1985 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 33rd 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)

FRIDAY, JUNE 21, 1985

Morning Sitting

[ Page

6791 ]

CONTENTS

The Ministry Of Human Resources Amendment Act (Bill M223). Ms. Brown

Introduction and first reading –– 6791

Private Members' Statements

Hospital cutbacks. Mr. Stupich –– 6791

Hon. Mr. McGeer

Levels of health care service. Mr. MacWilliam –– 6793

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Reid

Need for integration of services to children. Mrs. Dailly –– 6794

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy

User-pay. Mr. Davis –– 6796

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Williams

Special Enterprise Zone And Tax Relief Act (Bill 49). Second reading

Mr. Reynolds –– 6798

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 6799

Division –– 6800

Small Business Venture Capital Act (Bill 19). Committee stage –– 6801

Mr. Williams

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1985 (Bill 56). Second reading

Mr. Macdonald –– 6802

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 6802

Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 61). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Segarty –– 6803

Mr. Cocke –– 6803

Mr. Gabelmann –– 6804

Hon. Mr. Segarty –– 6805

Dr. Gordon Shrum. Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 6806

Mr. Cocke

Committee of Supply: Ministry of International Trade and Investment estimates. (Hon.

Mr. Phillips)

On vote 49: minister's office –– 6806

Hon. Mr. Phillips

Mr. Williams

Appendix –– 6809

FRIDAY, JUNE 21, 1985

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It is fitting, M. le president, that I make this observation. Au revoir, Rene; bonne chance.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker and members of the Legislative

Assembly, today we have in the galleries 45 grade 7 students from Sir

James Douglas Elementary School, which is in the great riding of

Vancouver South. Would the House please make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

THE MINISTRY OF HUMAN

RESOURCES AMENDMENT ACT

Ms. Brown presented a bill intituled The Ministry of Human Resources Amendment Act.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, in the two minutes allotted to me,

I'd like to say that this amendment asks for two things. It asks that

the annual report of the ministry be tabled annually and not two or

three years late. It also asks that that report have detailed and

statistical information.

Yesterday in this House we received an annual report from the

ministry for the years 1983-84. We've already completed debating the

estimates on the years 1984-85. If this bill is accepted, it means that

next year, when we debate the estimates, we will have in our hot little

hands the annual report for the year 1985-86.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, I want to refer the House to the auditor-general's report of 1985, which states:

"We have concluded that ministry annual reports do not

provide a full and fair explanation in plain language of what

ministries have done with the money and powers granted to them. As a

result, the annual reports do not give the Legislative Assembly and the

public the information necessary to judge whether they are being well

served by the ministries."

Yesterday we received a PR pamphlet from the Ministry of Human

Resources. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister, in reading

the amendment to the bill, to also read the auditor-general's report

for 1985 and to introduce some of the amendments recommended by the

auditor-general so that future annual reports not only will be tabled

on time but will have some information in them that will help us

understand the mess that the Ministry of Human Resources seems to be in

continually.

Bill M223, The Ministry of Human Resources Amendment Act, introduced, read

a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading

at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

HOSPITAL CUTBACKS

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, there is a serious situation

developing in the province, in some areas in particular, and in this

instance I want to talk about the cutbacks for the Nanaimo Regional

Hospital. They've been experiencing cutbacks for a number of years now,

but the cutback this year is of course on top of those of previous

years, which makes the situation all that much more of concern.

In previous years the hospitals — I have a number on my list, but

I'm going to deal just with Nanaimo — have been able to maintain a

level of service by using up reserves of one kind or another that they

had accumulated in previous years. However, in the case of Nanaimo in

particular those reserves have been used up, and there just isn't

anything to fall back on any further. Nanaimo will be experiencing a

cutback of 52 beds for some four months this summer and a further

cutback of three weeks over the Christmas period. The waiting list for

so-called elective surgery has not been growing; it is kept under

control because they have been doing more and more day-care surgery.

The speed-up in day-care surgery means that the total number waiting

for elective surgery has not been increasing, but the hospital

administrator expects to run out of day-care surgery this summer, and

from then on the list of people waiting for so-called elective surgery

is simply going to grow.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

A headline in the Nanaimo Times :

"Hospital Cutbacks Slammed." It quotes the assistant administrator. It

quotes Dr. Bruce Johnstone, recently appointed head of a one-man task

force to investigate what local doctors are calling a "serious

deterioration in the availability of services at the hospital." It

quotes the Nurses' Union expressing concern. Dr. Martin Spencer,

chairman of the hospital's surgical department.... The waiting time for

elective surgery, according to the nurses and the hospital

administration, will be doubled from three months to six. "The nurses

are further concerned that some non-emergency surgery could indeed

become life-threatening because of the long waits."

Mr. Speaker, that's part of the question: when does so-called

elective surgery become emergency surgery? How much cheaper is it to

deal with it in its early stages than by letting it go to the point

where it may still become elective, but at great concern to the patient

and the families of the patients? How much more expensive is it going

to become if we wait until that so-called elective surgery becomes

surgery that must be performed?

A letter to the editor of the Free Press

from a Michael Darrell on June 10, 1985, has a heading: "Restore

Hospital Funding." In this instance the writer of the letter suffers

from a condition known as a vascular necrosis. He requires a total hip

replacement. He was driving a semi-trailer for Public Freightways. He

had to give up his work. Of course, that's a financial loss to his own

family. He's falling back on the medical system provided by his

employer. But it means he's no longer a contributing member of society.

He's on a waiting-list. He was told he'd have to wait from three to

five months because of the 1982 cutback. We're now into the

[ Page 6792 ]

1985 cutback. That 1982 cutback was from 172 to 134

beds. The waiting time, of course, will now increase because of the

cutbacks imposed in 1983, 1984 and again in 1985.

Here is a letter from a Dr. Westwood to the Minister of Health,

whose absence I note today, Mr. Speaker — regrettable, from my point of

view — dated December 6, 1984, with a copy to me. I have no knowledge

at this point as to whether or not the minister replied. He did not

send me a copy of his reply, and although I've talked to the doctor, I

didn't find out whether or not this was replied to. But in this letter

this doctor is urging that the minister get out of the hospitals those

elderly patients who would be better served by being kept at home, by

expanding and extending the home care program. We've made that plea on

this side of the House for several years now: that restraint in that

area is counterproductive. I costs more to keep these people in the

hospital. They're not being as well served, because they could be

better looked after and happier if they were at home. It would be

cheaper. It would release hospital beds for other purposes. Even if the

beds are going to be shut down and left empty, it's still better for

the people and still less expensive to look after them at home.

There is a letter from a Catherine Lehmann, who is complaining about

the service given to her father and an aunt — the level of service, the

level of care. She puts it down to the attitude of the staff — not

having the interest. I put it down to the fact that the staff are

simply overloaded. Their numbers have been cut back beyond the patient

load being cut back. They simply aren't able to keep up, to cope, and

people in those conditions do lose interest and do lose heart. And

perhaps even the level of care that individuals give deteriorates with

the pressure put on them to deliver service.

[10:15]

Here's a letter from a Mr. Merrill, who is suffering from a

condition.... I'll read part of this letter. It's one that I'd

certainly like the minister to know about. He's had a copy.

"With a plant and staff capable of giving high quality regional

referral health care, Nanaimo Regional General Hospital is apparently being

forced by the government to decay into a community hospital. This hardly seems

responsible stewardship of public assets. It is a waste of capital and of talent.

As is usual, the sick are taxed in money, travel and pain....

"For these patients on Vancouver Island north of Duncan

the closure of the Nanaimo Regional General Hospital rehabilitation ward had

at least these consequences.... "

He lists them, but I won't go into that now because of time.

He talks about another patient, who is a victim of systemic lupus

erythematosus, "on a waiting-list for admission to a chronic

pain/rehabilitation facility in Victoria for three months," and so on.

The list goes on and on. It is a terrible situation that is getting

worse day by day.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, this sounds like the annual

"the sky is falling in" report from physicians in various areas. I'm

sure that we'll hear that annual report from Vernon. But one has to

look at what is taking place overall in British Columbia to put these

annual speeches in perspective. It's well known that British Columbia

has the richest population of doctors per capita in Canada, and one of

the richest in the world. In the last ten years, since this government

has been in power, the number of practising physicians in British

Columbia has gone from 3,800 to 5,800, truly a remarkable leap. Since

I've been in the House, payments to physicians in British Columbia have

gone up fifteen-fold in 15 years, leaping ahead faster than any other

index in British Columbia — in other words, approximately four times

faster than payments to people who are the wage-earners in British

Columbia, and four times higher than the rate of inflation.

So I mention these indices to say that something extremely

significant and rich in terms of services to people is out there —

truly quantum leaps in quantity and in quality. Of course, physicians

come to British Columbia because the fee-for-service rate negotiated by

the doctors with the government is one-third higher in British Columbia

than it is anywhere else in Canada. So if you're going to do an

elective surgical operation in Nanaimo, British Columbia, you are going

to be paid one-third more than to do the same service at another

hospital in Canada, and you're going to be paid the most that you will

anywhere in the country. That's why we have more surgeons and more

services available to our people than anywhere else in the country.

We pay an enormous price in British Columbia to make that service

available, but despite all of this — the ballooning of physicians, the

tremendous increase in moneys available and services offered — does

that reduce in any way the annual complaints that appear in this

Legislature? No, it makes no difference at all. Exactly the same

rhetoric comes into this House whether or not this took place.

I can remember being on the other side of the House and making

speeches like this when there really was a problem, before all of this

enormous expansion and expenditure took place. I would like to say to

the people who have laid all of these complaints, and I'm sure we will

hear more today: could you please tell us how much is enough? Could you

please say when the level of service would reach the point where these

annual complaints would be maybe just a little bit less? Then after

that's all done, could we tell the people of British Columbia how much

more they need to put up in terms of taxes before the people out there

will say: "That's enough; we're satisfied"? Because I can find with

that tremendous.... For example, for the fifteen-fold increase in

payments to physicians that has taken place since medicare came in

British Columbia, there has been not one iota of reduction in the

complaint. The sky is still falling in; in fact, it is falling in at a

more rapid rate now than it was 15 years ago when payments were

one-fifteenth of what they are today.

MR. STUPICH: I reject totally the arguments of the first

member for Vancouver–Point Grey. There are doctors and there are

quacks. The only experience that that particular member ever had as a

doctor, to my knowledge, was when he was asked to determine the sex of

a whale, and he was 100 percent wrong.

The minister asks how much is enough, Mr. Speaker. He should be

reminded that the government increased the income tax rate to bring in

another $166 million a year — for health care, ostensibly. But health

care is not getting that extra money. The minister should be reminded

that the total government revenue is going to go up by 6 percent this

year, but the spending on hospitals has gone up by only 3 percent. The

minister should be reminded perhaps that total government expenditures

have gone up 14 percent, yet health care by only 3 percent. Preventive

and community care, which is what we are talking about, preventing

illness, has gone up by 1.6 percent.

