1989 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 1989

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

6535 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 6535

Oral Questions

Pensions and the Nemetz report. Mr. Rose –– 6536

Motor vehicle testing and exhaust emissions. Mr. Cashore –– 6536

Sale of New Westminster property. Mr. Williams –– 6536

Sale of Westwood land. Mr. Williams –– 6537

Sunday shopping. Mr. Loenen –– 6538

Sale of Expo lands. Hon. Mr. Michael replies to question –– 6538

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Attorney-General estimates. (Hon. S.D. Smith)

On vote 13: minister's office –– 6538

Mr. Clark

Mrs. Boone

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Perry

Mr. Sihota

Continuing Care Act (Bill 15). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Dueck –– 6552

Ms. A. Hagen –– 6553

Hon. Mr. Dueck –– 6554

Trade Development Corporation Act (Bill 3). Second reading

Hon. J. Jansen –– 6554

Mr. Gabelmann –– 6556

Mr. Williams –– 6557

Mr. Miller –– 6559

Hon. Jansen –– 6561

The House met at 2:09 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. KEMPF :

On Monday morning, while driving through Quesnel en route to my

constituency, I took the opportunity to visit the first member for

Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser) at G.R. Baker Memorial Hospital. I am sure that

on this occasion you will forgive me for naming the member. Alex has

asked that I convey his best wishes to this assembly in which he was

such an active participant for so many years. I can report that

although the first member for Cariboo is in a serious state of health,

his mind is still alert and his interest in what goes on here is still

very keen. Mr. Speaker, I would ask at this time on behalf of all of us

here if you might, as Speaker, convey our best wishes to this

individual who has given so much in service to his community and to

this province, and to his family who so lovingly care for him day and

night.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : It's indeed a pleasure for

me to rise in this assembly today to introduce a lady from Toronto,

Mrs. Joan Kosich, wife of George Kosich, chief executive officer of

Hudson's Bay Co., Simpsons, Zellers and Fields. Her husband George and

president Bob Peter are meeting at the Hudson's Bay department store

this afternoon and could not be with us. It is a pleasure to welcome

Joan, George and Bob to Victoria.

MR- ROSE : We are

Indebted to the member for Omineca for bringing us news of our good

friend Alex Fraser. I hope that we can convey from this House to his

family that we all miss him very much. We would like to hear from time

to time about this friend of ours.

While I am on my feet —

probably on a happier note — I would like to introduce some of my

relatives, mainly from Texada Island. They are Mr. and Mrs. Roy Ditto —

d-i-t-t-o; no kidding. Mr. Ditto is celebrating his birthday today, so

if we could all pause for five minutes while we sing "Happy Birthday to

You".... But we already did it, so we won't do that now. Along with

them is Mrs. Art Phillips, who is the sister-in-law of Patty Ray, their

friend and mine. They are all visiting the Legislature today. Would the

Legislature please welcome them.

HON. MR. DUECK : Today we have visitors In the Legislature from Mexico:

Dr. and Mrs. Horacio Rubio Monteverde. Dr. Monteverde is the director-general

of the National Institute of Respiratory Diseases in Mexico, and is visiting

British Columbia to take

part in meetings and discussions relating to the planned

cooperative project between his institute and various medical groups at the

University of British Columbia. The project has just received approval for a

CIDA grant of $745,376 over five years. Accompanying Dr. and Mrs., Monteverde

are Dr. William Black, clinical professor of medical microbiology of UBC, and

Mr. Scott McDonald, executive director of the British Columbia Lung Association.

Would this House please make them welcome.

Mr.

Speaker, I have one more introduction. Dr. Elaine M. Gallagher, RN, is

a gerontologist at the UVic School of Nursing, and she is in the

Legislature today. Would the House please make her welcome.

MR. PERRY :.

I'd just like to join the welcome to the visiting Mexican physicians,

as well as Dr. Black and Dr. Gallagher. I would welcome the chance to

meet them while they are here, if it's possible.

HON. MR. REE :

I appreciated the comments about our old friend Alex. Having been in

this chamber nearly ten years now, I certainly concur in the best

wishes to him and his family, and in how much we all miss him here.

the gallery today we have two very distinguished guests. Mr. Hans Van

de Bovenkamp is a renowned Dutch sculptor from New York and is

presently working on a project at the University of British Columbia.

Our second guest is Madam Joan Carlile Irving, formerly of New

Brunswick and now of Vancouver. Madam Carlile-Irving has contributed a

great deal of her energies to worthwhile organizations over the years.

She was a national director of the Canadian Red Cross Society and, as

well, headed the Duke of Edinburgh awards in New Brunswick. Until

recently she worked with the famous United Nations International School

in Geneva, Switzerland. She is now vice-president of the Whistler

Institute, a private advanced-learning executive school soon to open at

Whistler, and a founding board member of the Whistler Foundation for

the Environment, an international body also to be headquartered at

Whistler. I would ask this House to welcome them both to Victoria and

to British Columbia.

[2:15]

MS. SMALLWOOD :

Today in the precincts is a group of grade 9 and 10 honours social

studies students from Johnston Heights Junior Secondary School. Along

with the adults accompanying the students is Miss Morissette, their

teacher. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. PELTON :

In the members' gallery today with my wife Louise is a longstanding

friend of our family, Mrs. Elsie Palmer. Would the House welcome her,

please.

MR. BARLEE : In the precincts today are two

visitors, one a longtime supporter of mine, Mrs. Kitty Wilson of

Naramata; and Mrs. Elaine Baldwin of Cumberland, Maryland, an

ex-Canadian who is very pleased to be back in Canada. Would both sides

of the House accord them a warm welcome, please.

Hon. L. Hanson tabled the annual report of the Workers' Compensation Board for the year 1988.

[ Page 6536 ]

Oral Questions

PENSIONS AND THE NEMETZ REPORT

MR. ROSE :

My question is directed to the Minister of Government Management

Services and arises from a press release that he issued recently —

yesterday, I think — about the Nemetz report. Has the minister decided

that the Nemetz report, which of course was prompted by the famous

Poole golden handshake, will be made public after cabinet has reviewed

It?

HON. MR. MICHAEL : The report will go to my

cabinet colleagues for review next Wednesday, and the decision on

whether or not to make it public will be made by the executive council.

MR. ROSE :

A supplementary — a new question, really. The answer to this one

doesn't have to be decided by cabinet colleagues but can be decided by

the minister alone. On November 29, 1988, the Leader of the Opposition

posed a number of written questions about 11 sweetheart pension deals.

I wonder if the minister has now decided it's time to respond to these

questions?

HON. MR. MICHAEL : In the fullness of time they will be responded to.

MOTOR VEHICLE TESTING

AND EXHAUST EMISSIONS

MR. CASHORE :

My question is to the Solicitor General. The report of the task force

on exhaust emissions in the lower mainland shows that the amount of

carbon monoxide in the atmosphere nearly doubled after the elimination

of motor vehicle testing. Has the minister now decided to follow

through on the government's 1988 promise to institute comprehensive

motor vehicle testing, including exhaust emission controls?

HON. MR. REE : No.

MR. CASHORE :

A supplementary question to the Minister of Environment. The

government's approach since the elimination of motor vehicle testing

has been to talk about beefing up roadside inspections. This emission

task force report characterizes this approach as ineffective. In

Ontario there is only a 2,000-to-1 chance of a motorist being checked.

That's what the actual situation is. Has the minister decided to

recommend exhaust emission inspections as part of a comprehensive

vehicle-testing program?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : That has come out of the Ministry of Environment

report. We will be approaching the GVRD, which has legislative responsibility

for this type of environmental assessment as well as others. That's what

the task force will be recommending. There's more to it than simply exhaust

emission controls. There's the whole issue of butane addition to gasolines,

proper nozzle covers for service stations and processes to be used in bulk plants.

Automobile emissions standards are just one function of the whole air emission

study.

MR. CASHORE :

Supplementary to the Minister of Environment. Will the Minister of

Environment Stop waffling and tell the House and the people of British

Columbia if he has decided to recommend comprehensive motor vehicle

Inspections in this province?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

That question would be best put to the Solicitor-General, as you

already have. If you're speaking of comprehensive vehicle testing, my

responsibility and the responsibility of the task force which the

Ministry of Environment put into place in 1984 is to ensure that we

have proper emission controls and that we are doing everything within

our ability to measure and regulate, to control air emissions in the

greater Vancouver area.

MR. CASHORE : A new question

to the Solicitor General. Am I to take it that "no" means you are not

willing to make this recommendation for comprehensive motor vehicle

testing at this time?

HON. MR. REE : I think, Mr.

Speaker, my answer to that question — which is put as the first

question was put, as a double: do you think, what, when or how? — would

be the same as to the first question: no.

SALE OF NEW WESTMINSTER PROPERTY

MR. WILLIAMS :

To the Minister of Government Management Services. I hesitate to ask

him a question in the House, since he prefers to answer them in the

corridor. In the corridor yesterday you claimed that the government has

been able to refute in its entirety the $10.5 million land flip on the

New Westminster waterfront. Could we go through it step by step? First,

Mr. Minister, did First Capital City, the government Crown corporation,

not sell the land in January of last year for $2.2 million?

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

Mr. Speaker, if the member would do his research, he would find that

the sale was completed in January, but the sale in fact took place many

months before that.

MR. WILLIAMS : The minister

confirms it was sold January 7, deposited in the land registry, for

$2.2 million. Would the minister then confirm that, indeed, land

registry documents show that it was transferred the same day for $10.5

million?

