

Bruce

Serwa

Vant

Peterson

Huberts

Jacobsen

S.D. Smith

NAYS — 15

G. Hanson

Barnes

Marzari

Rose

Darcy

Gabelmann

Blencoe

Edwards

Smallwood

Lovick

Sihota

A. Hagen

Jones

Cashore

Clark

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 36.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 1), 1988

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 36; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Hon. members will recall that we had two sections left to deal with in

this bill:

section 22, which was held over; and

section 35.

section 22.

MR. LOVICK :

Mr. Chairman, as you point out, we have indeed already postponed this

particular section. I am sure by this time the Minister of

Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Rogers) has been made aware of

the concerns and the questions we on this side raised. Therefore it

seems to me appropriate that I should begin by deferring to the

minister, and he may want to answer.

HON. MR. ROGERS :

This actually comes out of some of the recommendations of the MacKay

report in that when we go to contract, we have in this ministry been

dealing with the most historic contracts in government, and therefore

have always done it in a specific way. On many occasions, contractors

have said to us: "If you would show some degree of flexibility in your

drafting, we could have provided a similar material at a reduced cost,"

or "We could have designed it in steel, concrete or lumber or in some

other form." It has given us a degree of inflexibility in dealing with

contractors.

It meets with the approval — as I am sure the

member spoke yesterday — of the Road Builders' Association, although

some members of the contractors' association, I think, are misreading

the purpose of this particular section. It allows us the flexibility to

be able to look at different design processes and different options for

the same project where you have a specific project and you want to look

at an alternate way of doing it.

MR. LOVICK : My

understanding was that neither the BCCA nor the Road Builders'

Association had formally requested this or apparently had much

consultation about this measure. Certainly if the minister wants to

clarify that I'd appreciate it.

[ Page 5510 ]

HON. MR. ROGERS :

This largely deals with road builders rather than contractors. The road

builders, I am informed, have recommended this because they have been

faced with the frustration on many occasions. For example, we'd specify

a particular piece of equipment. It may be the best piece of equipment,

but something relatively similar located much closer to the job site

might be there, and of course we've never had that flexibility. The

taxpayers were not well served, neither was my ministry or the general

public when we would specify the wrong piece of equipment.

[4:30]

some cases, you know, we say you have to have a D8 and they've only got

a D9 or D7. The job can be done. If the cost of moving the equipment is

exorbitant, why not allow us that degree of flexibility? That's really

what it's about.

MR. LOVICK : I thank the minister

for that answer, and certainly that goes a considerable way to dealing

with the concerns that we on this side have been expressing. I would

point out, though, that I have some difficulty with the way the

amendment is written with the new

section in the act. It seems to

provide a kind of carte blanche. This, you will recall, is the third

area which provides the minister with an opportunity not to go to

tender. The others are emergencies and the possibility of getting the

work done by ministry staff.

We have a third one that

apparently doesn't have any restriction imposed, except the latitude

and the discretion of the minister. I am sure he can agree with me that

that does appear to give him a tremendous amount of latitude, and I am

wondering if this is typical or whether this is aberrant and a bit

unusual in terms of discretionary power given.

HON. MR. ROGERS :

In fact, this reflects the kind of power that most other ministries

have and this ministry has not had. One of the examples given to me by

my staff was that on occasion you get a project which involves a piece

of work that was not specifically put down on the contract — the

placement of a utility pole or some other kind of services — where we

again have to go out to contract. We've already got a contractor

working on the job site. Two contractors are going to run into each

other; they're not going to coordinate the equipment.

This

kind of flexibility exists in all the other ministries except this

ministry. I said I'd take the heat for it during debate in the bill and

get us that flexibility in terms of the work we do.

Section 22 approved.

Section 35 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 36, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1988, reported complete with amendment.

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

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

Leave granted.

Bill 36, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1988, read a third time and passed.

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

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

ESTIMATES: OMBUDSMAN

On vote 3: ombudsman's office, $2,711,589.