[ Page

6793 ]

Long-term care. The letter from Dr. Westwood was talking about getting people

out of hospital beds, and we were expending on that barely enough to keep up

to the increased costs, the 3 percent increase. We expect the economy in B.C.

to grow by that amount this year. Home nursing by 6 percent, but on a small

base, so that is not helping much either.

But the figure that I want to bring in, Mr. Speaker, apart from the

$166 million by that special tax, is the amount of money that Ottawa is

sending to British Columbia under the established programs financing,

which the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) says is not his; he

can't use it. I didn't hear what the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr.

Nielsen) had to say about it. Mr. Speaker, that has gone up 27 percent

in the estimates for this year as opposed to last year. Last year we

expected to get $871 million from Ottawa. In the budget that we dealt

with this year, we expect that figure to go up by 27 percent, to

$1,104,000,000. That's another $223 million on top of the $166 million.

That's $389 million.

There is money that is being collected by this government that is

supposed to be spent on Health, and the government is using it for

other purposes. They would rather build a highway, in the hope that

that would help them get re-elected in certain constituencies, than

provide necessary surgery for people in this province. There are many

other programs they have cut back on. But what I was asking for this

morning was something for Nanaimo hospital. The doctor who was called

upon to do this study said that the reason Nanaimo is suffering so much

is that it has run such a tight ship in the past and anything it is

getting now is based on the good work they've done in the past. They

were congratulated. Now they're paying the price for having cooperated

with this government. And they know it.

LEVELS OF HEALTH CARE SERVICE

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, I'm saddened in the fact that

there are two important statements on health care today and the

minister is absent from the House. I don't even believe his

parliamentary secretary is here. It's a shame, because I do feel it's

important. I know that the session is trying to wrap up, but there is

still business to be done here. It reminds me of when I taught high

school and the kids started to slough off at the end of the year. A

good kick in the slats every once in a while kept them going a little

bit longer. I think it's the same thing here.

The British Columbia Health Association president, Herman Crewson,

recently stated that 60 of British Columbia's 130 hospitals are

suffering from the latest round of budget cuts. He went on to say that

many of the hospitals are in double jeopardy. Those hospitals that have

had difficulty in living with the level of funding last year have

rolled over that difficulty onto this year, compounding the effects of

further cutbacks that have taken place.

I want to make specific reference to two hospitals: one in Kelowna, just south

of Vernon; and one in Vernon. Colin Elliott, the administrator for the Kelowna

General Hospital said in a recent statement that in facing the latest round

of budget cuts, the hospital will have to use cheaper medication, fewer operating

room facilities and supplies and cuts in maintenance and renovations in order

to hold the line on the budget. The 29-bed ward for the chronically ill will

close for August. Where are the patients going to go? They're going to go

home, or they'll be moved to the more expensive acute-care facilities. As

well, during the summer one operating room, ten surgical beds and one long-term

care unit will close. Over Christmas 59 of the 313 acute-care beds will close.

Four out of five operating rooms will be shut down for ten days. Discussions

with the administrator just yesterday confirmed that a significant increase

on stress is occurring on staff working in that hospital. Mr. Speaker, that

translates into only one thing: an inevitable erosion in the quality of service

in the hospital, and the quality of service to the patient — and, I might add,

the increased opportunity for serious mistakes to occur. That's the situation

at Kelowna General Hospital.

At Vernon Jubilee Hospital the latest figures, in discussing this

with one of the board members just the other day, show that the

hospital still faces a projected deficit of $750,000 to $900,000. As a

result of the shortfall, Vernon Jubilee must close a further 25 beds in

the surgical ward. This will effectively shut down all elective surgery

for July and August. The closure of these beds is expected to reduce

the deficit by about $300,000. However, the present waiting-list of

four to five months is going to be extended, as a result of those

closures, to approximately seven months. There will be a seven-month

waiting-list at that hospital. That's certainly not the worst situation

in the province. There will be a further reduction in staff through

layoffs and attrition. Hopefully they're going to be able to trim

another $300,000. But that still leaves them short of the mark. Despite

these reductions in service and staff, the hospital remains unable to

cover the deficit. The board has requested the ministry review team to

consider the provision of additional funding because of the inability

of the board to find any other room or area to cut back.

As the gentleman who I was talking with had stated, all the fat has

been trimmed off and they're now carving into the bone. I'm sure that's

been stated a number of times before. But on behalf of the people of

both the north Okanagan and the south Okanagan who use the Kelowna

General Hospital and the Vernon Jubilee Hospital, I've been asked to

appeal to the minister to reassess the situation in those acute-care

facilities. Don't force these hospitals to compromise their high

quality of patient care through inadequate funds and over-worked staff.

Don't compromise the quality of delivery of health care in these

hospitals as well as throughout the rest of the province of B.C.

[10:30]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health isn't here, so

that gives us an opportunity to extend the debate around this most

important question.

I was shocked when I listened to the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer)....

MRS. DAILLY: Who's gone.

MR. COCKE: ...who's gone from the chamber, reply to my

colleague, the member for Nanaimo, on the same subject. He totally

distorted the entire question that my colleagues are both talking

about. They're talking about provision of hospital care — nothing to do

with medicare, nothing to do with doctors. Doctors don't make people

sick. They don't break their legs; they don't make sure that they

require a hip replacement; and so on and so forth. The fact is, those

facilities are needed.

[ Page 6794 ]

The minister complains about the cost. There have been ways in which

the costs could have been cut and hospitals not overcrowded, as they

are now. Home care is naturally the way to go in our society; it's the

least alienating and the best system of delivering health care for

those who are in need of that level of care. But we're not providing

that level of care, nor are we providing adequate intermediate care.

Therefore all our major hospitals, such as Vancouver General, Royal

Columbian, Vernon Jubilee, Nanaimo, Kelowna and so on, are suffering by

virtue of the fact that we don't have the proper and adequate backup

service. That backup service is less expensive than hospital care. A

day in the hospital costs the public about $300 — and more — and a day

in home care costs something in the order of $35 to $40.

Any mathematician with a pencil that isn't broken certainly can

figure out the benefit of home care. Under those circumstances you have

hospitals doing what they're supposed to do in the first place:

providing the level of care for those who need it. Our beds are crowded

by people who are being inappropriately served by the general hospitals

in our land. That's the problem. I would agree that a tremendous amount

of money is being spent on health care, but there has been nothing done

at the less expensive levels of care to reinforce the lowering of those

budgets — that is, the high budget in hospital care. Instead of that,

Mr. Speaker, we have a government that lacks any kind of planning, any

kind of thought in terms of how best to serve their constituency; and

their constituency is all the people of British Columbia.

It's very easy for us to stand here in this House, as that Minister

of Universities, Science and Communications did, without an ache or a

pain in our body, and say: "We're spending too much, the doctors are

costing us too much." But put him in a position where he requires

elective surgery, where he's racked with pain; then he would change the

speech that he just made.

Mr. Speaker, I believe sincerely that we're not being well served in

this particular area. We're not being served by virtue of the fact that

there's no planning being done at all. We are totally running from

crisis to crisis. How do you cut budgets? Just by cutting off hospital

beds served. That means you're placing people in jeopardy and

increasing the longterm care. You know, the earliest intervention in an

illness is the cheapest intervention. The longer you leave a medical

intervention, the more costly it's going to be in the long run. Just as

plain and simple as that.

So I ask the government to do one thing: smarten up. Smarten up in

the delivery of health care. Do a better job and do some planning for a

change.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, rising to the comments made by the

member for Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam) in relation to students in

the province sloughing off....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I regret to tell you, hon. member....

MR. REID: I take exception to that, Mr. Speaker, because we

have in the audience today Mrs. Hall and 45 of her grade 6 students

from Surrey visiting, and to have those comments come from an

ex-teacher, one who will never be a teacher in this province again, I

take exception to that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Time has expired. Order, please.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I'm not even going to qualify that response

with an answer. The fact that the minister and the minister's

parliamentary secretary do not even have the will to come and listen to

these important statements.... Just look at the number of government

members on that side compared with the number of members present on

this side.

Interjections.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I think that states a very significant point.

The session is not over yet, Mr. Speaker, and we're dealing with

people's business here, and we should get down to it, and they should

be here to listen to these comments.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, the committee will come to order — the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) and the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf).

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, the people in British Columbia

find it very strange that health care must be sacrificed when this

government continues to spend more and more money in other areas. The

people in this province find that this government's priorities are all

screwed up when they can blow $500,000 on champagne and caviar

extravaganzas, yet they can't afford the basics of health care, Mr.

Speaker.

The people in the north Okanagan are concerned. I've got proof that

they're concerned. Here are 314 individual letters of concern that have

come to my office concerning the cutbacks at the Vernon Jubilee

Hospital. There are another 50 letters sitting on my desk that I'll be

bringing down following this weekend. Those are letters of concern, and

I'm going to give them to the minister, despite his absence. I'll

forward them to his office.

The other member says it's all hogwash. You tell those 314 elderly

people, Mr. Member, that that's hogwash, because those are letters of

concern. I'm going to read into the record one of the letters. It says:

"We the residents of the north Okanagan face the

temporary closure of 25 surgical beds at the Vernon Jubilee Hospital.

Such a reduction in service in an area where we already have a four- to

five-month waiting period for elective surgery is occasioned by our

hospital board's attempt to reduce a projected $700,000 to $800,000

deficit.

"Surely you will agree that few things in our society

are as important as readily available quality health care. Please make

every effort to provide the Vernon Jubilee Hospital with the necessary

funding to allow all surgical beds to remain open."

This is signed, individually, by a number of concerned citizens —

elderly citizens, I might add, Mr. Speaker — of the north Okanagan.

With the Chair's permission, I'll now make these available to the

minister.

NEED FOR INTEGRATION OF

SERVICES TO CHILDREN

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, my statement today deals with

children. The topic of my statement is: the need for integration of

services to children. Never before has this been more necessary and

more needed. I think that we're all aware

[ Page 6795 ]

that government has seen fit to cut back on many

services to children in all areas — health, education and human

services — at this particular time. Never before have we needed to have

a properly integrated and coordinated service set up at the ministerial

level to assist in the proper and efficient delivery of these services.

I regret to say that from all the studying that I have done on what

has happened since the Social Credit resumed power in 1975, we find

that the integration of services to children has deteriorated from the

time the NDP were in government and first conceived the idea of

establishing an interministerial committee for children's services to

be delivered.

For some reason or other, Mr. Speaker, the whole coordination of

these services is apparently going nowhere. I hope that in reply.... I

notice the Minister of Human Resources is in her seat, which I'll give

her credit for, because the other ministers are not here to reply. We

would like to know what has happened. To start with, why is it not

functioning at the ministerial level in the way it should?

To give some specific examples to you, Mr. Speaker, of what is

happening out there today and why we need this so desperately, I just

want to point out some areas which I'm sure you yourself are aware of.