HON. MR. MICHAEL : Once again, Mr. Speaker,

I thank the member for the question. The response is that my

information is that in reading from the documents before the court, the

Supreme Court statements, the property was indeed transferred from

company A to company B on that date, from $2.2 million up to $10.5

million. But it is my understanding that it was a paper transaction and

it was flipped, in

[ Page

6537 ]

effect, to the same owners as company A, who were the same owners as company B.

MR. WILLIAMS :

It was mortgaged by the Bank of America for $3.5 million; land registry

documents show us that. Is that real money, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

In response to the member, I would like to have the evidence of the

basis of the loan that was given to the company by the bank. If the

$3.5 million is a fact, was it a draw-down mortgage based on

infrastructure, underground service and things like that being put into

place? Where was the appraisal? We have yet to find any appraisal that

the member alludes to. I know the press have been trying to track it

down as well. We can't find it. We'd like to know who done it; what it

looks like; how it reads; what type of infrastructure; what type of

underground services. Indeed, are sewer and water, underground hydro

and connections with the city facilities part of the overall agreement?

have in evidence the fact that we had appraisals done some time before

the sale took place. We had in-house valuations done by professional

staff. The property had been advertised for months — indeed years. All

the major properties had been sold over the years, and this was left

until the very end because it was commonly referred to as somewhat of a

very low-profile, low-cost property that was a dredge left to the very

end by the developers. Top developers in British Columbia that are very

familiar with that site have said in the press and publicly that the

value the province received — the $2.2 million — was very good. One

developer actually made a statement that as far as he was concerned the

property, because of the cost of the infrastructure, wasn't worth a

5-cent piece.

Along with that we have the evidence of the

B.C. Assessment Authority, which again is very professional. They

appraised the property at the time of the sale at significantly less

than $1 million. After the sale, after the rezoning, after the increase

in density, they went back and did a further assessment of the property

and came up with a value of $2.2 million.

If that doesn't

satisfy the members opposite — and, indeed, the member for New

Westminster (Ms A. Hagen), who referred to making statements in this

House about incompetence and corruption — I don't know what will, Mr.

Speaker.

Every single thing we've researched, every party

we've talked to, whether it be the Assessment Authority or appraisers —

in-house or out-of-house — all points to the fact that we got very good

value selling that property at $2.2 million.

MR. WILLIAMS : That wasn't a stream of consciousness; it was a raging

torrent of unconsciousness. The point is that this was real money — $7 million

in bank money minus $2.2 million leaves $4 million in real money in somebody's

pockets, Mr. Minister. Is that what you mean by a paper transaction: somebody

walking off with $4.8 million and still owning half the land?

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

That is precisely why the question is in court. Perhaps some of the

member's friends got snookered on the transaction; I don't know. I'm

not going to make any comment on that, because it is before the courts.

Clearly, Mr. Speaker, that is why the matter is before the courts of

British Columbia today.

MR. WILLIAMS : The minister

says: "Who done it?" The member for Vancouver-Little Mountain certainly

knows who done it, but that's another story. The question is to the

minister of lands.

MRS. McCARTHY : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask

the hon. member for Vancouver East to withdraw the inference that he has just

made on the floor of this House.

MR. WILLIAMS :

I'd be glad to withdraw the statement. If the minister who is

responsible doesn't know who done it, I have to accept that she just

didn't know.

SALE OF WESTWOOD LAND

MR. WILLIAMS :

I have a question to the Minister of Crown Lands, who is involved in

another major sale with respect to the Westwood lands. There are going

to be 5,000 lots In Westwood Plateau. Will you confirm, Mr. Minister,

that you are going to sell it for more than $13,000 a lot?

HON. MR. DIRKS : Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member opposite will have to wait until the conclusion of those negotiations.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Would the Minister Responsible for Crown Lands advise the House whether

the Crown will retain a percentage of that land for social housing? Or

will you make the same errors you — or your colleagues — made with

respect to the Expo land?

HON. MR. DIRKS : Again, I will have to say that the details of that will be released to this House at the conclusion of the sale.

MR. WILLIAMS :

It's my understanding that Wesbild Enterprises will get the Westwood

lands. It's 1,200 acres, 5,000 lots. It's a chance to play Monopoly

with public lands. Can we be assured that it will not be just one

player like Westbuild?

[2:30]

HON. MR. DIRKS : Again, I will take that question on notice and reply to the House when the sale is concluded.

MR. WILLIAMS :

To the Premier. Some $18.5 million of public money, most of it from

BCEC, has been spent on infrastructure or committed to the Westwood

lands. Can the Premier assure the House that this huge public

expenditure will benefit the public

[ Page 6538 ]

in the form of a genuine housing mix in that area so that we will begin to solve the housing crisis in the lower mainland?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Yes, I can assure British Columbians that they will benefit from additional housing.

SUNDAY SHOPPING

MR. LOENEN :

A question for the Attorney-General. Yesterday the B.C. Supreme Court

made a ruling in favour of the city of Quesnel and against Canada

Safeway on a Sunday-shopping issue. What impact will this particular

ruling have on Sunday shopping in British Columbia?

HON. S.D. SMITH :

I will have to study the decision a bit more carefully before I can

give a proper and full answer to the member as to the impact it may

have on Sunday shopping. I'm sure the member for Kootenay (Ms.

Edwards), the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), the members for Cariboo

(Mr. A. Fraser, Hon. Mr. Vant) and other members around the province

will be interested in this decision.

What Madam justice

Prowse has done is uphold the bylaw that was drafted by Quesnel, which

provided that community with a way to regulate the hours of sale and

size of stores involved in selling commodities on Sunday. The Supreme

Court justice, in so upholding

section 921 of the Municipal Act and, I

believe, sections relating to

part 3 of that piece of legislation, has

provided a vehicle through which municipalities such as Smithers,

Williams Lake and Cranbrook will be able to deal with the issue of

community standards in relation to store-opening hours, which they had

felt they were unable to deal with as a consequence of the decision of

the B.C. Court of Appeal flowing out of Cranbrook some months ago.

SALE OF EXPO LANDS

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

I would like to respond to a question taken as notice. I rise to reply

to the poorly researched question from the first member for Vancouver

East (Mr. Williams), which I took on notice yesterday.

The

first member for Vancouver East was wrong yesterday when he stated that

the Plaza Grill had a 20-year lease and virtually nobody else did. The

Plaza Grill has a ten-year lease with two five-year extensions. The

Irish Rovers' Unicorn Pub has a five-year lease with three five-year

extensions, for a total of 20 years. CKNW Radio has a five-year lease

with four five-year extensions, for a total of 25 years. All these

figures were only a few pages away from the

schedule he referred to in

his question yesterday.

The Plaza Grill lease was awarded

during Expo 86 in a formal bid process for operation of a restaurant in

the B.C. Pavilion. The agreement allowed the company to bid to stay on

after Expo, which they did.

The first member for Vancouver

East was wrong again when he said that the British Columbia Club was on

the same terms as the Plaza Grill. The B.C. Club had a one-year lease

and a one-year extension. A further six-month extension will expire

September 30, when the B.C. Pavilion Corporation transfers management

of the Enterprise Centre to Concord Pacific.

The taxpayers

have been getting a very good return on these leases. In the past year,

the Plaza Grill paid $30,000 based on a percentage of its gross

revenue; its kitchen provided more than $140,000 as a percentage of its

catering sales. The catering is by far the largest part of the

business, allowing the B.C. Pavilion Corporation to earn revenue it

could not do on its own and avoiding the expense of building its own

kitchen.

The B.C. Club also pays a percentage of gross

sales to the Pavilion Corporation. Last year it paid $220,000, mostly

as a result of catering in its meeting and banquet rooms, with a total

of $390,000 in a 12 month period. It is a pleasure to defend the B.C.

Pavilion Corporation from the unsubstantiated attacks of the first

member for Vancouver East.

Orders of the Day

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

On vote 13: minister's office, $254,015 (continued).

MR. CLARK : I'll just wait until the staff gets seated, if that's all right with the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Please proceed.

MR. CLARK :

Yesterday we were canvassing the Attorney-General's representations on

behalf of the government of British Columbia with respect to a new law

regulating abortions in Canada. The Attorney-General responded by

saying that he did have a meeting with the Minister of justice to

express the government's position on this question. Could the minister

tell us whether he canvassed this area fully? Essentially, what is the

government's position on this important question?

HON. S.D. SMITH :

I think it would be somewhat of an understatement for me to say I

canvassed those questions fully, completely and substantially

yesterday. I can only say to the second member for Vancouver East that

there isn't anything that I know of that I can add today.

MR. CLARK :

The minister did talk at length about this meeting. We are trying to

get to the bottom of what the government's position has been. He did

say at one point that he conferred with the Minister of

[ Page 6539 ]

Justice

verbally, and he said: "There ought to be a law." I wonder if the

Attorney-General could tell us what the nature of that law is? Is it

the government's position that it should be included in the Criminal

Code, first of all?

HON. S.D. SMITH : I will repeat:

I answered that question, as well, several times yesterday. There isn't

anything that I can add to my answer today.

MR. CLARK :

This could go on for some time. We're trying to canvass the

government's position. The Attorney-General has stated that British

Columbia's representation to the federal government is that there

should be a law governing abortions. We're trying to ascertain whether

or not the government has a position or preference as to what that law

should say.

There were at the time of the representations

three or four options before the federal House. Did the government of

British Columbia take a position with respect to any of the positions

that were put before the members of the House of Commons at that time?

HON. S.D. SMITH :

Again, I answered that question yesterday as well. I was accused even

of being too thorough and repetitious with my answers yesterday. I can

only tell the member that that question was answered yesterday, and

there's nothing I can add today.