MR. CASHORE :

I think that when we come to the ombudsman's estimates, it's a time

when members on both sides of the House can recognize that we have an

office that is functioning well on behalf of the people of British

Columbia. I would like to say that I believe I speak for all of us in

recognizing the excellent work that is done in that office. I would

like the House to know that I have heard people who are interested in

issues with regard to ombudsmen in other provinces speak very

positively about our ombudsman and about the innovative public reports

that he has made available as a result of his investigations.

would agree that the presence of an ombudsman's office that is

functioning and functioning well is not in itself an indication of

problems but an indication that there is health within democracy. I

want to make that point very clear. I think that the principles of

fairness and effectiveness of the delivery of the public service system

are extremely important, and those principles are capably monitored by

this office.

It seems to me that when we consider the

ombudsman, we are considering a system which is there to serve the

people and to uphold those principles of fairness and effectiveness of

public service delivery, and one aspect of that system that we as a

Legislature need to be able to think about and engage in dialogue about

is such issues as how that system works with regard to its

ombudsman's estimates, we are looking at such issues as the

and we are also looking at the process of follow-up to the reports and

recommendations that come forward.

I would like to think

that we all address this together as something that we are building on,

that it's something that we cherish, and that's it's a good system that

we want to make better. It's in this spirit that I make some of the

points I wish to make now, and I'll try to be brief.

The

first is that in his most recent report the ombudsman has again pointed

out that various members of our society have called for the

proclamation of the unproclaimed sections of the act. In doing so he

has pointed out that there were 12,712 individual concerns brought to

the ombudsman, a 15 percent increase over the previous year.

we can see that there is an increasing need for the availability of the

ombudsman's services, and we can also see with this increasing need

that there is a definite need to proclaim the unproclaimed sections. I

would hope that within the near future it would be the wisdom of this

assembly to make that available. I would just point out that

organizations

[ Page

5511 ]

that have contacted the ombudsman and the government to say that those sections

should be proclaimed include the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, the

Social Credit Party, the Vancouver Elementary School Administrators' Association

and the B.C. Association of Social Workers. I also know that a great many others

have echoed that concern.

Having

made the point that those sections need to be proclaimed, I would also

like to state that I believe that the present staff and infrastructure

are actually capable of handling those additional sections. They are

working very hard now and have a great deal to do, but I do not think

that it would require an incredible increase in staff or infrastructure

for them to be able to do that.

I assume that it's the

Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) who will be responding to

any questions, and I'll make all my points in one statement here. I

would just like the minister to respond to that, that if the

unproclaimed sections were to be proclaimed, it would not involve an

extremely expensive increase to the infrastructure of that office.

Moving

on from the area of proclaiming the unproclaimed sections, I'd like to

get on to the method of reporting. The process we have now is such that

we need to take a look at the adequacy of the means of reporting to

this Legislature, The various reports are tabled in the Legislature and

are made available, but there's no real forum in which to discuss them

and to talk about the government's responsibility or its response to

the various recommendations made within those reports. Those very

valuable, innovative reports do not gain the benefit of public

scrutiny, dialogue and, indeed, debate that would be worthwhile

following that process.

Perhaps we should be considering —

and I'd like the minister to comment on this — an independent committee

of the Legislature that would be responsible for the ombudsman's

office. One possibility would be the Board of Internal Economy; the

responsibility for that might be added to that group. Until something

like that is put in place, the legislative connection for the ombudsman

is weak.

Also, I think that when it comes to the budget for

the ombudsman, there needs to be a forum whereby the needs of that

budget can be explored and discussed, and that is another issue that I

think such a committee could deal with.

I have one more

point that I wanted to make. One of the points that I wanted to read

into the record that the minister made in his report had to do with

privatization. He stated that there was a concern about whether the

ombudsman would have the power to investigate concerns that might be

brought forward by people working in privatized jobs. On page 16, it

says:

"Where public services are delivered privately, government

will want to ensure that private sector firms are equally accountable to individual

members of the public for quality. While private delivery contracts must be

monitored and enforced by government through general cost and quality controls,

methods must also be in place to resolve individual complaints. While the ombudsman's

office can operate effectively with large public institutions to ensure fair

practices, it will be more difficult to deal with large numbers of small private

deliverers of public services. Nevertheless, private contracts negotiated with

government must provide for access to the office by individual users in order

to ensure quality control over the public services delivered."