Because of the economic crisis we face today, particularly in British

Columbia, more adolescents are unable to obtain work, and they are not

eligible for any form of financial assistance. They are therefore

unable to become independent when such a move would be desirable. In

other words, we have young people at home now who are probably at an

age where it would be better for them to leave home in some cases and

be independent. Because of the inability to find work due to the

employment situation in this province, we have some very undesirable

situations erupting on the home scene.

Conversely, we have other adolescents who are forced out and are

leaving very difficult family homes. The problem is that when they

leave, they can't find adequate income or an an adequate place to live,

with the result, Mr. Speaker, that there are many seriously disturbed

children today in this province, who through no fault of their own —

because of policies which exist in this province — are being faced with

some tragic situations. These situations are not being alleviated,

because there is a lack of coordinated services to these children.

We are finding an increase in the abuse of alcohol and drugs and

attempted suicides by teenagers. Bad enough that we have to have this

situation today. But the whole point of my argument and statement today

is: what is the government doing about it? In many cases — not all — we

have to hold the government responsible because of their economic

policies; they have created this scene. At the same time, with more and

more children at risk, troubled and needing assistance, we find that

the government has cut down on many services in Health, Education and

Human Resources. In my opinion, the situation is reaching crisis level

in British Columbia. There are many children out there who are

desperately in need of services which they are not receiving.

One example of what I consider a very callous government policy was

the closing for the summer of the VGH centre for adolescent children.

We are told that those children can go to the adult ward. This is the

whole point of my statement today, Mr. Speaker: the children of this

province are not being given priority. Taking children at an early

stage and giving them the best in services is one of the most important

functions of government. This government is not doing that. The

children of this province who are not being given the services they

need today are in time going to become the problems of the future. I

cannot understand why this government is so short-sighted on this

particular issue.

I understand that the ministerial committee — I don't remember

exactly what it is called — is not functioning with any real purpose:

it's in chaos; it's disorganized. I think that the public of B.C.

deserves to hear from the government why this is not functioning.

In thinking about this whole matter and being concerned, as many

others are, about what is going to happen to the children of B.C.

without proper services, I've come to the conclusion — and I'm saying

this as an individual member — that the only answer is to develop a

ministry for children in this province; and perhaps, somehow or other,

the priority of children's needs will get more attention.

[10:45]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: First, may I say that I am pleased to

respond, and I thank the member for Burnaby North for bringing the

subject to the floor. I am pleased because I think I am going to be

able to share with her some facts which she obviously does not have.

When we are talking about children in the province of British Columbia,

I think it's important that we do not in any way — any member in this

House — do our jobs in ignorance of what is actually going on. So it is

my great pleasure to respond to what the member says about lack of

coordination.

I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that there is very great

coordination in services for children. First of all, there is the

Cabinet Committee on Social Services, on which every social services

minister sits. It meets every single week, and that provides policy

direction. Secondly, there's a deputy ministers' committee on social

services — I'm going from, if you like, the top down into services in

the field. This committee sets expectations at the senior deputy

minister level that social services ministers will ensure integration

and coordination of policy development and service delivery. We have an

interministerial committee, for example, just on wilderness standards,

which ensures that when young people in care of the province are in

wilderness and high-risk situations, all disciplines, even the Forests

ministry, are brought into that particular area of concern. We have the

Provincial Child Care Facilities Licensing Board, an interministry

committee which sets standards, grants licences and monitors child care

facilities. We have interagency committees in most communities

throughout the province. Representatives from the social service

agencies in the community meet regularly to review their mandate and

their role, to discuss joint planning and specific care situations, and

to review current problem areas. They do a case-by-case review and

jointly make decisions — not in isolation, the Ministry of Human

Resources from the Ministry of Health, or the Ministry of Health in

isolation from the Ministry of Education, but professionals working

together and all looking to the best interests.... Gone are the days

when all those departments worked in isolation, one not knowing what

the other was doing. That is not happening today, Mr. Speaker; there is

total integration.

The interministerial child abuse handbook, which was introduced by

this government in 1979, is updated every so often by those same social

services ministries I have mentioned. It includes new sections on child

sexual abuse.

[ Page 6796 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: What does the judge say?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the second member for

Vancouver East, who wishes to interrupt the statement I am making, may

well want to make comments about the judiciary, and may want to inspire

comments from me in this House about the judiciary. I don't intend to

respond to that. I will not be baited into making comments about

judges, inside the House or outside the House.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

The sexual abuse part of the handbook has been added, which has been

needed. As we discover new concerns and have new procedures, the child

abuse manual is being updated. It is looked on as not only a first but

one of the best that have been produced since ours was produced five

years ago. It is to promote, assist and integrate a coordinated

response to the serious problem of child abuse, and it is issued under

the auspices of more than one ministry — not the Ministry of Human

Resources, but the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education, the

Ministry of Human Resources and the Ministry of Attorney-General. It

includes sections on the mandate and functions of the four ministries,

interviewing guidelines, indicators of abuse, and suggested guidelines

for development of a coordinated interagency community protocol.

This protocol is to provide the structures to facilitate the

coordination of the response of all those who are, or may become,

involved in child abuse situations. It further improves the

communications, so if there are any gaps in service, they will be

avoided; any duplications will be avoided.

I noted that the member made a comment regarding adolescents which are in this province....

DEPUTY MINISTER: Time, Madam Minister.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, Mr. Speaker, there is so much on

the integration and the delivery of child services that I am going to

have the notes that I have made and the examples in all the regions in

the province sent to the member who has asked the question. I wouldn't

want any member in this House to be that ignorant of what we are really

doing, and I would like everybody to be truly appreciative of what is

happening in the province.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I do not happen to be the debate

leader or the particular critic of human services, but I am debate

leader in health and have been involved in education. So I feel that I

have that background and that I also happen to have done a fair amount

of studying, in preparation for this statement, of remarks and comments

made by social workers who have to deal right in the field with the

children.

Combined with that, I think that the statement I made was not based

on ignorance, and that's the first thing that I want to point out to

the minister. The social workers of the province, as I said, who deal

with this every day, are the ones who have expressed grave concern that

the integration of services of this province simply is not working. I

think that even if we didn't have the statements of the people who are

out there working, in contrast to the minister's statements, all we

have to do is look at the increase in problems faced today by the

children of British Columbia. We just have to look, as was pointed out

in an aside, at some of the cases that have been coming forward before

the courts, in which we find judicial people stating that they

themselves see the results of inadequate care and coordination. This is

not a political partisan statement. This is from the judiciary.

The minister cannot sweep it away with the fact that all the rest of

us are ignorant. There are many people out there who are concerned. I

am not saying that minister doesn't have a concern. What I am saying to

her is that her policies are wrong. Her policies are not working.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the minister must face up to the fact that

one of her policies which is going to cause more deterioration is this

tendency to privatize and to turn things over to unregulated agencies.

Now the minister may say they are regulated, but her whole philosophy

that says let's turn things over, let charity do it, let us have other

volunteer groups take over things, is not going to be in the best

interests of the children of this province.

That government under that minister has one basic concern. They're

here to deal in the best way possible, to serve the children of this

province. It is the children of this province who need priority; that

government is not giving to them.

USER-PAY

MR. DAVIS: I am for user-pay. I believe in individual choice.

I am convinced that the user should decide whatever he or she uses as

much as possible whenever possible. Given sufficient income, this

should be their God-given right. Toll highways do not offend me, for

that reason. Someone has to pay. The generalist, the socialist, the

welfare statist, believes that "they" should pay. Someone else should

pay, the body politic should pay, the government should pay — not the

final user, the immediate beneficiary of the service, whatever it is.

I do not agree, especially in the area of transportation, where

other routes exist.... Other ways can be used to get from here to

there. New highways built ahead of time, built in a recession in order

to put people to work, are logical candidates in my mind for user-pay.

Use them and benefit. Pay for that benefit; don't use them and don't

pay. The choice is yours. You assess the benefits and weigh the costs.

If the net benefit is in your favour, buy it. You're better off as a

result.

I cannot therefore understand the hangup which the NDP members have

in this regard. Public funds are being used to build the Coquihalla

Highway, for instance. Anyone choosing to use this new route from the

interior will benefit — an hour saved, $10 or $20 worth of fuel saved,

wear and tear reduced. The user clearly benefits. Why shouldn't the

user pay part of the cost at least?

The numbers are interesting. The estimated cost of the new

Coquihalla Highway from Hope to Kamloops is $375 million. The annual

carrying cost of this investment is therefore of the order of $40

million. Initially, the car and truck tolls will generate $20 million a

year. As the traffic builds, project receipts will grow to $30 million

a year, $40 million a year, $50 million a year. Between 1986 and the

year 2000, payments all told will be enough to pay off the initial

debt. Then we'll have another highway all paid for, financed by users,

each and every one of them having a choice. They could use the old

Trans-Canada Highway down the Fraser Canyon instead, or drive from the

interior to the coast via the Hope-Princeton route. Individually, they

concluded that the net benefit to them was worth taking the shorter,

faster Coquihalla route. They gained time and saved money —

[ Page 6797 ]

more than they paid in tolls. They benefited from a

public investment; they benefited from government foresight, from the

building of a new highway earlier than would otherwise have been the

case.

Much of the same reasoning, I contend, should apply to other

transportation routes which offer a special benefit to a segment of the

public for a period of time. I would pay for a new, much shorter ferry

crossing over the Strait of Georgia in this way. I would ensure that

benefits exceeded costs, or it shouldn't be built in the first place.

But having made this assessment, I would set fares at a level which

covered all of the crossing's expenses over its useful lifetime —

capital costs, maintenance, operating costs, salaries and wages

included. Fortunately, that would be the same or less than present day

fares on Routes 1 and 2, Tsawwassen to Swartz Bay and Horseshoe Bay to

downtown Nanaimo, for example. The user, incidentally, now pays roughly

100 percent of costs on those two main routes, so they are effectively

user-pay highways currently. I'd build more toll highways, establish

more full-fare ferry routes, a new highway up the Island from south of

Nanaimo, to Courtenay and Campbell River — it might be toll part-way or

all the way. A new highway running north from Whistler and Pemberton

through the Chilcotin and aimed at Prince George could be financed in

part or in whole in a similar manner.

There are other routes to Vancouver. There are other ways of getting

from the central interior to the lower mainland, from the lower

mainland to Vancouver Island. But new toll facilities, built in advance

of what otherwise would be the case, generating savings to the user in

time terms, in energy terms, in terms of less maintenance of vehicles,

are a benefit and a benefit which can be captured in this way.

Tolls, in the form of toll gates, may seem old-fashioned to some,

but we charge everyone a kind of toll now. We levy a tax on motor fuel,

on gasoline, on diesel oil. It's 20 percent of the price at the pump

provincially and 10 percent federally; and remember, Ottawa collects

numerous other taxes downstream in the oil and gas industry. Roughly

speaking, two thirds of the price everyone pays at the pump for motor

fuel is tax, and if that tax were to be used exclusively for the

construction and maintenance of roads, streets and highways in this

province, we'd have many hundreds of millions of dollars to spare. The

user, in other words, pays much more in taxes, federal and provincial,

than the user gets benefits from our road system in the province.