MR. CLARK : Perhaps

he could be extremely brief and tell me whether the government took a

position on any of the three options that were before the House of

Commons. If there were three distinct options before the House and a

fourth option, which is the status quo — which, of course, was adopted

by default — did the government make any representations with respect

to which option it would prefer?

HON. S.D. SMITH :

Again, I answered that question yesterday. To refresh the member's

memory on that specific question: those options were before the House

prior to the election being called, and therefore weren't before the

House when I met with the minister. All of that I have answered as

thoroughly as I can, and there is nothing more I can add.

MR. CLARK : Reading Hansard

from yesterday really elicits one fact. We have one fact that the

Attorney-General admitted in the House yesterday, and that is that it's

the government's position that there must be a law with respect to

regulating abortions or the access to abortions in Canada. That's the

government's position. We know now that the status quo is not

acceptable to the government of British Columbia. That's not the

position.

I'm trying to determine whether the minister

talked to the federal Minister of Justice with respect to any

preference about the nature of that law, or whether he simply said to

him that we just want a law, and we don't care what the law is.

Let

me be even more specific, Mr. Chairman. As I understand it, the major

fundamental discussion in the federal House prior to the election was

where the line would be with respect to criminality, in terms of

numbers of weeks in which it might be deemed to be a criminal offence

to procure an abortion in Canada. Does the government of British

Columbia have a position with respect to where that line might be drawn?

Before

the minister answers by saying he has canvassed this question, I can

assure the Chair that a careful reading of all his remarks yesterday

elicited no response as to whether the government had a position. Maybe

we could first have the answer to the question: does the government

have a position? Then we can ask what that position is. So if he could

answer the first question: do they have a position beyond saying that

there should be a law, and therefore it should be criminal? Do they

have a position beyond that?

HON. S.D. SMITH : Well,

Mr. Chairman, these are the same questions that were asked yesterday,

and that I answered yesterday as thoroughly as I can answer them: the

reasons why and the position of the province, when it was communicated,

how it was communicated, what was communicated, why a minister

communicates government policy — rather than their own biases, as was

suggested that I should be doing — and why it is important that an

Attorney-General particularly has to be mindful, when discussing

matters of law enforcement, that they don't allow their personal biases

to render their imprimatur on their responsibility to enforce the laws,

whatever they may be.

[2:45]

Mr. Chairman, I certainly don't want to offend the House in any way,

but I can only answer again that all of those matters were dealt with

yesterday. I don't know of anything that I can add to them. But I'm

more than happy to stay here — as I said yesterday — until the cows

come home and answer the opposition's questions in the full knowledge

that prior to these questions being raised, there was an agreement

between the opposition and the government Whips as to how the course of

conduct of the House would take place. Those agreements obviously mean

nothing, and that's fine. We now know that agreements rendered will be

broken, even with the sanction obviously of the Leader of the

Opposition, who participated in the breaking.

That aside, I'm happy to answer your questions. I will give you the answers to the best of my ability.

MR. CLARK :

Let me assure the Chair and the Attorney-General that I'm not the

slightest bit interested or concerned about the Attorney-General's bias

with respect to this matter. We are canvassing the question of the

position of the government of British Columbia with respect to a matter

of fundamental importance to many people in Canada.

Yesterday we heard from the minister that there was a meeting at which this was canvassed, and at

[ Page 6540 ]

which the minister took the position that the government of British Columbia wants to see a law....

MR. LOENEN : Have you got any new questions?

MR. CLARK :

To the second member for Richmond: we'll canvass this until we get some

answers to the questions. They're very simple questions. Maybe we could

start with some other kinds of questions. Could the minister inform the

House how long this meeting was that took place between him and the

Minister of Justice with respect to this question?

HON. S.D. SMITH :

Mr. Chairman, I'm tempted to respond in a way that perhaps wouldn't be

appropriate for the office I serve. Nevertheless, I think that meeting

was in excess of an hour when I was in Ottawa at that particular time.

So you know you don't have to go down through the rest of the day. I

was there in my capacity as the co-chairman of the Council of

Ministers, on behalf of the province.

I met that day, I

think, with five ministers. Most of those meetings were about the same

length. Many of them canvassed a whole host of issues. As well, I met

with members of the Prime Minister's senior office staff, both in the

Privy Council office and in the PMO. And I met, I believe, on that

particular occasion with one or more members of the New Democratic

Party caucus. I met, as well, with most of the members of the

Conservative Party caucus.

MR. CLARK : We'll just try

and home in on the meeting with the Minister of Justice, and we could

deal with that. The meeting lasted an hour. Could the minister inform

the House whether the subject discussed during that hour was abortion

and the federal government's position on that matter or whether it

canvassed a range of other subjects.

HON. S.D. SMITH :

To the second member: I answered that yesterday. I am certainly not in

the habit.... I'm a little concerned about the appropriateness in

relation to my counterpart, the Minister of Justice, but I can tell you

as well that you can judge for yourself how long the discussion was by

what I told you yesterday.

There were two other matters

raised. Actually, if my recollection serves me, I believe there were

six items on the agenda of that meeting. At least one of them has come

to fruition, and I was very pleased about that.

We discussed the appointment of a new justice to the Supreme Court of Canada.

British Columbia was very much concerned that our position be adopted by Canada,

which was that there ought to be a replacement from British Columbia for Justice

McIntyre, to thereby establish, we believe, a convention of our constitution,

or certainly to work towards that, so that this great Pacific region will be

represented on the Supreme Court of Canada. The Premier of British Columbia

took a lead in that process. The Prime Minister listened carefully to our representations,

and in that meeting, I discussed thoroughly with the Minister of justice the

reasons why I was confident that they would find, upon analysis, that our nomination

of Madam Justice Beverley McLachlin would serve them well. That took a considerable

amount of time.

also discussed an Issue that I think the second member for Vancouver

East would find interesting, because I know he has raised it as well.

It's an important one: the question of the Young Offenders Act. While

most people recognize that the Young Offenders Act has had an important

and generally positive influence on the course of justice issues for

youth, there are a number of areas where it is deficient and where it

particularly impacts on British Columbia. That is in the area in which

young offenders are sentenced differently than "thee or me" would be.

That has turned out to be a major source of recruitment for the leaders

of these gangs that are causing us a problem, especially in Vancouver.

know that the various justice ministers and Attorneys-General across

Canada will be dealing with the Young Offenders Act. There had been up

till then, I think, a sense that there wasn't much need for change in

it. I made the point that so far as British Columbia is concerned, it

does have a particular impact that it may not have in other parts of

the country. That took some considerable time.

The Minister

of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) will know that CEPA, the Canadian

Environmental Protection Act, raises an issue appropriate for

Attorneys-General to discuss inasmuch as it flows as well out of the

Criminal Code. As we're talking about the Criminal Code right now, it's

often the case that Ottawa passes legislation and the provinces have to

pick up the tab for enforcement. That's a major impact, and I put that

forward very strongly, particularly as we were anticipating a budget

that would reduce the level of expenditure by the federal government in

some of the areas transferable to the province, or at least that would

reduce the rate growth.

We were concerned that the

while we all know they've got to deal with their budget deficit, and I

guess we recognize that maybe some impact would flow to the

provinces.... For goodness' sake, let's not get into the business of

passing more of these laws that end up with us having to pick up the

tab to enforce them. That was discussed at some considerable length in

that meeting. It is a very important issue.

Generally

touched on as well in that meeting was a question which I think is

upcoming, which relates to the appointment of judges that are necessary

to be appointed to.....

Interjection.

HON. S.D. SMITH :

We have an outstanding Court of Appeal in British Columbia, but some of

the justices there are about to go supernumerary, so there will be a

need for appointment. I wanted to alert the Minister of justice of

that. To those, as I say, Mr. Chairman, I am trying to the best of my

ability to give a proper, complete and full answer to the mem-

[ Page 6541 ]

ber.

Those were the things discussed in our meeting, as well as the question

he asked, which I answered fully yesterday, on what was discussed and

why, and what government policy was being represented during that

discussion. The entire extent of what was said about that was put

forward thoroughly yesterday, in many different ways, and there's not a

whole lot I can add to that.

I can't remember what else

took place in that meeting, and I would render my apologies to the

Minister of Justice Canada and hope that he recognizes that I won't —

hopefully — always be having to stand in the Legislature and give a

blow-by-blow description of meetings between ministers. I'm doing that

simply because I don't want it to be said in this House that I'm not

prepared to answer questions. I'm trying desperately to give as full

answers as I can, and I have given a complete answer on what that

meeting was about.

MR. CLARK : It's quite clear that

the Attorney-General was more concise and to the point in his meeting

with the Minister of justice than he has been here in the House the

last few days.

Perhaps the Attorney-General could answer it

this way: is it the government of British Columbia's position, one

which he conveyed to the Minister of justice, that there must be a law

regulating abortion; that it doesn't matter what the law is, as long as

there's a law?

HON. S.D. SMITH : That very specific question was asked of me yesterday, and I answered it as well yesterday.

MR- CLARK : It seems to me that the answer to that question could be one word. It doesn't require a lengthy rebuttal.

The

government has said there should be a law. The minister has refused to

say what that law should be. I wonder whether it's his view that this

is the federal government's responsibility and it's therefore not the

role of the province to make suggestions with respect to a criminal law

matter. Is it his position that there should be a law, but that it's up

to the federal government to decide what the law is, not up to the

province?

HON. S.D. SMITH : I answered that question

several times yesterday. Let me, this once, repeat in part what I said,

because if I were to repeat all of what I said it would take me, I

believe, three hours and 45 minutes. That's how long we were on it

yesterday.