I would hope that that concern would be followed up and fulfilled appropriately.

[4:45]

have done some checking on the means of reporting in other

jurisdictions, and I just want to state some of that for the record.

In Alberta and Ontario, there's a select standing committee that deals

with matters concerning the offices of the Legislature, including the

ombudsman, the auditor-general and the chief electoral officer. It is

an all-party committee and thus allows for greater impartiality

Many

jurisdictions — Quebec. Manitoba and New Brunswick, for example — try to

establish an element of independence. It's an arm's-length distance in

the offices of the House by having the Speaker's office or the Board of

Internal Economy deal with the ombudsman's budget. The select standing

committees in Alberta and Ontario also examine any reports, etc., that

the ombudsman tables in the House. With that I'll conclude, and I think

it would be an appropriate thing to do within the appropriate select

standing committees.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : At the

outset, there's no question in my mind that Stephen Owen is a

remarkable young man. I had the good fortune of being on the selection

committee and on the subcommittee of the selection committee, which by

the way was chaired by your predecessor, John Parks. We had the good

fortune of having Eileen Dailly with us as well on the subcommittee. I

think we made an excellent choice; there's no question about that.

Stephen Owen has brought to the office a genuine yet realistic concern

for the citizens of British Columbia. He's brought remarkable

expertise to the office. He's brought to the office a remarkable

background in dealing with people and with the affairs of people. I

think we're very fortunate to have him in that office.

terms of proclaiming sections 3 to 11 — I have the

schedule of the act

in front of me here — I know that's a position that Stephen Owen has

taken and that he would like to see those sections proclaimed. I find

curious. . . . I don't doubt at all, Mr. Member, your comment from the

UBCM and the BCSTA, but I have heard contrary opinion from some mayors

and aldermen. As a former school trustee, I think I would be of the

opinion, unless convinced otherwise, that maybe it would be best to

leave these sections unproclaimed. I'm willing to accept argument

contrary to my position.

I feel, particularly at the local

level, that municipal councils and school boards that have public

meetings on a weekly or bi-weekly basis in the community with open

public attendance, a full opportunity for a fair and adequate hearing

to all citizens who may feel aggrieved about something the board of

school trustees has done — or that the municipal council, the regional

district or any of the local authorities have done — are certainly an

appropriate avenue for people who feel aggrieved about that type of

authority and wish to make representation to that authority.

guess your comments about proclaiming the further sections are also

contradicted by your own argument when you say how busy the ombudsman

is now. This would, of course, just add considerably and measurably to

his workload.

MR. BLENCOE : Increase the budget.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

You would increase the budget. I guess that's the answer to everything.

But I will accept what you say and indicate that the government does

from time

[ Page

5512 ]

to time look at that schedule; but it is not our position now to do that.

I'm

quite familiar with the Alberta system, because one of the things that

John Parks, Eileen Dailly and I did. . . . Actually, Eileen didn't

come, but John and I went to Alberta. We interviewed the former

ombudsman and the current ombudsman, and we also had the good fortune

to meet with the Alberta legislative committee. I forget what their

committee was called. As you indicated earlier, Mr. Member, it was the

committee that really handled the affairs of the chief electoral

officer, the ombudsman, the auditor-general and other offices like

that. The reporting line was to the Legislative Assembly, and it went

through this committee. The committee indicated to us that it was a

good process. They commended that process to us. I think there's some

wisdom there. The Board of Internal Economy would be the appropriate

avenue, but that's a decision the board would have to make. Of course,

government would have to go along with that.

In terms of

special reports and reporting to the public, Mr. Member, you weren't

here in the heady days of Karl Friedmann, but I can tell you that Dr.