[11:00]

As a supporter of the user-pay concept, I want to register a special

beef here. Ottawa takes but doesn't contribute currently to the

nation's highway system. It taxes motor fuels but invests little or

nothing in roads, highways and streets. The old Trans-Canada formula

disappeared in the late 1960s. The level railway crossing formula

vanished in the 1970s. In other words, the federal government no longer

contributes money for physical works, roads, highways, etc., anywhere

in Canada. Certainly it doesn't contribute materially in British

Columbia, and getting on to half of the taxes collected from the use of

surface vehicles, cars and trucks, goes to Ottawa currently. As the

member for Cariboo, the hon. Minister of Transportation and Highways

(Hon. A. Fraser), has made this point repeatedly, I won't dwell on it

further other than to repeat, as he's often said, that B.C. seems to be

a goblet to be drained insofar as federal highway transportation taxes

are concerned.

Back to my main theme. Why this hangup on tolls as such? If a new

route, a new highway, a new ferry crossing means a saving to the users,

why shouldn't those users contribute some of their savings to the

public purse in compensation to the government, to the ministry, whose

foresight saw that new facility built in the first place? In

summary,

I'm in favour of tolls selectively placed and used to build new

transportation arteries ahead of time. They make sense, especially in a

recession. I'm all for them and, given the reasons, I'm sure most

British Columbians are too.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that the member for

Omineca (Mr. Kempf) would have been on his feet to answer that member

from North Vancouver–Seymour. We heard from the member for North

Vancouver–Seymour a speech that Herbert Hoover could have made. As a

matter of fact, if you took a look at the United States....

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was he?

MR. COCKE: He was a guy in the late 1800s in the United States.

MR. WILLIAMS: A man for his time.

MR. COCKE: And a man for his time. That's exactly what he

would have talked about in terms of access. Yes, the people. The people

who are driving cars are paying their way now. They're more than paying

their way. But that wouldn't be taken away. We would have just another

price on top. The people in the north, the people who provide the south

— the manufacturing and commercial area — with so much of our good

fortune in this province, would be the ones to pay. It would be the

people in the outlying areas seeking access to the cities who would be

the ones to pay. People in the cities would be encouraged by this kind

of drastic step to go straight across the border, instead of moving

around our province and enjoying it, because the bulk of the population

lives within a few miles of the 49th parallel. This would just take

people in our province and make the province less accessible to them.

They would resent it. User-pay indeed! What we need is a fair taxation

proposition that will give people access to their good fortune.

One other thing is that any time you have a user-pay system, you are

depriving the less fortunate in our community of the access to this

province that they would otherwise have. So I say that I would totally

oppose this concept. I think that any right-thinking person in the

1980s would as well.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, it's a kind of an engineering approach to

a problem. I don't want to knock engineers completely. It's a pretty

narrow economic approach. What it ignores is the other benefits. The

assumption by the hon. member is that only the people who are riding on

the route benefit. That isn't so. Have you ever thought, say, of

driving along Kingsway and all the benefit along that route? Where do

you think it really lies? It lies on the land on either side of the

road, as a matter of fact. That's where the bulk of the benefit lies.

It's going to happen with ALRT and other systems. There will be

tremendous increases in land values. So there is a potential revenue

there that you people have never tapped in terms of the great values

that are created as a result of public works. So you've missed that one

completely.

[ Page 6798 ]

That's very often what engineers tend to do: concentrate on the public works and not see what happens on either side of it.

I guess what really sums it up is the member for Omineca. Imagine!

The member for Omineca. My God! A man who says: "You betcha! User-pay,

and if you can't pay, you stay home." Well, that's what I'd expect from

the man from the boonies. The people in his riding would never make it

out to Prince George. They'd never get to Prince Rupert. If they were

stuck with a user-pay system, they'd be stuck with just seeing you at

the corner store for the rest of their lives. That's what they'd be

stuck with. I can't wait to get to the Omineca riding and tell the

people of Bums Lake and the people of Vanderhoof what he said in this

House today. He wants them to stay home. He doesn't want them to get

educated in the rest of the world and turf him out of office.

It makes you think about user-pay. Imagine the people in Bella Coola

paying for the route from the Cariboo through to Bella Coola. It just

wouldn't happen. I would suggest to the member for North Vancouver:

look near your own riding. The SeaBus. User-pay? There wouldn't be

anybody on the SeaBus if it was a user-pay system.

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There were two

interjections from the NDP side. The first: the hon. member for New

Westminster says to never use the user-pay approach. Well, if you don't

use the user-pay approach, basically you say don't use the marketplace.

Don't let the individual choose. Don't let the user — the beneficiary —

make a choice. Make the choice for these beneficiaries, whoever they

are. And who makes the choice? The government.

In other words, his answer is that the government is all wise, the

government will make the choice for you, the government knows what is

best for you. The government will build whatever it feels like

building, and the user will use it, on the face of it, free of

immediate cost to the user. But of course the user will pay in the long

run; the user always does. So essentially that view is: don't use the

marketplace at all. Government is all wise; government will make the

decisions for you.

Now the hon. member for Vancouver East really gives another reason

for the user to pay. He says there are other beneficiaries: the people

who own property fortuitously located along the route. They should pay

something too. In concept I agree with him. On the ALRT project, we

gave serious consideration to trying to tax back and recover some of

the cost of ALRT through, for example, buying properties close to

stations, and then selling them back. This interfered too much, really,

with municipal jurisdiction. That opportunity certainly was open to the

city of Vancouver, Burnaby and New Westminster. They too really haven't

taken advantage of that opportunity.

I agree that there are benefits there, and I agree that those users,

if you can call them users — the landowners along new, beneficial

routes — should also contribute in a meaningful way. But that's an

argument for user-pay; it's not an argument against user-pay. I let my

case rest there.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, may I have leave to make an introduction, please?

Leave granted.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, in our gallery this morning are

some very special people visiting us from Surrey. They are certainly

adding to the economy of the city of Victoria because fortunately for

them they have had chaperones, parents and teachers who have made

arrangements for them to spend two days in Victoria. I would like the

House to now welcome the students from J.T. Brown Elementary School who

are visiting us from Surrey today.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Second reading of Bill 49, Mr. Speaker.

SPECIAL ENTERPRISE ZONE

AND TAX RELIEF ACT

(continued)

MR. REYNOLDS: I will just take a few minutes today to close

off where I started yesterday, which was talking about the new

secondary industry plan for Squamish in British Columbia, the Makin

pulp and paper mill. I would like to, for the benefit especially of the

second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams), give some quotes that

were released on this major project for British Columbia, and to answer

the Leader of the Opposition, who made statements in the House

yesterday as to why industry is not locating in British Columbia. Well,

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, industry is locating in British Columbia,

and they are coming here because of the positive steps this government

has taken over the past two years in the province of British Columbia.

"Richard L. Ireland, Makin's manager of business

development, in making the announcement, said the research and

development project will involve the derivation of a range of

high-grade pulps and papers, using a high percentage of aspen pulp that

has been produced by a chemically assisted high-yielding pulping

process. To date, these qualities of papers have not been produced from

an aspen-based furnish using this integrated type of process."

Again, there's a new program, a new process for

British Columbia, because an outside company has confidence in what we

are doing in the province of British Columbia.

"This project will also conduct research into the use

of calcium carbonate, available from deposits on Texada Island and in

the Creston-Osoyoos area of southern British Columbia, as coating and

filler material. The coating clays available in North America at

present come from Georgia, U.S.A."

So there's another use of a product in British

Columbia that we are presently having to buy from the United States,

something else new for British Columbia in this project.

"The total world-scale project, when completed, will

involve investment of approximately $235 million and will create 350

direct jobs in the processing operations. The initial research phase

will employ 150 to 200 people in processing and an additional 50 people

in forestry, harvesting and transportation.

"This project has been involved in research and

development for more than five years, having first been considered for

a location in Alberta, which was an attractive site because of its

large aspen forest resource.

"British Columbia also has a considerable aspen forest

resource, has ample supplies of electricity, is close to major

suppliers and to the market that the

[ Page

6799 ]

project will serve in western Canada and the western United States."

Mr. Speaker, here's an important quote from Mr. Ireland. He said:

"The decision to consider a location in British Columbia

came after some recent developments which added to those attractions. These

include the B.C. government's introduction of property tax changes, electricity

discounts, special enterprise zones and other incentives for industrial growth."

Mr. Speaker, here is a firm that is headquartered in Alberta, was

looking in Alberta to build their facility, and is now coming to

British Columbia because of the positive steps this government took in

its latest budget. I will repeat it. He said that they are coming

because of "the B.C. government's introduction of property tax changes,

electricity discounts, special enterprise zones and other incentives

for industrial growth." That's what is attracting industry from around

the world to come to British Columbia at this time.

The second member for Vancouver East — who has the gall to talk

about giveaways — gave away a railway plant in Squamish that didn't

have a hope in heck and wasted the taxpayers' money in British Columbia

on a project that was bound to fail. And we could list them time after

time after time. They don't like to remember the things they did when

they were in government.

[11:15]

"The economic factors of these incentives and a long-term

supply of aspen fibre and softwood fibre were essential to enable the implementation

of the Makin project in British Columbia.

"The B.C. attractions also include the decision by FMC of

Canada Ltd. to construct a plant at nearby Squamish to produce hydrogen peroxide,

which the Makin complex will use as its bleaching agent."

Mr. Speaker, FMC is another major firm, which is already in Squamish

but is expanding, that had an opportunity to do it in Quebec in their

plant, an opportunity to do it in the United States, but they chose to

expand their plant in Squamish and to employ more people in that area

because of the confidence in what this government has done over the

past couple of years to build a positive business climate for people to

come here and start secondary manufacturing.

"These processing facilities, upon completion of the research and development

phase of this project, will consume 200,000 tonnes a year of wood chips, divided

between aspen harvested in the region between Kamloops and Prince George and

some softwood chips purchased from B.C. suppliers." This is a very important

sentence for the second member from Vancouver East, who yesterday was concerned

about the Howe Sound and what it was going to do to pollution: "The proposed

process will have no air emissions, except steam vapours, and no offensive odours."

That's because of the new high technology that will be used in this plant.

I think that's a very positive step, and the people in that area were very

happy to hear that. "The most modem proven technology available will be

employed in effluent control and treatment." Project management for construction

of the facilities will be by the Vancouver engineering firm of Nystrom Lee Kobayashi

and Associates.

That's just one example — actually two in the Squamish area — an area that

was hard hit by the recession and has been hard hit because of mistakes that

were made as long ago as 1975 by a former government. But that area is coming

back, like other areas of British Columbia, because of the positive steps of

this government. Look at the fertilizer plant in Delta and what's happening

in Ocelot.