To sum it up in some way that I think members on

both sides can understand, even if the members of this chamber,

individually or collectively, should come up with the one rule or law

or solution to an issue that has been with humankind since the

beginning, we would not have the constitutional and jurisdictional

authority to render that finding into law, because it is a matter

solely and exclusively and completely for the Parliament of Canada.

MRS. BOONE :

I don't think anybody is questioning that it's the government of

Canada's responsibility. What we are questioning here is the fact that

this minister made a submission to the federal minister, stating a

position of the government when it comes to abortion. For some reason

or other this minister seems unwilling to tell the people of B.C.

exactly what that position is, other than that the law has to be

changed.

[3:00]

I think the minister owes the women of this province an answer to

one very easy and simple question. Did the minister at any time

advocate, support or agree to the criminalization of the act of

abortion, to putting women in prison for seeking abortion? That is a

very simple question, and it's one you have evaded answering for two

days. You can jump up as much as you want, Mr. Minister, but we need to

know what your stand is, because it's clear that this could become an

option. The criminalization of abortion could very easily take place.

If you, sir, are advocating this or supporting this in any way, shape

or form, then the people of this province have a right to know.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

HON. S.D. SMITH :

First of all, in the issues that I try to discuss I answer questions

not only so that women would know my position, but that all British

Columbians would know my position.

I have told the House

thoroughly and completely what was discussed between me and the

Minister of Justice. I have told them as well that it reflected the

policy of the government of British Columbia and that I communicated

that policy to the minister. I have stated to you what was

communicated, and today I have also, probably unfairly to my colleague

the Minister of Justice for Canada — and I apologize to him for that —

set out what else was discussed in the meeting, all the other subject

matters. As the member for Prince George North will recall just from my

discussion a few moments ago, prisons were not one of the things

discussed.

MRS. BOONE : I asked one simple question

of the minister. Did he at any time advocate, agree with or suggest to

the minister that there be a criminalization of abortion? You have not

answered that question. You have stated and stated and restated and,

yes, you have been repetitious. But you've been repetitious not in

repeating an answer, Mr. Minister, but in repeating a non-answer time

and time again. A very simple question: did you at any time advocate or

agree that there should be criminalization of abortion or that it

should be written into the Criminal Code? That's all we want to know:

yes or no. You don't need to give us a long history; you don't need to

tell us you've gone over this and canvassed this. Just a yes or a no,

Mr. Minister; then we'll be off your back.

HON. S.D. SMITH :

The member can, figuratively speaking, stay on my back as long as she

wants. The answer to your question is that I have told you what

[ Page 6542 ]

was

discussed in the meeting, the position I put on behalf of the

government of British Columbia respecting its policy. Therefore any

other hypothetical question you raise about what was or was not

discussed you can be assured by that answer was not included. If you go

and look at what was in my answer, you will find what was fully in my

answer, and you can make the assumption, therefore, if I am indeed an

honest person, that I didn't discuss anything else. I don't know, Madam

Member, how many more ways I can make this point to you. But if you

want to stand up and ask me more questions hypothetically — did I

discuss this, that or something else in the meeting — I will do my very

best to answer you.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I know there are

other members who are interested in the minister's point of view on

this subject, and they will be canvassing it at a later date. But I

want to talk a little bit more about some of the women's issues, some

issues of equity and justice, that fall under your responsibility, as

well as another issue that relates to sexual abuse. I have two

particular cases that I want to talk to you about.

First of

all, I found it quite Interesting, with the government's announcement

of the family maintenance program and all the PR around that particular

announcement at the time, to look back in the history of this

government to see how long the government has been talking about

resolving this particular problem. As far as I have looked right at the

moment, I have a record as of July 1967 of a comment by the minister

then responsible for social services. At that time she said that one of

the biggest problems of welfare services was that of deserted wives.

She went on in 1970 to say, just to bring the record up to date again,

that it's important to take this to the news media. "I also ask you to

spread the word that we are going to do something to enforce this issue

and to make a better life for those people." That was in 1970. This

continues on. It is a really interesting history. I am sure that the

new minister responsible will find it fascinating. On January 21, 1977,

the minister again says:

"Women have been

unfairly dealt with — and they have — where their husbands have gone

scot-free — and they have — where they have left children, with

responsibilities only on the onus of the mother and the wife — and they

have — where the whole court system and the whole welfare system has

grown in this country to try to provide care for those who will not

provide care for the wives and their children...."

On March 20, 1980, the minister again says:

"Mr.

Speaker...it's about time in this province that those who have deserted

their wives and children -and sometimes it's the other way around, but

that is not the norm — must not just leave the taxpayers to pick up

their responsibility. We must have a different system."

you can see, this goes on and on. August 1980; June 1, 1981; April

1982; July 1983; October 1983. This was only a record that was produced

for a Hansard debate for 1985. This government has been promising to deal with this very significant problem for a long, long time.

Now

it comes to this minister's record in dealing with the situation that

the Social Credit past governments have been talking about,

acknowledging that there is a significant problem and we need to do

something about it. So now we have a program, and what do the women of

this province have to look forward to, because this government has

finally after 20-some years put a program in place? The women of this

province have to look forward to more delays, more inaction, because

the government is not prepared to put the resources where it is

necessary to actually make the program work.

I'd like to

bring to the attention of the minister a particular problem that a

constituent of mine brought to my attention last week.

had a 65-year-old woman come into my office. Her name is Victoria Law.

Victoria has asked me to bring her case to your attention, as she did

bring her situation to the attention of your predecessor. I have a

letter here that was written to the hon. member in December 1987. 1 am

sure that Mrs. Law would want the Attorney-General to hear her case, so

perhaps I will just wait until he is paying attention.

Mrs.

Law writes to the past Attorney-General to explain that in 1987 her

marriage fell apart. This is a long-time marriage, where they raised

and supported children together. Back in 1987 — I believe it was

somewhere around February — Mrs. Law ended up being attacked by her now

ex-husband. It was a situation where her glasses and her dentures were

broken. She faced a considerable amount of physical harm and

considerable trauma.

That was the incident that finally

brought their marriage to a close, and at that time Mrs. Law found her

only means of support being welfare. I am sure the minister is well

aware of the fact that for the majority of women in this province, when

a divorce is brought about, women's actual income falls in the first

couple of months by 70 percent. For the male partner in that

relationship, after that time, the real income rises by 40 percent.

What

that meant for Mrs. Law at the age of 64 was going to welfare, asking

welfare for support so she could continue in her home. Mrs. Law has

been through the courts several different times since then. She got a

court settlement that instructed her husband to split the assets of the

family; to provide support for her — a total of $950; and, I also

understand, to split his pension. The husband, Mr. Law, has

considerable assets and can afford to support his wife in some fashion.

think I would like to continue providing some information about Mrs.

Law's case, but I understand that a member would like to make an

introduction.

MR. ROSE : I apologize to the member

and to the House for interrupting at this point in this very serious

matter. The school group that I wish to introduce and welcome to the

House and Legislature will only be here for a minute or two.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Would you like to ask leave to do that.

[ Page 6543 ]

MR. ROSE : I wonder if I could have leave. I beg leave — I'd even grovel for leave.

MR. CHAIRMAN : I'm not so sure the Chairman will insist on that.

Leave granted.

MR. ROSE :

I would like to introduce some youngsters from Meadowbrook Elementary

School in Coquitlam visiting the House as a school group.

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Name names.

MR. ROSE :

I wouldn't mind. If I had a list of their names for the edification of

the member, I would read the whole works. I think there are about 40 of

them. We are glad to have them here, and I hope they have a fine day.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam also wishes leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. CASHORE :

I too would like to welcome part of the group that has traveled with

the students from Meadowbrook. These are the students and staff from

Porter Street Elementary School in Coquitlam. Would the House join me

in making them welcome.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I will

continue with Mrs. Law's situation. She's presently living in the

family home and supporting and caring for her 94-year-old mother. The

situation that Mrs. Law faces now is causing her considerable stress.

She is now 65 and no longer having to depend on welfare because she has

her old age pension and a supplement. That's what she is living on at

present.

She found this whole process very confusing, very

frustrating and very demeaning. For the first time in her life she had

to seek some support from welfare to be able to feed herself. She

applied for welfare, after she had her court settlement where the court

instructed her husband to split the assets. When she went to Welfare,

they referred her to the family maintenance program. This was the first

Mrs. Law knew of that program, and she thought that for the first time

she was actually going to receive some support and be able to resolve

this very traumatic situation.

[3:15]

She didn't hear anything from the family maintenance program. Her sixty-fifth

birthday came around and she got her old age pension. She came to me saying:

"What am I to do? I can't make ends meet. I can't make the mortgage

payment. My family's picking up the mortgage payment now. My husband's

not making the mortgage payment as he was instructed to do; he's not making

the support payments as he was instructed to do. I've been through nine

lawyers. I've gone to legal aid. I can't get any help." So we became

involved at my constituency office and phoned the family maintenance program.

It was only after our call that they dug out Mrs. Law's file and began to

take a look at it.

The

person responsible told me at the time that she would find the file

and, if it was a straightforward case, she would process it as soon as

possible. We have made several calls to the family maintenance program,

and so far Mrs. Law has not had any call back to let her know whether

her file will be responded to.

I'd like to ask the

minister. since the women of this province have waited since prior to

1967.... The government acknowledges that there's a serious problem,

and it's taken almost 20 years to get a program in place. Are the

people of this province going to have to wait another 20 years before

they have a functioning program to deal with this serious reality? What

am I to tell this 65-year-old woman when she is risking losing her home

because her husband refuses to make the payments? Perhaps the minister

can advise me.