Friedmann had no hesitation whatsoever about filing special reports. At

the end of his career he did them almost daily. The public was well

aware of what Dr. Friedmann was thinking of on a regular basis — as I

say, almost a daily basis — and there was no lack of dialogue or input

from Dr. Friedmann.

The legislation does allow, in

section

30, that "the Ombudsman, where he considers it to be in the public

interest or in the interest of a person of authority, may make a

special report to the Legislative Assembly. . . ." So there is adequate

opportunity, really on any basis that the ombudsman wishes, for him to

comment publicly respecting a matter relating generally to the exercise

of his duties under this act or to a particular case investigated by

him.

The opportunity for the ombudsman to act, to make his

feelings known publicly and to have fair and adequate hearing by the

Legislative Assembly, and subsequently by the public, is there. It's

enshrined in the legislation. I think all the safeguards are there. I

think our legislation is very good. It has worked well for the ten or

11 years that we've had an ombudsman. As the member indicates, there's

always need for a further smoothing out or maybe some other

considerations, and we'll consider that now.

Let me close

my part of the debate on this vote by saying that I accept the good and

fair comments of the member for Maillardville–Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore).

I commend to all the remarkably astute incumbent we have in that

position, Stephen Owen, who is a real benefit to the office and to all

the people of British Columbia.

MR. CASHORE : I have

just two final comments. I don't know if the minister heard me earlier

when I said that I felt that the incumbent — but I didn't name him —

Mr. Owen, was doing an excellent job. I also would not like to let this

moment pass without acknowledging the appointment of an ombudsman for

children. The deputy ombudsman, Mr. Brent Parfitt, was made the

ombudsman for children. I think that was a very worthwhile and

significant move.

Vote 3 approved.

ESTIMATES: AUDITOR-GENERAL

On vote 2: auditor-general's office, $5,183,490.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

I wish I could be so glowing about the current incumbent. All I know at

this point is that he is an excellent squash player. He is one of

Canada's best squash players. I am one of British Columbia's poorest

squash players, and I would like to take some lessons from the current

auditor-general. That's my participation in this debate, but I am sure

that other members have more to say on the office of the

auditor-general.

MS. MARZARI : I will resist the

temptation to say that the auditor-general is at the moment feeling

squashed by the budgetary pressures of this government.

The

auditor-general is a major link in the accountability chain of public

accounts and of how we run our financial systems. The

comptroller-general and the Public Accounts Committee are the two other

partners in this system of checks and balances that we have developed

for ourselves to ensure that the province is receiving good analysis

and good assessment of how moneys are being spent. Scarce tax dollars

have to be spent on the things that the Legislature has intended them

to be spent on, and the auditor-general is crucial to that exercise.

The

auditor-general, at this point in time — and this is why I am bringing it

up during the estimates debate — is facing two major problems. They are

both interconnected and are both worth mentioning here, because his

estimates are the appropriate place to do it and because it is within

his estimates that the profits are to be found.

In 11

years, the auditor-general's office has established a very favourable

reputation as a pivotal office in making sure that we do well. However,

the auditor-general's budget has been reduced. In 1982-83, the

Legislature authorized sufficient funds for 40 work-years in that

office, and the estimates last year provided for just 32 work-years.

That is a 25 percent reduction in the basic function of auditing the

financial statements in a period when the provincial budget grew by 36

percent.

Mrs. Morrison, Mr. Hayward and now Mr. Morfitt

have been able to offset some of these cuts by finding efficiencies in

staff utilization and adopting some advanced computer and audit

techniques. But we have to remember that the budget for the

auditor-general's office is less than a nickel in every $100 of

expenditures in our provincial budget. By any measure, it is an

outstanding bargain for the taxpayer. In the reduction of the

auditor-general's budget, then, we are basically looking at a reduction

in the auditor-general's effectiveness — the effectiveness of his

office and what it can do.

For the year that I have chaired

the Public Accounts Committee, the auditors-general — first Mr. Hayward

and now Mr. Morfitt — have brought to the attention of the Public

Accounts Committee the functions that the auditor-general would like to

do. There are basically four pillars and objectives of the office, and

one is basically the audit work that goes