Mr. Speaker, I heard the second member for Vancouver East say yesterday: "What

about jobs in Vancouver?" Has he forgotten about ALRT? Has he forgotten

about Expo and all the things that are employing tens of thousands of people

in the lower mainland of British Columbia and all the exciting things that are

happening? It's very frustrating to be a member of this government and representing

the lower mainland when I have to listen to other members from that lower mainland

area continually knock the city of Vancouver, knock the province of British

Columbia, when there are so many positive things happening. It just doesn't

seem to be in their make-up.

It's like listening to the member from Vernon in his speech a little

earlier talking about how nobody was interested. Look who's interested

in the NDP right now. Three members sitting there. Where's the Leader

of the Opposition? He disappears most days. It's going to be quite

interesting to look at his declaration form to see where he was over

this past session.

MR. REID: Even the leader of the United Party is here paying attention.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound on Bill 49.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, as members of this House know,

there were 47,000 more British Columbians working in May 1985 than

there were in May 1984. That leads all the other western provinces

combined. These people in the NDP like to talk about Manitoba. How are

they doing in employment figures? It's disastrous. Why is British

Columbia gaining 15,000 people in this province every year? Because of

the excitement that's being created by the policies of the Social

Credit government. Why are the NDP in Manitoba...? Manitoba lost 3,000

people a year over the last four and five years. Why is that happening?

Because of the poor policies of a New Democratic government in

Manitoba, which is going to be defeated in the next election to

eliminate New Democratic governments right across Canada — of course,

with the exception of the short marriage that's taking place in Ontario

right now.

I certainly support Bill 49. I know the people of British Columbia

support Bill 49. It's positive; it means jobs for British Columbia. I'm

happy to support it.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'll be very brief. I just

want to perhaps answer a couple of questions that were raised and

correct a misconception.

I think the problem with the opposition in the understanding of this

bill is that they still think that we've introduced a bill dealing with

duty-free zones. That was never the intention. It is not in the bill at

the present time and it will not be a duty-free zone. These are special

economic zones which will allow for special economic benefits for new

businesses which decide to come into British Columbia and create a new

industrial base — an absolutely new industrial base, which will spin

off into all kinds of other developments with existing industries which

are already here in British Columbia. So disabuse yourselves of the

idea of duty-free zones, because that's not what we're talking about in

this bill.

[ Page 6800 ]

There are opportunities for duty and trade or customs remissions

already in legislation which exists within the federal government. The

problem has been, in the past at least, that these remissions are hard

to come by from people who are offshore. With the new legislation

proposed by the federal government, we believe that those impediments

to people getting duty-free remissions for certain kinds of businesses

which provide for things to be done in British Columbia for export will

be removed with the new legislation which was announced in the budget.

So from that point of view, we feel that our special enterprise zones

will entirely complement the federal legislation.

You know, the biggest impediment to progress in terms of new

business and new business development in our country, I believe, has

been that one phrase — forgone revenues. We have turned off so many

people, who could have come with a little innovation and a little extra

tax benefit or a little extra innovative taxation measures, by saying:

"Well, gee, we'll lose all those.... We'll have those forgone revenues

gone." We've had a lot of crazy legislation in this country because of

so-called forgone revenues. They really are not forgone revenues at

all, Mr. Speaker; they're fictitious taxes, because they are taxes that

won't be here unless we do something to bring the businesses into our

country and into British Columbia.

Somebody mentioned some enterprise zone in Britain, where only 12

percent of the business set up was new to that zone. I can tell you

that 100 percent of any business that comes to a special enterprise

zone in British Columbia will be new business to Canada. No one that

isn't an entirely new enterprise for this province will qualify for the

special enterprise zone, and will not be allowed to be in competition

with any business that is already here in British Columbia.

As I must say again, this is designed to create a new industrial

base for the province; to diversify our industrial base in order to

provide new opportunities and new jobs for the people of British

Columbia. I think it was the member for Vancouver East who said that a

couple of years ago somebody said that we're looking to a number of

areas for industrial diversification. He mentioned pharmaceuticals,

auto parts and electronics, and said they were some kind of myth. I

wish that member would start visiting around British Columbia and see

what kind of a myth it is. Go out to Glenayre Electronics' new plant.

Go out to MDI's new plant in Richmond. Electronics is a booming

industry in British Columbia today. That new plant in Richmond had

seven people working for it seven years ago. Today it has something

like 250 people — in a short seven-year span.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, it's all your fault, Mr. Member. You're the only one that's still here.

The same is true of MacDonald Dettwiler — a small company that

started in a basement about ten years ago with one person; now a couple

of hundred or three hundred employees working for that company.

Electronics is a truly booming industry in British Columbia.

The auto wheel plant in Delta: the member for Vancouver East said that that

plant was just assembling things. They're not assembling things; they're

making wheels in British Columbia to send back to Japan to put on Toyota cars.

Hopefully that plant will be expanding soon to be making wheels for other markets

around the world as well — perhaps North America too. So they're not assembling

things; they're making things; and they're employing British Columbians

to make those things.

I don't think I need comment on much more, except from the point of

view.... Well, I did want to talk about one thing that the member for

Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) — I wish he was here — said yesterday. He

made a very eloquent plea for British Columbians — and Canadians, I

think — to be prouder in what they do, yet at the same time he put down

everything we're doing. There's a great conflict there of one kind or

another. He talked about discovery parks. He said there's one tenant at

SFU and the discovery park. Well, that's true. But he didn't say very

much about how many tenants there are in the discovery park at BCIT.

There are 48, and every one of them an exciting, young success. I'd

invite every member of the opposition to go and visit that place,

because you'll come back proud of British Columbia. That'll give you

the chance to go out and tell everybody how proud you are of what young

entrepreneurs are doing in this province. It's very, very exciting.

One other comment. The member for Victoria — I don't know whether

he's the first or the second member; it doesn't really matter — talked

about the downfall of the municipalities as a result of this

legislation. I won't comment on it, except to read an excerpt from a

couple of letters. One is to me from the assistant executive director

of the Union of B.C. Municipalities:

"UBCM president Mel Couvelier has asked that I convey

to you the willingness of the UBCM to assist you and your ministry in

communicating details of the special enterprise zone legislation to

local government officials. Mayor Couvelier has told me of one

prominent interior mayor that he met yesterday who, when advised of the

SEZ legislation, immediately asked UBCM to send him more details. I

think this is an indication of the interest that the legislation will

raise among our membership."

Then a letter from Mayor Couvelier himself, the president of UBCM:

"We have reviewed with great interest your Bill 49,

Special Enterprise Zone and Tax Relief Act. We recognize this bill as

another key element in the government's economic strategy. Bill 49,

like the Provincial-Municipal Partnership Act and the venture capital

corporation legislation, has the potential to be an element that will

assist local communities in their recovery plans."

That doesn't sound like the downfall of municipalities to me. This

is an exciting piece of legislation. I'm proud to support it; I'm proud

to put it forward on behalf of the government, and it will open up

tremendous new industrial opportunities for all British Columbians.

I move second reading.

[11:30]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 22

Brummet

Segarty

McClelland

Heinrich

Ritchie

Michael

Johnston

Kempf

A. Fraser

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

R. Fraser

Reid

Ree

Strachan

Reynolds

[ Page

6801 ]

NAYS — 12

Macdonald

Dailly

Cocke

Sanford

Gabelmann

Williams

Lea

Rose

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Blencoe

Bill 49, Special Enterprise Zone and Tax Relief Act, read a second

time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration

at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 19, Mr. Speaker.

SMALL BUSINESS VENTURE CAPITAL ACT

The House in committee on Bill 19; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

section 1.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in

my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 3 as amended approved.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

section 6.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in

my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 6 as amended approved.

section 7.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 7 as amended approved.

section 8.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 8 as amended approved.

section 9.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 9 as amended approved.

section 10.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 10 as amended approved.

Section I I approved.

section 12.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 12 as amended approved.

section 13.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 13 as amended approved.

section 14.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. WILLIAMS: I thought that when we endorsed this statute

and the section, they'd have to hire at least one lawyer to get going

into this venture capital program and tax credit program, but I think

you're providing a great deal more employment for lawyers than I ever

anticipated as a result of this statute. We have a lot of underemployed

lawyers in British Columbia, and I think this is a spinoff benefit that

the minister never, ever contemplated.

Amendment approved.

Section 14 as amended approved.

[ Page 6802 ]

Sections 15 to 18 inclusive approved.

section 19.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 19 as amended approved.

Section 20 approved.

section 21.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to advise

the member for Vancouver East that we got a lot of free advice as well.

I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See

appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 21 as amended approved.

Sections 22 to 25 inclusive approved.

section 26.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 26 as amended approved.

section 27.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 27 as amended approved.

Sections 28 to 33 inclusive approved.

section 34.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 34 as amended approved.

Section 35 approved.

section 36.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 36 as amended approved.

Sections 37 to 39 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 19, Small Business Venture Capital Act, reported complete with

amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after

today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague the

attorney, I would call second reading of Bill 56, which is, as usual,

best addressed during the committee stage.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 3), 1985

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I've been assigned as junior

counsel on this particular piece of legislation. It is a blockbuster of

a piece of legislation. You've got the Minister of Health there, with

his medical diagnostic clinics, where vast sums of public money sink

without a trace. He doesn't make them public, and they're just being

tidied up. He doesn't really care — or the government — about whether

we should pay some people a little less and employ more and give other

people a chance to live and breathe in this province of British

Columbia.

You've got a

section in there where the consular officials can drive

their cars through the streets, even if they're half-blind; they don't

have to take a test any more. I know we can trust those people.

But because of the immense significance of the different sections of

this bill, I think they should be discussed thoroughly in Committee of

the Whole House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Moving the bill be read a second time, I

just respond to the one observation of junior counsel from Vancouver

East. There is a requirement for the consular people to pass a sight

test.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 56, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1985, read a

second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

[11:45]

HON. MR. GARDOM: It is with great pleasure that I call second reading of Bill 61, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page

6803 ]

WORKERS COMPENSATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

HON. MR. GARDOM: We are awaiting the Minister of Labour (Hon.

Mr. Segarty). I am sure he will be here in just half a second or two,

Mr. Speaker. I do know that he is within the premises; the Clerk has

assured me of that, and when the Clerk gives me assurance, I am

certainly assured,

This is the first day of summer....

Interjection.

HON. MR. GARDOM: He's coming down the hall, Mr. Member; I can assure you of that.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order....

MR. COCKE: He's not discussing Bill 61 at all.