HON. S.D. SMITH : What I would tell

the woman whose problem has been described very fulsomely is that I

will undertake to work with the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley to

try to resolve the problem as quickly as I can. I will make that a

personal commitment, and hopefully the member will be in touch with me

or my office directly. If I can't be in when she's in, I will get

someone to deal with the problem directly, so that I can follow up and

see that the service is provided. That's the first thing I would tell

her.

The second thing I would tell her and perhaps all

other people trying to get the services of this program is that there

has been — as you have so correctly described — an extended period of

time when we simply haven't dealt with the issue as a province. As a

consequence, there is a substantial backlog of applicants. As one might

expect, when you start a new program like this, people who have had the

unfortunate circumstance that their husbands — usually — refuse to obey

the courts and live up to their responsibilities, have seen a ray of

hope and have come in great numbers to the program to look for help.

you should tell her and others that we are working to have that backlog

dealt with during this summer. We are also confident that the backlog

will not continue. It will not be an ongoing problem because the

program itself will register.... The newer court orders and so on will

be up to date. People will know the locations of people and so on, so

there should not be as much time taken with each application to

register with newer court orders than with previous ones for the reason

that some of the previous ones are dated.... Not in this instance

you're talking about, but in some instances there are problems of

information and so on which have exacerbated the backlog problem.

Nonetheless there is a backlog. It's a new program, and we're dealing

with that problem.

The third thing I would say to them,

when you ask me what you should say about these issues, is that, no,

there won't be the kinds of time-lags that you so

[ Page 6544 ]

rightly

describe since 1969 or '70 for people or governments to act, and that

we are, in fact, acting. One of the reasons will be that there has been

a very profound attitudinal change in our society, which I think is

reflected in this chamber, in the laws and in the family maintenance

program.

The fourth thing I would say is that it is very

much a non-partisan issue. I think the manifestation of that would be

found in your own statements you read as to what the attitude of

government was in 1969-1970. Those issues were raised then, and they

weren't responded to. They were raised in 1972, 1973, 1974 and 1975,

and they weren't responded to. During that period of time, we didn't

have a family maintenance program to do what we're doing here; we

didn't before that time; nor did we in 1976 to 1988. So you're right

when you say that there has been a tremendous time lag since these

issues were first raised. Governments in the province did not respond

with the tools to deal with it. That is perhaps one of the other things

I would say in response.

As to the specific person you

raised, as I said right at the outset, I would appreciate you coming

over to my office to deal directly with me or a member of my staff, and

I will undertake to follow up that problem.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I thank the minister for his offer to deal with Victoria Law's problem.

I raise it not only on her behalf but on behalf of other women who are

facing the same frustration. We will all recognize that Mrs. Law is not

alone in the problem that she is trying to deal with. However, with the

minister suggesting that he will help her, that doesn't particularly

help the other women.

There are currently something like

14,000 cases or contacts to the office dealing with claims or

inquiries. There are only 14 staff people in Victoria, 15 in Kamloops

and 27 in Burnaby, Burnaby being the main office. There are currently

seven lawyers who are on full-time contract dealing with the case work

generated by this office. It's very clear that the support is not there

for the program to be able to deal with the backlog satisfactorily.

are in a situation in this province where we have women and children

who are unable to support themselves while at the same time having

court documents in their hands that say that their husbands should be

paying that support. For the minister to say that this backlog is there

because of years of Social Credit neglect is not good enough. While I

acknowledge that reality, my question to the minister is: are you

providing more funds in support of this program to be able to deal with

the backlog and deal with the demands of the women and children of this

province?

HON. S.D. SMITH : As a measure of my

concern for this problem, I've tried very clearly not to make it a

partisan issue, but if the member insists, I don't have any hesitation.

"The years of Social Credit neglect, " she said. I would remind her

that she read from documents that talked about 1969 and 1970, when this

issue became fairly current. I would ask her to reflect on how many

sexual assault centres were funded between 1972 and 1975 by the

government of British Columbia. I would ask her to reflect as well on

the nature of the family law maintenance enforcement program that was

in operation during that same three-year period. I would as well like

to see documentation about the victim services system that was in place

during that period of time — the police-based system, the

community-based system or the prosecutor-based system.

makes no useful sense for us to deal with the issue at that level,

because I don't think it is a partisan issue. I think it's very much a

non-partisan issue. You're absolutely correct that there have been

years of neglect in this province with respect to the question of

family maintenance enforcement. The family maintenance enforcement

program was kicked into operation, in part, in October 1988, and in

other parts of the province in January 1989. There is a backlog. There

is inevitably going to be a backlog when you bring a program into place

which is going to have to try to accommodate people who have not had a

vehicle through which they can seek enforcement assistance for all

those many years.

When

you refer to the number 14,000, 1

don't want to be argumentative with you, but the 14,000 number refers

to the number of calls to the program. Some of those will reflect

repeat calls and so on. The backlog number is very high, but it is

5,500; it's not 14, 000. There are services that are there being used

try and deal with that backlog, by way of the contract, but I don't

think there will be a need for additional funds — and there isn't a

commitment to that — to the contractor. We are working with the

contractor, and the contractor understands that the backlog will have

to be dealt with under the terms of the contract, and to the services

and the changes that they can make in this new program to deal with the

backlog. We're confident that that will be done during the course of

the summer.

MS. SMALLWOOD : Whether the member likes

it or not, the history that I refer to is the history of your

government, and the reality of this side taking over government for two

years does not excuse 30 years of neglect. The reality, again, and the

history that you are adding to this neglect, sir, by not providing the

funds necessary to clear that backlog will just add to that neglect.

And no matter how much PR you are prepared to pump at it, it will not

deal with the needs of these families.

Let me go on. I have

another situation where a mother has come to ask for some support from

my constituency office. This mother is a single parent; she's on

welfare. Her name is Wendy Ackerman. Wendy has a son who is 17 years

old. He is about 6 foot 4 inches, so this is a big boy. Her son is

currently in the House of Concord, serving time for charges of nuisance

sexual abuse, and is borderline mentally impaired. He functions at a

grade 5 level. While the House of Concord has been very supportive,

both of himself and of his family, in three weeks he will be leaving

the House of Concord and returning home. His mother has for some time

tried to work with the

[ Page 6545 ]

system

to get this young man some assistance, not only in counselling but

hopefully, as she puts it, in some kind of home that can provide him

with the kind of supervision, the kind of custody service that is

necessary for his transition back into the community.

[3:30]

We talked earlier about sexual abuse and the need for your ministry

to support the programs in this province to meet the need of victims.

Here we have a situation where we have need for support to deal with

the abusers themselves. This young man in three weeks will be coming

back to his mother's home in Surrey. There is nowhere else for him to

go. There are no PLEA homes, no special foster homes, no programs that

are prepared to receive this child, either for the fact that he has a

history of nuisance sexual assault or because the programs that are in

place are full and have a waiting-list.

As I talked to

the professionals in juvenile services and probations and also Social

Services, I find out that there are some models in the province that

are doing some very good work. One of the models that was referred to

me was the Spectrum Learning Centre in Langley, which has a model

program for young offenders. At present it can only deal with four kids.

They have three beds for kids and one transition bed for children that

are beginning to move back into the community.

Wendy's son

is currently receiving counselling and is on medication. In three weeks

he will be returning back to the community, to a home that cannot

support him. When Wendy's son went into the centre, Wendy was forced to

move from her home because her welfare was reduced. She is now living

in a one bedroom apartment, and if her son comes back to her she will

have to move again. Wendy is not equipped to support her son, and is,

quite frankly, frightened of having the responsibility of this

17-year-old once again. She has gone to Social Services and asked them

to take over the custody of her son. She is prepared to make her son a

ward of the state. Social Services, because of the age of the boy, say

they don't have anywhere for him.

Again, I put this case to

the minister. Will he support the crying need for additional

accommodations for these children? I point out to the minister that

while Wendy Ackerman's situation is the case that I bring to his

attention, the House of Concord alone knows of ten other children in

the same situation. Wendy's son will soon be on the street, and I'd like

the minister to tell me what I'm going to tell Wendy. I'd like the

minister to make a commitment to explain whether or not there's

additional money for these young offenders.

HON. S.D. SMITH :

The funding issues that the member raised are clearly the

responsibility of, on the one hand, the Solicitor-General for the

lockup facility; on the other hand, the question afterwards is for the

Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon Mr. Richmond). To answer

your question first of all as to what you tell Wendy Ackerman, I hope

that's what you would tell her. But so that it doesn't.... I guess what

I'm telling you is that I can't make a commitment to funding that I

simply don't have authority over. What I will do, if you come to see

me, is work with you to speak to the minister responsible for the

Solicitor-General's services, as well as to the Minister of Social

Services and Housing, to be certain it doesn't fall between the stools.

MR. PERRY :

I want to be very brief and ask three rather rapid questions. I

apologize if some of this has been covered before when I wasn't able to

be here. I've tried to read through the debates, and I'll try not to be

redundant.