MR. SPEAKER: Nobody is, hon. member.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: It's a pleasure for me to get up in second

reading in support of the bill. The bill basically provides for the

restructuring of the boards of review, with somewhat the same structure

as the Labour Relations Board, which would consist of a chairman and

one or more vice chairmen and representatives to be appointed in equal

numbers from employer and employee backgrounds. It's my hope that this

bill will be able to solve the serious problem out in the community of

British Columbia today, where individuals have to wait two years to get

an appeal before the board of review. It's my hope too that once the

appeal process is in place, and the appropriate personnel found, we

will be able to get the backlog caught up in about a year and a half,

and eventually then be able to have a turnaround point of approximately

two months, where an individual can receive a fair, impartial and

speedy hearing before the boards of review.

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

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'm surprised, with such overwhelming

changes the minister has made in the whole review process of the

Workers' Compensation Board, that he didn't have a lot more to say

about it. It's certainly been given a good deal of publicity of late.

It might come as a surprise to the minister, but we are going to

support the bill — not as enthusiastically as I'd like to. I'll outline

some of the reasons that we have some problems with this bill, The main

problem, as far as I'm concerned, is the lack of choice around the

one-person panel. Our understanding at the outset was that the

one-person panel was only if the worker had opted for fast-tracking his

or her appeal. Let me say that we will be opposing that in committee,

and get on with some other thoughts.

My first thought is that the Workers' Compensation Board, in and of itself,

is largely responsible for that 4,600-person list of appeals. The minister stood

up and said that there is a two-year waiting-list. In other words, a person

can be absolutely broke, flat, off compensation — because, after all, they have

adjudicated that person not to be eligible — wind up on welfare, and sit on welfare,

through no fault of his own, for two years while waiting for an appeal process

to take place. That's very unfair. I say this, and I'll say it again:

the reason for it is largely the tough adjudication at the Workers' Compensation

Board itself. That's why there are so many waiting.

I believe that in the last few years the Workers' Compensation Board

has grown to be a defensive organization, to the extent of saying:

"Don't pay any claims unless you absolutely have to, and particularly a

back claim." Anybody with a back injury is suspect, just by virtue of

that injury itself. Mr. Speaker, you have a number of back and limb

injuries that are going...and placing people in just terrible economic

conditions. There are aspects to this bill that can't address that

whole question of the Workers' Compensation Board where it's going and

where it's coming from.

Let me outline one or two of the things that I feel quite friendly

toward in this bill. I feel very friendly toward the fact that the

principle of the accident benefit picking up the tab for workers'

advisers is finally recognized. I feel very friendly to that indeed. I

believe it's part of the process to instruct people who feel they have

a claim to make. So they should be very much a part of the process.

What this bill does is place that in law, and it continues the funding

of the review process from the accident fund — which I also agree with.

I think that all compensation questions should be addressed in this way.

I am also very glad that the minister is keeping those two

organizations quite separate. They must be responsible to the Minister

of Labour and not the Workers' Compensation Board. I want to reiterate

what I said some time ago. If the workers' advisers are to be moved

back into the building, even to be seen as part of the Workers'

Compensation Board, it defeats part of the purpose of workers'

advisers. Workers' advisers should be seen as totally separate under

the Minister of Labour. It was a very good move — and it was a move

that that government made in 1977, as I recall — to move them out of

the building. Before that they were in the building, and of course, the

worker felt almost as though he were in hostile territory when having

trouble with the adjudicators — the adviser was seen as part of the

adjudicating process, as opposed to providing the friendly help they

should. I'll commend the minister and the government for this. The

minister hasn't given us an outright promise that the workers' advisers

won't be going back there, but he's put it on hold, and I believe that

by putting it on hold he'll find another facility for them. There's

lots of empty space, Mr. Minister. Let's see to it that they're out

there.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I have some other concerns. I have a concern that when you repeal

section 90 of the original act and replace it with this new

section 90,

you're weakening

section 90. I think what you're saying now is that

when an appeal is won, the board may then review it. They're not really

being instructed to review it, as they were before. I think it's

loosening it. I believe that the Workers' Compensation Board — well,

the law says they have to have the final say — is given too much

latitude in this process. I believe that the

section 90 that was in the

original act was a lot stronger than the new

section 90 that the

minister has put forward. I recognize that

section 96 has been amended,

and the bill indicates that the amendment of 96 brings back 90 to the

standard that it was before. Well, I'm a bit lost on that. Let the

minister tell me about that in his summarizing this particular debate.

Let's go back to the part of it that I feel is very remiss. It's

full of holes. I'm really disappointed in the fact that the cabinet now

decides whether there will be a one-person panel

[ Page 6804 ]

or a three-person panel. My understanding was that

the appellant would have the discretion to decide whether to have a

one-person or a three-person panel. A person who wanted to fast-track

his or her appeal could go the route of the one person panel. I don't

see that in this bill. The minister may give us some reassurances and

indicate: "Oh, well, yes, but it's implicit. We'll be good. Trust us" —

and all those other words that we've heard from time to time. But I'd

like to see it in language. It's not in language. It's not here. It

doesn't say so. So there's no question that when we get to that aspect

of the bill in committee, unless there's something I've overlooked, we

will be opposing it. The problem is, of course, when you get a good and

bad bill, what do you do in second reading? Because there is a move

forward here, we will naturally support it in second reading.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: We will. Are you in a hurry to get home, Mr. Member from Surrey?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I think he's in a hurry to get home.

In any event, we do have that problem with that aspect of the bill.

As a matter of fact, my colleague from North Island, who has dealt with

these matters a lot longer than I have, will also, I think, instruct

the House as to how he feels about it, because he and I have had

discussions on it.

I'll get back to where we came from. The major reason we are in this

quandary today is that we have a very rough, tough Workers'

Compensation Board. The board was set up for one purpose and one

purpose only, and that was that we would not have court cases out of

every accident. It was set up years ago, almost at the turn of the

century. But you know, you're a real loser if you get hurt on the job

now; and you can't take your employer to court, because of the workers'

compensation law; and if the Workers' Compensation Board is too tough,

you're an absolute loser. You've lost that and you've lost the ability

to take your employer to court.

I think that the employers should be a lot less strident with the

government. I've heard them on this whole question of workers'

compensation. They are lucky we have workers' compensation boards. They

are lucky we have an appeal process. They are lucky this is the way

we're going. The only people who aren't lucky in this whole question

are the losers to the Workers' Compensation Board — and the lawyers who

would otherwise be made rich by court cases. But now the lawyers are

out of work in this area, and that's good, providing you have a fair

system to deal with the folks.

The minister has gone a step forward, but he has not gone far

enough. With that, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we will be supporting it

in second reading, but we will be looking very hard at one or two

sections of this bill that I don't feel we can support in committee

stage.

MR. GABELMANN: When the minister had his breakfast press conference

on Monday, I think it was, there was quite a bit of delight and pleasure on

the part of a lot of people who deal with this whole issue about the directions

indicated by the minister. When I read the press reports and the press release,

I too thought we were going to get a very good bill that would deal with this

problem in a very appropriate way. The bill does not entirely reflect Monday's

discussions, Mr. Speaker. There are a number of areas in which the expectations

have not been met. I want to deal with a couple of them in a moment, and in

committee stage I think we want to pursue them in some detail when we get to

that — hopefully on Monday.

[12:00]

The minister indicated that the concept of three-member panels in

the review or appeal process was an appropriate — and I'm using my

words to describe how I heard what was being said — mechanism, but that

because of the 4,600-person backlog, or whatever the number is now, he

felt that there could be a speeded-up process accomplished by giving

workers an option to choose, if they so wished, a single-person board.

While I have some problems with that, because I'm not sure there's much

free choice involved when a worker is told: "You can choose between

waiting two years for a three member board, or you can have it done in

a couple of months by a single-member board...." There isn't a heck of

a lot of choice in terms of real free choice with that. But because of

the serious problem of the backlog and because it appeared to be an

option that workers could choose freely despite that limitation of

obvious time problems, I, for one at least, was prepared to go along,

however reluctantly, with the idea of the optional single-member board.

But that's not what the legislation does. The legislation

essentially establishes a review board along the LRB model and then

authorizes cabinet to draw up regulations and rules establishing how

those boards will be structured and how many persons will sit on an

appeal, and all the rules governing how the boards operate are to be

determined by cabinet — except the bill says that oral hearings are not

required. So on one hand the promises of the minister are left out of

the bill and are left for cabinet, and something that most of us don't

like — the lack of an oral hearing, where the parties may wish an oral

hearing — is put into the bill. That signals to me that we've got some

problems.

If the government were to be consistent — if it wanted all of the

power about how the hearings were conducted, and by whom, to be

determined by cabinet — it would have done that. But it didn't. It took

away from cabinet the flexibility in respect of oral hearings, but gave

to cabinet all of the other authority.

There is no guarantee or assurance, other than comments by the

minister, that in fact we won't get into a permanent single-member

board system under the.... The minister shakes his head. I suspect, Mr.

Speaker, that the minister is serious and that he's shaking his head in

an honest belief that what I'm worried about won't come to pass. But he

may not be Minister of Labour after the next cabinet shuffle. He

certainly won't be after the next election, but he may not be after the

next cabinet shuffle. And then what? The bill is wide open. It allows

for hearings to be conducted in whichever manner the cabinet chooses,

except for this strange...what I think is an anomaly, that the bill is

specific about the question of oral hearings.

Another

section of the bill, without getting into too much detail,

talks about temporary vice-chairpersons and members of boards, and

imposes a 12-month limit on this 12-month appointment, but only a

12-month limit for the appointment of persons — not a 12-month limit

for the process of temporary persons, as I read it. I wonder why that

is.

I think I've made the point about the fear about losing

triple-member panels. I made the point about the lack of oral hearings.

That decision came by order-in-council, I guess,

[ Page

6805 ]

six or eight months ago now, and we have the

situation where oral hearings are not required. We now have that put

into a legislative imperative, which I think is wrong. If people want

to waive an oral hearing, give them that choice; fair enough. But if an

oral hearing is desired by any of the parties to one of these

questions, then one should occur, and that now is not necessarily the

way it will be.

I'm also puzzled, as was and as is the member for New Westminster

(Mr. Cocke), about the changes that flow from the elimination of

section 90 and the replacement of parts of that by 96(2). We'll get

into this in more discussion during the committee stage, but I really

do wonder what the intent of this particular change is, because it

leads to a concern that in fact these boards of review are nothing more

than just another process in the continuing process of finalizing a

claim. What happens in a case under the bill is that the adjudicator

does all the inquiries and makes a decision. The commissioners can at

that stage under this bill, as I read it, intervene immediately and

tell the adjudicator to make a different decision. That seems to be one

of the implications of it.

The adjudicator and the review board are put in parallel terms in

the legislation under 96(2). The adjudicator looks at a case and makes

a judgment. He may go against the worker, let's say, so the worker

appeals; or it may go against the employer and the employer appeals.

The review board makes a judgment which goes against the adjudicator's

decision. It then goes to the commissioners. That was there before in

old 90(3), where the board of review does not confirm the original

decision. That decision will be reconsidered by the board. This wording

appears to broaden that. There appears to be more discretion. It's not

at all clear from the wording what the intent is.

I welcome some comments from the minister in second reading so that

we can consider what he says and what other people say is the meaning

of this particular section, and then we can deal with it in an

appropriate way in committee stage. I've had arguments with people

about what this means, and there are a lot of different views. I guess

my central concern is that it appears to diminish the authority of the

review process, or, at least, enhances the authority of the

commissioners to come up with whatever decision they want to come up

with irrespective of the review board process.

In conclusion, let me say, as the member for New Westminster

indicated, that we'll be supporting the bill in principle, primarily

because the backlog is so bad that something had to be done. I might

also say that I support it for a negative reason, and that is that some

of us were quite convinced that we'd seen the end of review boards. I

guess we are so relieved to see them maintained that we're going to

support the government just for that reason. But that's a trap for us,

I guess; I admit, quite frankly, that we've probably fallen into it.

It does not do what we had hoped. A simple amendment to the

legislation could have solved all the problems just by authorizing the

minister to establish temporary boards and authorizing — he didn't even

need that, really; he could have just appointed additional boards —

single-member panels when chosen by the worker. He could have just put

that simple amendment in and been done with it all, because that's all

we really needed to accomplish the main goal.

Nevertheless, having said all of that, we're going to support the bill.

I personally don't have very much problem with the new structure. I kind

of like it, actually — the LRB model structure. I think it gives more flexibility

and all of that, as long as we retain — and this is the essential issue — the

three-person boards so that workers do have that advocate for them who sits

on the review board.

In this House we tend to think only of those people who are

represented. Most people who end up with compensation cases are not

represented, either by union business agents, by lawyers or by MLAs.

The overwhelming number of claimants are not represented. So because

they aren't, they need that representation on the review board by that

person who has some knowledge from their perspective about the

particular problems.

In conclusion, the lack of mandatory three-member panels, the

ability not to have oral hearings, the concern about what appears to be

the enhanced authority on the part of the commissioners in

reconsidering decisions made by the review board are all things that we

worry about. I hope we can be reassured by the minister, if not now

then certainly in committee stage. Thank you.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Both the members for New Westminster and

North Island brought up some valid questions during the course of

debate on second reading, and I'll try to answer their concerns a

little more fully in committee stage.

In meeting with the parties of interest over the course of the past

three months, there were a number of other things that I thought we

might have an opportunity to put forward to provide for a fuller,

in-depth opportunity for the parties of interest to be able to

participate both in the administration and the policy direction of the

Workers' Compensation Board, which, of course, would alleviate a lot of

the concerns that were brought up by both members this morning.

But having said that in my discussion with them the other morning, I

did indicate to them...and in fact encouraged them to set up some sort

of a committee that would advise me on matters dealing with workers'

compensation on an ongoing basis, and offered the opportunity for them

to participate in developing the regulations under the changes to the

act that we're bringing forward today, changes such as establishing the

regulations dealing with one-member or tri-party review panels, and so

on.

When the regulations are brought down, they will be the result of a

great deal of discussion between me and the parties of interest. I will

in that process ensure that when the regulations are brought down, they

will be brought down with the individual who's making the appeal in

mind, leaving it optional for them, or within their choice, to opt for

a one-member panel review. That will be in place in the regulations.

The member is right. It is not in the act at the present time but will

be part of the regulations, leaving the more complicated legal and

medical reviews for tri-party committees which are panels that will be

set up throughout the province.

The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) talked about finding

neutral space both for the workers' adviser and the boards of review.

My ministry has been in contact with the British Columbia Buildings

Corporation and has asked them to find suitable space outside Workers'

Compensation for the boards of review and workers' advisers, and that

is currently being undertaken.

With regard to

section 90, the legal people would say that under the

current act there can be two reviews going on at the same time: the

commissioners can be looking at the boards of review, and looking at an

appeal process that would be underway, and basically could interfere at

the present time, under the current act, with the decision of the board

of review

[ Page 6806 ]

before it's even made, and direct them to make a

decision. Under the changes to

section 90 the commissioners wouldn't be

able to do that until the appeal is completed before the boards of

review. It puts them in a position where they may review the decision

of the boards of review; they don't have to. I would hope that the

boards of review would have as much flexibility as possible in dealing

with a particular review that's been brought before the committee,

whether it's a one-member panel or tri-party. Give them as much

flexibility as possible, and only after the review is heard provide an

opportunity for the commissioners to hear that review.

As I said earlier on, the regulations will be the result of

consultation between the parties of interest. It's my hope that, as

well, the parties of interest will be able to give me some guidance on

the appointment of an administrative chairman, along with the chairman

and vice-chairman that will be required to set up the additional panels

across the province. I hope that they will be able to bring those names

forward to me as quickly as possible, and they will be selected as a

result of discussions that I've had with the parties of interest.

[12:15]

The reason that there's a 12-month limit on the appointment of the

individuals who will be vice-chairmen, or sitting on the panels, is

that we may well find that in some regions of British Columbia — in the

Kootenay region, for example — there are no appeals to be heard beyond

the 12-month period. You may want to disband that particular review

panel, or you may find that there will be a reduction in the number of

panels required beyond the 12-month period. So what it does is give us

some flexibility in whether we should renew the panel or not at that

particular time. But we can discuss that under the

section as we're

debating it.

It's my hope that the bill will go a long way to resolving a lot of

the difficulties. More changes are required, and I hope they will be

the result of consultation between the parties of interest. So with

that, Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

Motion approved.

Bill 61, Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 1985, read a second

time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration

at the next sitting of the House after today.

DR. GORDON SHRUM

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, before calling Committee of Supply, I would like to make a statement.

I know that all members of the assembly will be very saddened to

learn of the death of Dr. Gordon Shrum, an outstanding British

Columbia, and a gentleman, I'd say, of Olympian achievement.

He was a young researcher at the University of Toronto where he

earned his PhD in physics. He was credited with the discovery of the

auroral green line and the liquefaction of helium. It is very

interesting to note that in the mid-twenties at the University of

Toronto Dr. Shrum was one of a group of very creative scientists

including the co-discoverers of insulin, Banting and Best.

It was British Columbia's very good fortune that he moved to our

province, heading west in 1925, and in that year took up his

appointment at the University of British Columbia. During his time at

UBC he was a very skilled administrator. At one time he was the head of

the physics department, the director of extension, director of the B.C.

Research Council and dean of graduate studies.

I don't think anyone who attended the university in the years

following World War II, and indeed during that period of time, would

have forgotten the contribution of Dr. Shrum, both in his capacity with

the university training corps and after, at war's end, when under the

presidency of Dr. Norman MacKenzie it was Dr. Shrum's responsibility to

locate housing for the hundreds of returning veterans. He did that, and

he did it exceptionally well.

After 36 years at UBC, as far back as 1961, he retired as a scholar

and an administrator, but it was not retirement for him. Mr. Speaker,

he became a supermanager, he ran B.C. Hydro, he oversaw the

construction of the Peace River dam, he headed Vancouver's Centennial

Museum, he managed the construction of the Robson Square courthouse

complex, he helped lay the groundwork for the Vancouver trade and

convention centre, and of course, as we all know, he was essentially

the creator of Simon Fraser University, where he was the first

chancellor.

Mr. Speaker, I would say that British Columbia extends the sincerest

of condolences to Dr. Shrum's family and his hosts of friends. I would

say on behalf of all British Columbians: Dr. Shrum, well done. May many

of us follow your exemplary example.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the opposition, we too

are shocked that Dr. Shrum is no longer with us. There is no question

that the man was one of the greatest British Columbians who ever lived,

in terms of getting things done. He had the confidence of a great

majority of the community. Probably the most outstanding thing, in my

ken, is not necessarily the building of dams, although that is very

important. But Simon Fraser was one of the most exciting projects that

I have ever seen put together. He did it as though it was easy, and you

know how difficult it is to build a project of that magnitude and

magnificence — tremendous imagination. I was pleased to see Simon

Fraser University put a Shrum chair together in his honour, and that

will live on. But his name will on in this province as long as there is

a history written of British Columbia. So we in the opposition are

saddened at his death.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, if it is your wish, the appropriate message will be sent.

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND INVESTMENT

On vote 49: minister's office, $143,191.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I am certainly very pleased

and honoured to be the minister putting through the first estimates of

this very important ministry, one which in years to come will serve

this province well in what is now

[ Page 6807 ]

certainly a more competitive international market than indeed we have ever faced.

As I have said before in this House, Canada is a trading nation and

her standard of living depends to a great extent on the international

marketplace. British Columbia is probably more dependent on the

international marketplace than are any of the other provinces in

Canada. Certainly, being Canada's gateway, Canada's window, to the

Pacific we have an especial role to play in ensuring that we do present

to this growing Pacific Rim an opportunity for Canadian and British

Columbia businesses to take advantage of. We know that the United

States is and always has been, and will continue to be for a number of

years, our greatest trading partner; but if you see what has happened

with the growth of trade between Canada and the Pacific Rim — last year

exceeding trade with Europe, which historically has been a great

customer — we are coming into an era where Canada is recognizing that

she is a Pacific Rim country as well as an Atlantic country.

Historically, most of the prosperous nations of the world have been

great traders. Trade has been going on in the world since the days of

the Phoenicians. They probably started out by selling cedar and glass

to the rest of the world. We're in the same position. But this ministry

is probably more important today than it has ever been before. We have

received some criticism from our business community, and probably from

labour unions, because we haven't been doing enough in the

international marketplace. As you know, other provinces in Canada have

offices abroad and spend a great deal more money than we do in

supporting those offices and the personnel. I believe Ontario has some

26 offices abroad. I was in their office in Los Angeles not too long

ago, where they have a staff of 13 people, and Quebec has a staff of

some 26 people in the Los Angeles office. They also have offices, of

course, in Japan, in Hong Kong and in a number of other countries.

Ontario just recently opened an office in Singapore.

One of the first jobs that we have to do in this ministry is not to

open British Columbia offices abroad, because I don't really believe in

that, and it hasn't been the policy of the government. We feel that we

have been getting tremendous support from our consuls, from our high

commissions and from our embassies abroad. As a matter of fact, we

couldn't ask for better service than we have been getting from the

embassy in Tokyo. But indeed, we do feel that there is a need for a

British Columbia presence in some key areas.

We are looking at establishing.... And I have been working with the

federal government, and I'm waiting almost on a daily basis for their

reply that they will give us either co-location or condominium location

in the offices of Hong Kong, Peking, Seoul and Tokyo. We're looking to

establish a presence in the San Francisco and Los Angeles area and

probably one other place in Europe other than our traditional House in

London.

We are working with the federal government. They are, I think,

taking a realistic look at requests from some of the other provinces,

particularly the maritime provinces, and I think that they're saying

that the maritime provinces really have a right, logistically, to have

some presence maybe in the Boston and Minneapolis area and that maybe

they should have presence in some of the European countries. They

recognize that, naturally, British Columbia would want a presence in

some of the Pacific Rim countries. So I think that they're taking a

very realistic look.