On the abortion question, I'd like some

reassurances from the Attorney-General. During the Health estimates I

asked the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck), in my role as the health

critic, to assure the province that women throughout the province would

have equal access to the medical service of therapeutic abortion, which

is legal, and which is regarded by the public as a medical service like

other medical services. On April 24 the minister told me, at page 6309

of Hansard : "That's an issue that should be referred to the

Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General, because I don't make laws,

nor do I enforce them. The law, whether it was obeyed or not obeyed, is

a different issue than what I'm faced with in my ministry."

want to remark on what I think is an apparent contradiction between the

minister's stated concern over the Americanization of Canada, or the

Americanization of Canadian law, and his apparent stand on the

reinstitution of abortion into the Criminal Code. Yesterday during my

absence in Vancouver I understand that he said — or that he implied —

that he thinks abortion should be reinstated in the Criminal Code of

Canada. A very interesting

article in the Vancouver Sun last Monday

night pointed out that American law — in fact, the law in most of the

world — only began to deal with abortion in the late nineteenth or early

twentieth century, and that abortion was not previously dealt with in

the civil or the criminal law.

My position, and certainly

that of this party and, I think, the majority of Canadians, is that

abortion is a medical matter between a woman and her doctor, that it

does not belong in the Criminal Code, and that the Supreme Court made a

wise decision. I see a contradiction between his concern over

Americanization of law, which I think is the trend to invade private

matters of patient-doctor confidentiality and privilege with legal

rulings — the Attorney-General has said he's disturbed by

Americanization of Canadian culture — and his stand in favour of

restoring abortion to the Criminal Code. I would like him to explain

himself. And can he assure us that he will take the necessary and the

stern actions to ensure that protesters violating the law do not impair

the rights of women to obtain abortions in British Columbia?

HON. S.D. SMITH :

While I very much appreciate hearing the member's view on these issues,

every one of those topics was canvassed at some considerable

[ Page 6546 ]

length

over the last two days. The question relating to civil disobedience

generally was canvassed. The attitude that has been disclosed there,

the position by the government vis--vis those who would break the law

relative to the decision striking down

section 251, juxtaposed with the

responsibility of hospital boards to make decisions about what goes on

In their hospitals, was discussed at some length, as were questions of

government policy relative to communications to Ottawa that recently

have been held. All of those things have been canvassed by me, I think

it's not an overstatement to say, thoroughly and fully. I don't think

there's much I can add to the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey.

MR. PERRY :

What we're debating here, as I understand it, are the estimates,

including the minister's salary. Earlier this year we witnessed a

spectacle where a legal facility, the Everywoman's Health Centre,

licensed and with trained physicians prepared to provide a medical

service, was blockaded by protesters. I don't question the motivations

at all of those protesters. I respect them for having the courage and

guts to do what they did, although I disagree with them. But they did

break the law. They were allowed to do so with impunity for a period of

weeks. The clinic itself was expected to....

HON. MR. RICHMOND : What?

MR. PERRY :

They were allowed to do that with impunity, and women who were seeking

medical services in that clinic were turned away or made to suffer

because of the blockade. The clinic's financial position was impaired

because of the blockade, which clearly — I would speculate — was a

deliberate strategy on the part of the protesters and perhaps of the

government.

The minister did not exercise his

responsibility to protect the law, to observe that the law was not

broken. In fact, I submit that the law came very close to being placed

in jeopardy and a mockery being made of justice. Eventually the

minister did exercise his authority and brought prosecution.

don't want to suggest that the protesters should be punished more

vigorously than they were; I think the opinion of the public was that

the justice who dealt with them did so in an eminently fair and

sensible way. But what we saw was that the prosecution had to be begun

by the victims — namely the clinic — and the government stood by and

watched.

I would like, before I vote on these estimates, to

see a very clear reassurance by the Attorney-General that he will

enforce the law of British Columbia, that he will ensure that that

clinic and any others like it are not blockaded by demonstrators with

impunity, and that they will receive justice, just like everyone else

does in the province. I would like also to have a clear answer, if we

could — before I vote on his salary — on whether he feels that abortion

should be reinstituted in the Criminal Code of Canada or not.

HON. S.D. SMITH :

There are a number of things that come to mind with the discussions

we've had over the last number of days. We discussed yesterday,

considerably, the issue of which side of the law is the appropriate

response. In fact, I don't think it was the member for Esquimalt-Port

Renfrew (Mr. Sihota); I think it was the member for Burnaby North (Mr.

Jones) who talked about it comparatively with Strathcona Park. Again,

we went through at considerable length those issues and the kinds of

things that ought to be taken Into consideration.

We talked

as well of the timeliness of the response; how much more quickly the

law was applied in Vancouver than in the case in Strathcona, for

instance, for an action in both instances that relates to a failure to

obey a court order. So I would recommend to the member to look at the

discourse on that, because that has been canvassed pretty thoroughly,

to say the least.

You referred to prosecutions. I would

just tell you that there haven't been prosecutions in Vancouver. That

discretion has not been exercised either publicly or privately, so I

don't know quite how to respond to your question. I think perhaps the

best way would be — if you are interested, and I'm sure you are — to

refer to the lengthy discussion we had about the civil versus the

criminal process in that regard.

[3:45]

MR. SIHOTA :

I just want to provide the minister with a quote. The quote is:

"...legal opinions should be sought regarding breaches of the Financial

Administration Act and possibly the Criminal Code." The quote comes

from page A45 of the inquiry into the Coquihalla. Could the minister

tell me whether or not the ministry has investigated this issue?

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA : If it will help, for clarity, that is one of the recommendations of the commission of inquiry.

HON. S.D. SMITH :

I'll have to get the report and take a look at which recommendations

have been followed up on. The report was rendered, as you know, Mr.

Member, well before my time in this portfolio. So I will have to take a

look.

MR. SIHOTA : The reason why I raise it today,

quite frankly, is that I thought it would only be fair, when it came

down in December 1987, to give the previous Attorney-General about six

months to deal with it. I intended to raise it in June, but the changes

that occurred in the portfolio made it difficult to raise. The

estimates happen to be the earliest opportunity one can raise it.

The

recommendation is in relation to the Great Bear snow shed; namely,

contract B-2882. During the course of evidence there were a whole

series of allegations with respect to falsification of invoices and a

whole series of allegations and concerns by the commissioner of inquiry

in relation to contracts being

[ Page 6547 ]

paid

for work that had not been done, hence being contrary to the provisions

of the Financial Administration Act, which of course require payment

once work is done. The report, in fairness, said that this was an

arrangement that those who worked there had made with the contractor —

namely, Kerkhoff — albeit there were some extenuating circumstances

around why it was done.

The recommendation was that opinion

be sought as to whether or not breaches of the Financial Administration

Act and the Criminal Code had occurred. That, needless to say, would go

to the Attorney-General ministry, and the ministry would of course have

to investigate. My first question is: did your ministry react and investigate in keeping with that recommendation?

HON. S.D. SMITH :

I will check it out and get a more specific response for you, but I am

advised that with respect to that recommendation as it applies to the

Great Bear tunnel, the answer is yes. I will check it out even more

thoroughly for you.

MR. SIHOTA : Of course, that

raises other questions with respect to the conclusions of that

investigation. If the minister is waiting for information, I will go on

to another topic and await that information.

HON., MR. VEITCH : It's in the mail.

MR. SIHOTA : I will ignore that comment.

see Mr. Hughes is gone, so I will just shift, for the time being, to

another matter. As the minister is aware, there have been a number of

concerns with respect to logging activity in the Tofino area,

particularly at Sulphur Passage. For some time now I have received

correspondence from the people who were involved. There was a highly

publicized incident with respect to a number of people chopping down

trees across which a hammock was strung by one of the protesters. On

August 3, 1988, a group of men representing Millstream Timber

threatened an individual and threatened to chop down the trees that

were holding up his hammock. That was recorded on videotape and

presented to the RCMP. I am just wondering again, with respect to that

incident, whether or not the Crown acted upon the recommendation of the

RCMP with respect to laying charges against Mr. Kemp and others.

HON. S.D. SMITH :

Again, I will have to get the report. The Crown, I can simply say

generally, obviously receives the recommendations of the investigating

agency and then makes a decision as to whether to proceed. I will

simply have to follow up the Kemp matter for you and try to get an

answer.

MR. SIHOTA : By the way, I am still waiting for the answer from yesterday on the matter of re-laying charges at Millstream Creek.

Let

me ask another question while we await that information; I don't expect

a lengthy answer from the minister. The "Access to Justice" report made

some recommendations with respect to contingency fee agreements and

legislation of the same. Is it the minister's plan to deal with that

issue or to leave it?

HON. S.D. SMITH : Is it my

intention to deal with it? The answer is yes. As you may be aware,

there is extensive discussion — not to overstate it — with the benchers

about that matter. You will get the answer to that question when we

introduce the reform material package, hopefully in the next couple of

weeks. I am not trying to be cutesy and not answer you, but we are

still in discussions with the benchers of the Law Society on that

point. Dependent upon the result of those discussions and their

commitments, we will make a decision.

MR. SIHOTA : I

want to thank the minister for that answer. I want to let the minister

know what my position is: I don't think he should touch it at all. I

think he should leave it as it is. The evidence is that there hasn't

been abuse of those types of arrangements, and I don't think

legislative intervention would be appropriate, let alone intervention

through policy directives.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order,

please. Perhaps the member would remember the rules of the House and

canvass questions directed at the minister rather than other opinions,

which you've just gone through.

MR. SIHOTA : I thought he would welcome my opinion. Knowing where I stand, he should know where he should stand.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Knowing where you stand is irrelevant in this debate though. That's the difficulty.

MR. SIHOTA :

With respect to court filing fees, there are a number of issues. The

first is, of course, whether or not those fees should be rolled back. I

take it from the revenue projections that that is not possible or is

not going to happen. I disagree with that. I think the Law Society has

made an appropriate recommendation to the minister there, and it should

be acted upon.