I think that there are a number of other provinces that have already

established offices and that are saying: "No, we don't want the

provinces with a presence in some of the established offices." I've had

to say that, look, we're not spies. We're going in there to work for

the interests of the British Columbia business community and for the

interest of the exporting community, and we really are Canadians. We're

not some foreign country that's trying to get into the inner workings

of our embassies and high commissions abroad and relay secrets to some

foreign nation or something. We are Canadians working for the good of

Canadians, and, indeed, we feel that it is necessary to have a presence

there.

I have spent some amount of time talking about various aspects of

international trade in the Legislature, and I won't go into that again

today, but I certainly do look forward to the very positive suggestions

and constructive criticism that I know will come from Her Majesty's

Loyal Opposition. And if there are any of those suggestions that we can

implement to make it better for British Columbia, we will certainly

take them under advisement.

MR. WILLIAMS: In the fullness of time.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In the fullness of time, yes — or maybe

immediately. It just depends. We'll certainly give them a lot of

consideration and check them out to see if they fit into the overall

scheme of things.

[12:30]

I say sincerely that it is more necessary now that this ministry

take its place in the structure of the British Columbia government.

We've come through some very difficult times. The world is certainly

more competitive. We have a story to tell with regard to a change in

attitude toward foreign investment. I guess I could be critical, but

being in a good frame of mind today, I won't be. I know that certain

parties have been against foreign investment, but I guess we'd have to

look at it in retrospect and say that it was a sign of the times.

Certain people thought that everybody was going to continue to beat a

path to our door for our resources — you know, how high was high? — not

realizing that the world was going to change. There were a lot of

people who thought that, and I won't be critical of their attitude

toward foreign investment.

But I must say that there is an image out there in the real world

that Canada is not interested in foreign investment. One of the

responsibilities of this ministry and the people who work for it is to

get out there and, not print glossy pamphlets, but sit down with the

business community, with those who make the decisions, with other

government leaders, and say: "Yes, indeed, Canada is interested in your

investment. There are certain rules and regulations under which you can

do business in Canada, but we are interested."

We are also interested in promoting entrepreneurial immigration. It

seems to me that we've had the attitude that anybody who has money and

wants to come to Canada, invest it and employ themselves and other

people must be put through the hoop. We make them do more paperwork

than anybody who just wants to come to Canada and, if necessary, be a

ward of the state. I think there are going to be some changes made in

that, but we have been very supportive of the entrepreneurial

immigration policy.

We have another job to do now which is very important, because we

have a new budget. We have some very good programs now that put British

Columbia in a position where we can be competitive with most places in

the world. Certainly our industry during the past three years has

become aware that they must be more competitive, that they must be a

[ Page 6808 ]

more reliable supplier, and indeed, I think that

our more intelligent labour union leaders have the message, and

certainly I think the workers recognize that international trade is

where it's at.

I understand the position of the opposition when they say that we've

got to make it happen at home. Yes, there are a lot of things we can do

at home, and there are a lot of things we are doing at home. We've

built up the infrastructure at home so that we and the rest of Canada

will be in a position to take advantage of the growing trade.

But you cannot deal in isolation. We are part of the international

trading pattern. We must remain competitive. We must get out there and

sell. We must sell in a very competitive market, certainly one of the

most competitive markets I think there has been since the history of

trading began. We can survive, we can increase our trade, we can ensure

that our standard of living based on international trade continues.

Having said that, I will take my place, and, as I said, listen to

the very positive constructive suggestions which I know will come from

the opposition. I'll certainly be looking forward to discussing them.

MR. REID: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I would like the House to welcome

today to the precincts Mr. Hammond and 30 grade 7 students from the

Holly Elementary School in Surrey. I would ask the House to make them

welcome.

While I am on my feet, I'd like leave to make one further

introduction. In the precincts today is my lovely wife Marion, and it

is our anniversary today. I expect to stay as long as the discussion

continues in the House, but I'd like it to convene pretty shortly so I

can go and spend the rest of my anniversary with my wife.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair is sympathetic to the member, having experienced a similar anniversary yesterday.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'd certainly be willing to concede to the

member for Surrey, Mr. Chairman, and move adjournment of this debate

until the next sitting.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Ten minutes? All right.

I notice that the minister has a very thick file that will provide

all the depth and background necessary in terms of dealing with all the

homilies we've just received. You go through it all, and it sure would

be nice to grab something there. But what do we hear? The US is the

greatest, but there is the Pacific Rim, and things are more competitive

than probably since the Phoenicians were trading in cedar and glass. Is

it all true? And you're still waiting for that phone call from Ottawa.

I remember the Premier....

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: What's that? You've put in a call?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, I've had the call.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, you mean they've assured you that you will

actually be able to place a desk in Tokyo, Japan, in Seoul, Korea and

in Taipei? You have all that assurance.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I have had a call — as a

matter of fact, it was over a month ago — and he told me we were going

to be accommodated in Tokyo, and that as soon as they moved the Hong

Kong high commission into new premises, we would be accommodated there.

The same thing in Peking. With regard to Seoul, I have been supporting

the embassy to build a new chancery and office combined. I'd like to

see it built out of timber so that it could be an example of what type

of structure we can build of timber. People would be coming there and

have an opportunity to look. They have a team. As a matter of fact, a

team was arriving in Seoul shortly after I left to look for property.

As soon as that is accommodated, which could be a year and a half or

two years, we will be accommodated in the Seoul office. But I must say,

we have a very efficient young ambassador, His Excellency Don Campbell,

who is doing a really tremendous job for us in Seoul; and a good

commercial staff. We may have to go there on a more frequent basis, but

we're getting good representation.

MR. WILLIAMS: Encouraging. Is there a limit on the size of the desk, I wonder?

AN HON. MEMBER: As big as the one you had.

MR. WILLIAMS: Or that the speaker has, I'm sure.

I would have thought that we would have heard a little.... It's

certainly interesting to hear about this, but we haven't heard about

your trip, which just occurred. We did hear some words from the Premier

in that regard in terms of the new breakthrough on value-added wood

products, like 2-by-4s, in the eastern markets. Maybe the minister

could elaborate on that area; we haven't heard about that. Certainly

one of the most critical issues facing us right now involves trade with

the Americans with respect to our lumber industry. I would have thought

that we might have had some comment on that as well, since it is very

critical. I know the Premier will be going to Washington to meet with

legislators there, and that's most important. It is one of the most

serious challenges we've faced, and it does involve some technical

questions. I would have thought the minister might have some thoughts

about that as well at this point.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'd be happy to respond to that. The

purpose of our trip to Korea was twofold. Number one was to ensure that

the business we have there was contacted to ensure them that we

continue to be interested in their business, and that we want more of

it. As you know, we're selling Korea a lot of coal. They are developing

a new steel mill, and we are trying to get our percentage of their

total coal purchases increased. In meeting with the government people

in Korea, of course, we've said to them: "Look, you know, we've been

pretty good to Korea." We've been good for them with their Pony car.

The experience they've gained in Canada will be projected into the

United States market. They certainly owe us more than they're giving us

in terms of their purchases of both steaming and coking coal; and as

you know, we're working on breaking into the anthracite market there.

[ Page 6809 ]

You must also realize that we are trying to change their method of

home construction. We've had some very positive results, but it's going

to need a lot of administrative guidance from the government of Korea,

because they're used to building their homes out of cement block. A lot

of people there have the idea that if they build a house out of wood

it's going to fall down or burn down — that it just won't stand up. The

experiment that we put in place with Hyundai Corp. has been successful.

But there is a high tariff on dimensional timber going into Korea. We

have pointed out to them that you can build a timber frame house in

Korea about 20 percent cheaper, and it's about 30 percent more

economical to heat. That's very important to the Korean market because

of the fact that they have to import most of their energy. A number of

our business people with us of course call on individual business

people there, and we are asking the corporations for further investment

in Canada. We met with the Hyundai Corp. and pointed out to them the

advantages of coming into British Columbia and establishing and using

this as a jumping off point to the total North American market, not

just the Canadian market, because in numbers we have a very small local

population in terms of world population.

With regard to the United States, I met with a number of the lumber

wholesalers in the Boston area and in the Minneapolis area about a

month and a half ago. That information that I received from them as

been relayed back to cabinet where we've had discussions on this. The

Premier will be going to Washington next week, I believe, to have

high-level discussions. He will also be attending the governors'

convention in Boise, Idaho, I believe, in the first part of August, so

we can have firsthand talks with a number of the governors from the

states that are creating the biggest problem sponsoring legislation in

Washington with regard to lumber.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:43 p.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

19 The Hon. R. H. McClelland to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 19) intituled Small Business Venture Capital Act to amend as follows:

SECTION 1,

(

a) in the definition of "associate" by adding the

following paragraph:

(b.1) a participant in a joint venture with the person,

(

b) by adding the following definition:

"employee" includes a person engaged by a small business for a prescribed period calculated in the prescribed manner;, and

(

c) in the definition of "equity share" by adding at

the end ", but does not include a share having prescribed rights and restrictions".

SECTION 3, in subsection (1) (

e) by deleting "equity capital" and substituting "capital".

SECTION 6, in subsections (3) and (4) by deleting "authorized".

SECTION 7, in subsection (3) (

b) by deleting "equity".

SECTION 8, in subsections (2) and (3) by deleting "issuance" and substituting "issue".

SECTION 9, in subsection

(1) by adding at the end "subject to any conditions that he may determine,

including a condition that the shares shall only be issued, as he

specifies, to investing entities or to persons, as defined in

section

20 (1), and fixing the maximum consideration for which these shares may

be issued to those investing entities or persons".

SECTION 10, in paragraph (a) (

i) and (ii) by deleting "annual".

SECTION 12, in subsection (1)

(

a) by deleting paragraph (

e) and substituting the following:

(

e) purchasing goods or services from a director, officer or

shareholder of the venture capital corporation or from an associate or affiliate

of that director, officer or shareholder, other than services referred to in

section 6 (1) (

b) provided by a venture capital corporation,, and

(

b) by adding the following paragraph:

[ Page

6810 ]

(e.1) payment of all or part of a debt obligation, unless the

administrator considers that the payment is necessary for the viability of the

small business, or.

SECTION 13, in subsection (1) by adding "or corporations" after "other venture capital corporation".

SECTION 14,

(

a) in subsection (1) by deleting "that is a subsidiary," and substituting "that is, or was, before the investment is made

and after March 14, 1985, a subsidiary, ", and

(

b) in subsection (2) (

a) by deleting "are held by"

and substituting "are, or were, before the investment is made and after

March 14, 1985, held by".

SECTION 19, by adding the following subsection:

(5) Where a venture capital corporation fails to comply with

section

8 (2) or (3), the corporation is liable to pay the Crown all interest

on the investment protection account earned between the time the

account was opened and the time at which the 18 or 30 month period

referred to in

section 8 (2) or (3) expires.

SECTION 21, by deleting se