The "Access to Justice" report makes a

recommendation with respect to a procedure for indigent individuals,

and I understand, as best as I can ascertain, that the matter has

hardly been acted upon. I am just wondering what the ministry's

intentions are with respect to allowing those people with little or no

financial resources to have access to a straightforward procedure for

waiving those fees.

HON. S.D. SMITH : I appreciate

the member's views on contingency fees. I must tell him that they

reflect very well the views I have heard from many people who, like

him, have a personal injury practice.

I must tell you —

I'll 'fess up — I was never in court when I practised. I was a

solicitor throughout that time. Therefore a lot of this has been a

wonderful learning curve for me, I must confess.

[ Page 6548 ]

will address the Issue. I have said this to the Law Society on a number

of occasions from day one, after I took over this portfolio. I had to

deal with a number of issues, one of them being interjurisdictional law

firms. I don't like to see the Legislature in the business of governing

self-governing organizations. As I put it to them, if we're a

self-governing organization, then we ought to govern ourselves.

However, there is the business of the public interest. Sometimes when

the public interest isn't served by the self-governing organization,

thankfully the Legislature has power to stand in their place. So I have

asked the Law Society to deal with that issue. I have asked them as

well to deal with the whole question of the growing number of

paraprofessionals providing legal services.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Interjection.

HON. S.D. SMITH :

The second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) says it's good

competition, and probably it is. But there is also the protection of

the public interest. While I know it is sometimes good clean fun to

titillate the sensitivity of lawyers in these matters, there is an

important and a real issue there. So I have asked them to do that. I

have asked them to come forward with rules, which you will see

reflected in legislation, for the governing of interjurisdictional law

firms. Likewise, if they can deal with the issue of contingency fees

and fees generally, then we won't have to.

To get to the

question you asked me about the indigent applications dealt with in the

JRC, and more specifically will there be a rollback in fees: the answer

is no, there won't be. Since August '88 there have been 21 indigence

applications served. Four of those were represented by lawyers and six

by the Legal Services Society; the remainder came forward themselves.

the matter of Mr. Kemp.... I am hoping that I have got the right one.

The Crown made a decision that it was a matter that would be

appropriate for diversion. That is what has followed.

With

regard to the Millstream Creek issue you raised yesterday, the

conservation people have now completed their investigation, and the

senior Crown counsel will be meeting next week with those investigators

to make a decision about how or how not to proceed as a result of the

information they got.

MR. SIHOTA : Along with Mr.

Kemp it was suggested that others ought to have charges laid against

them. I understand Mr. Kemp was diverted. My question pertained both to

him and to the others. If you get that information, fine; if you can

deal with me later, that's fine as well.

Between the

Ministry of Environment and the Attorney-General it has taken a

tremendous amount of time to deal with the Millstream situation. There

is significant public interest in the issue. I guess another week won't

hurt, but this seems to be the message we are getting from people over

and over again.

I read the decision of the court on

interprovincial law firms. I do have a lot of concerns with respect to

the introduction of interprovincial firms. Maybe I am a bit behind the

times in not liking what's happening. I say that knowing that I will

send a copy of this to some of my best friends at what used to be Shrum

Liddle, and they can read it for themselves. I have expressed my

concerns about that to them. If there are going to be some rules coming

forward, or legislation, I'll look at that with great interest.

[4:00]

I think the ministry could have handled that case differently. I can

understand who the judge was in that case as well, and I guess the

world is full of irony. I think it was Thomas Berger, if I'm not

mistaken, on the McCarthy case. I could be wrong, but somewhere along

the line, I picked that up. If I'm wrong, that's fine.

thought that could have been handled a bit differently, but that's

probably an issue that concerns no one other than yourself or myself in

this chamber right now.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA : Only me. Does it even concern the minister?

While

we await that information on the Coquihalla, I just have a couple of

other questions from the "Access to Justice" report. There are two

recommendations that have a financial impact that caught my eye. One of

those implications was on an issue that we have already discussed —

which is recommendation 147: "Disadvantaged groups in society should

have access to funding which will allow them to define and enforce

their rights under the Charter...." We did discuss this, but I don't

think I ever did ask the minister — for the record — whether or not

this year's budget envisions funding In keeping with that

recommendation.

Secondly, does this year's budget envision

funding in relation to recommendation 34: "Government funding...be

made available for the appointment of ad hoc family advocates where a

judge decides it's appropriate"? I know there's more money for one of

the other ones that caught my eye, which is Crown counsel. Are

provisions made in this year's budget for those two recommendations? If

so, how much?

HON. S.D. SMITH : There is provision in

the budget for ad hoc family counselling. The matter of the funding of

Charter cases — indeed, for that matter, all other issues relating to

the JRC — there is no funding in the budget. In relation to that and

other JRC matters.... You know, with the Zuber report, it's two years

before they get to the stage of introducing it, and now they introduce

it and say they're going to take two more years to render a decision.

We've had the report since the end of November, and hopefully we'll

introduce legislation by the middle of May.

As you might

expect, we weren't able to

chapter by verse put down line by line the

items. What we've got is a contingency arrangement with the Ministry

[ Page 6549 ]

Finance inasmuch as some of those recommendations when they go forward

will allow us to put the business case forward and the funding will be

there available for us — sufficient, we think, to cover the

recommendations that we accept as we accept them.

MR. SIHOTA :

That's interesting. Actually, you raised two other issues. One is in

response to that question specifically. Maybe I'll deal with that

first. Effectively, you've got a line of credit — if I can put it that

way — with Treasury Board. How big is that line? How much money are we

talking about that's been actually reserved? I know there's some

$600,000 or $500,000 for legal aid in terms of promises that have been

made, which I take it are coming from there. How big is that line of

credit? How much money have you asked them to put aside, just for my

own interest?

HON. S.D. SMITH : I can't answer that

question, because I'd have to put an individual business case forward

in each instance. What I asked for was $4.5 million. Whether or not

that's what the Ministry of Finance will ultimately agree to will

depend on what goes forward.

It's simply this: we're going

to be able to get support for lots of those recommendations, and you'll

see that reflected in the legislation. There are certain things where

we simply did not have the costing — for instance: technology

improvements, some of the filing considerations and some of the issues

related to the programs which are experimental in nature.

simply were not able to in advance of these estimates — and, indeed,

maybe in advance of putting the enabling legislation in the House —

have a detailed costing, That's what I've done. I can't give you what

is authorized in a contingent way because it will depend on what case

we put forward.

MR. SIHOTA : The other matter which

arose from the response relates to reform from the "Access to Justice"

report. The issue that I raised with the Attorney-General, I believe a

couple of days ago, was my views about family law changes. I hope they

are forthcoming quickly, and I also hope that the rules that come with

them or the rules that will ultimately be drafted will be ones that

will allow far greater flexibility In terms of being able to move these

cases with dispatch, particularly on the custody access and maintenance

side of it.

Is it the government's intention — in this

session, then — to introduce a packet of family law reforms as part of

those reforms that you referred to earlier on in your response?

HON. S.D. SMITH :

Yes. I don't want the member to be disappointed when he sees the

package. I'd be curious to know his own views on the case-management

proposals in there, because there are obviously a number of views on

that.

Part of the family law changes will be introduced by way of legislation, and

part will be tabled by way of a Green Paper. The components to be done by Green

Paper are there because the implementation group that we have — comprised of

a number of members of the judiciary — has identified a major

section 96 problem

with respect to jurisdiction of the courts. We have not been able to draft around

that

section 96 problem to the satisfaction of everyone involved in the system,

so we're going to continue to do that over the summer, working with the

judiciary, members of the practising bar and others. The components that have

the imprimatur of a

section 96 problem will be done by way of a Green Paper.

As you know, there are some sections in there as well that deal with disclosure

from corporations, and the implementation folks have raised a couple of issues

on that, which have to be dealt with before we can bring some specific things

through.

Obviously

there is a real problem in the extent to which independent agencies,

such as corporations, ought to have to disclose their financial data in

relation to a single matrimonial dispute. The other thing is an Income

Tax Act problem for the corporation, where there might be a problem in

the confidentiality if we impose the disclosure as recommended.

Generally the thrust of what we're doing is reflective of the

recommendations, but it's a matter of trying to find a way to do it

that will stand the test of the inevitable challenges.

MR. SIHOTA :

I agree with you, and I think you're going to have some difficulty

getting around that

section 96 problem. In some ways my attitude is:

"To hell with it. Let's do it and see if someone wants to challenge

it." But I appreciate that you can't just go in with a shotgun on that

basis.

You asked me about the case management. I said

earlier, and I'll repeat it, that I

part company with the brief from

the Law Society with respect to its views. I understand that they're

saying that this a matter between a lawyer and his or her client. I

don't agree. I think that greater power ought to be given to the courts

to push lawyers along in dealing with these things.

The

recommendations suggested with respect to

summary trial, the

discoveries, the certificates of readiness, the flag rule, the

case-management concept — all those things where the Law Society says

no.... I say I think they're wrong. I think that what Mr. Hughes has

come up with in his "Access to justice" report is something I applaud.

I think we should be pushing this stuff and be a bit more aggressive on

counsel. I understand exactly where the concern about that comes, but

it's a political and administrative decision that has to be made, and

in that instance, I think Mr. Hughes came down on the correct side of

it. For what it's worth — and I'm sure it's worth a lot — there's my

opinion.

However, because we're waiting for the Coquihalla

material, and if this is agreeable to the minister — I'll just canvass

it with the House Leader — it might be appropriate just to stand this

down and deal with legislation. I can say fairly confidently that it

should be the last matter I want to deal with. I'm quite happy to stand

this down.

[ Page 6550 ]

MR. ROSE :

There was an informal target date of 4 o'clock, and it has now come and

gone. We're waiting for papers, and I suppose we'll also be waiting for

the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck), who sponsors the first of the

bills. If there's no bombshell encased in the response by your deputy

minister, then the proposal would be to leave this for this item, go on

with the legislation and come back for his report to canvass for one

item. It doesn't really matter to us. We're trying to achieve what we

thought was an agreement. If Mr. Hughes is back here, then this is

unnecessary.

HON. S.D. SMITH : I can advise the House

that the matter raised was in fact reviewed. There was a decision that

there was not a sufficient amount of material to warrant pursuing it

further. There will be someone coming with the actual words, and I'll

read them.

MR. SIHOTA : I guess my concern is with

respect to the breaches of the Financial Administration Act I'm working

from memory, but I think certain sections — maybe 66 and 67; 1 could

pull the

Section in a minute — which forbid the payment in advance of

work being done.... The evidence during the Coquihalla inquiry was to

that effect. The Attorney-General may have come to the conclusion that

there may well have been breaches, but that they were not worth

pursuing. If that's the report, I guess I'll wait to see what comes out.

While

you're waiting for that file to show up, I can deal with another set of

matters that flow from the "Access to Justice" report. One I had

flagged dealt with changes to the tariff In terms of costs both in

family matters and generally — eliminating the maximum, on one hand,

and on the other hand dealing with making the scale of costs in family

matters as close as possible to one's actual costs. I don't know the

Attorney-General's view on that. I suspect it's part of the reforms

you're coming out with, but I'd be interested to know your views on it.

HON. S.D. SMITH :

The goal is to move towards the recommendation. That's the thrust of

what we're doing. I suppose you could take Yule in Saskatoon and divide

it by two to get 50 percent, but that, it was thought, would work some

hardship. So the implementation group, whom I will introduce to the

members, hopefully, next week, has recommended — and we have followed

that recommendation — that we put someone in place to actually redo the

tariffs, so we can get ourselves up in a scaled way to that position

fairly quickly; Also, the certainty of the issue....

For

the member's edification, so he doesn't wait unnecessarily, with

respect to the recommendations he was asking about before, we looked at

the criminal side. In terms of the breach of the Financial

Administration Act, I think you might more appropriately address that

to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier). But I'll leave it for

you to decide.

MR. SIHOTA : I'd like to know what

sections of the Code you looked at. Sure, I understand that the

Minister of Finance has jurisdiction over the Financial Administration

Act. But if there are violations of that act, it would seem to me that

the opinion of the Attorney-General ministry is required. I'd like to

know what you looked at on the criminal side and whether or not you

were asked by the Ministry of Finance to look at the Financial

Administration Act. Or was it just agreed that the Ministry of Finance

would deal with it?

[4:15]

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA : Page A45. It's under

schedule B10 — the paragraph immediately before subparagraph (d).

HON. S.D. SMITH :

As I say, Mr. Chairman, I can respond definitively with respect to the

Criminal Code, and I would ask the member to direct the question with

respect to the Financial Administration Act to the minister responsible

for the act, the Minister of Finance.

For the member's

information, in the matter relative to the Criminal Code, the advice

was rendered to the Deputy Attorney-General, as to the conclusion that

had been drawn from the review, on January 18, 1988.

MR. SIHOTA :

The Financial Administration Act says, in

section 66: "The

Attorney-General may sue for and recover in Her Majesty's name a

penalty, or enforce a forfeiture imposed by any law relating to public

money, In any court." That's why I thought that when it dealt with both

penalties and forfeitures, it would fall under your jurisdiction as

opposed to that of the Minister of Finance. Fine, if the Minister of

Finance is the one who you think is responsible, we can take it up with

him.

On the matter of the Criminal Code, while I am glad to

know it was dealt with, I wasn't too sure if there was a basis for

Criminal Code violations. Given the evidence which came out during the

inquiry, and given what he says earlier in his report, it just seems

peculiar that there had been no action with respect to violations of

the Financial Administration Act.

MR. CLARK : We will

take it up with the Minister of Finance, but I am curious now. You did

conduct a review with respect to criminal violations; is that what

you're saying?

The minister is nodding his head. So there

was a review, and the conclusion was that there were violations of the

Financial Administration Act, but that they were not criminal.

HON. S.D. SMITH :

The question, I think, was in two parts: first, whether there had been

a review with respect to breaches of the Criminal Code, which is in

that report. The answer to that is yes, there was a review. And no,

there wasn't, in the opinion of

[ Page 6551 ]

those

who did the review, anything to warrant pursuing that under the

criminal law. That letter was directed to the Deputy Attorney-General a

year and a half or more before I assumed this portfolio, on January 18,

With respect to what investigations took place with

regard to the Financial Administration Act, I would ask you to direct

that to the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for that act.

You're quite right: if there was some identified breach, I'm certain it

would then be turned over to the Attorney-General's ministry to pursue

it. I can't answer to you whether there was or wasn't an investigation.

I just think you should direct it to the Minister of Finance, that's

all.

MR. CLARK : Just so we have the process down,

you are suggesting that the review of any breach of the Financial

Administration Act would be done by the Ministry of Finance and then

the results of that review would be turned over to the

Attorney-General's department for a review of their findings to see

whether there was a breach of the Criminal Code. It's on that basis that

there wasn't a breach? Well, perhaps the minister could clarify it for

me then.

HON. S.D. SMITH : Let's put it to you this

way Any investigation is undertaken by the investigative agency

contemplated by the act. The minister responsible for the act is

responsible, in a legislative sense, for that process. Once that

process is completed — wherever it comes from, whether it's the

Environment ministry or the liquor branch, or wherever it is — if they

feel some further process is warranted, some prosecution or something,

then it is for the Ministry of Attorney-General, the Crown counsel's

office, to make a decision whether to go ahead on that.

You'll

recall that at that time the Attorney-General's ministry had both

police — which normally would investigate criminal matters — as well as

the prosecution arm; then both of those matters would have been done by

the Attorney-General's ministry But in police matters today, they're

done by whatever the police agency is. They make a decision and then

the Crown makes the decision after that whether to follow their

recommendation to prosecute or not.

MR. CLARK : Then

is it fair to say, given that you reviewed it, that the Ministry of

Finance, which investigated, must have come to the conclusion that it

warranted a review by the Attorney-General's department?

HON. S.D. SMITH :

No, it isn't. What I am referring to here — it's in the report of the

commissioner; it was two-part — should be reviewed as to any breaches

of the Criminal Code. That has been done by the Attorney-General's

ministry solely. Secondly, there should be a review to see if there had

been a breach of the Financial Administration Act, and that review you

ought to direct to the Minister of Finance. If the Ministry of Finance —

and I am making an assumption here, which I probably ought not to do

-reviewed it, presumably, and found something that they wanted to be

dealt with by way of a prosecution, they would so advise the

Attorney-General's ministry.

MR. CLARK : Just

following up so we are clear, you are saying that they did not so

advise the Attorney-General as you have just suggested. You're saying

that the appropriate course of action would be for the ministry to

review it, and if they found something, to then refer it to the

Attorney-General. Are you saying, then, that the ministry did not refer

anything to the Attorney-General for review?

HON. S.D. SMITH :

I haven't a record of anything of that sort, but I think if you want to

pursue the business of the investigation pursuant to the Financial

Administration Act, which I think is what you really are interested in,

I would urge you to take it up with the Minister of Finance, whose

estimates may be up this year.

MR. CLARK : You are

saying that you did not review anything that came from the Ministry of

Finance with respect to that second element, which is any violation of

the Financial Administration Act. You did review with respect to an

investigation solely by the Attorney-General — they were your words —

with respect to the Criminal Code. What did you review then? You

reviewed only that which arose out of the MacKay commission inquiry. Is

that correct?

HON. S.D. SMITH : Yes. The MacKay

inquiry asked to see if there had been any breaches of the Financial

Administration Act and possibly the Criminal Code, and I am advised

with regard to the Criminal Code that that, in fact, is what has been

done.

MR. CLARK : Can you advise, then, whether the

investigation was greater than that which took place...? Did you

simply review the findings of the MacKay commission and the evidence

presented at the MacKay commission, or did you undertake any

independent investigation with respect to reviewing financial

transactions at that time which went beyond that which arose out of the

MacKay commission of inquiry?

HON. S.D. SMITH : I

don't want to get into the position of misleading the place. I believe

the answer to that is yes. They looked at the matter thoroughly and

that would presuppose, to me at least, that that would not have

confined any investigation to simply the words that were contained in

that report. But I have some hesitation about saying that, simply

because I am dealing with an issue that is a year and a half before my

time, as it were.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The member for.... The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew.

MR. SIHOTA : You've forgotten?

[ Page 6552 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN : I'd never forget you, hon. member.

MR. SIHOTA :

Neither will I forget you. At our military bases we still look forward

to seeing you, and hopefully we will see you at the sunset ceremony

this weekend if you can make it — the Battle of the Atlantic ceremony.

Just

on the matter of the criminal end of it, am I correct in assuming that,

really, the essence of the conclusion at the end of the day was that

there was no criminal intent, in keeping with what the commissioner had

said earlier on?

HON. S.D. SMITH : Well, I can only

tell you that the conclusion was that there was no basis for charges.

Whether that was a question of means or something else, I just don't

know.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The second member for Okanagan South would like to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. CHALMERS :

I am not sure if he is in the galleries yet, but I had a gentleman

visiting in my office a few minutes ago, a friend of mine for a number

of years, a business partner in the late sixties and early seventies.

He is presently the chairman of the Real Estate Council of B.C. His

name is Ed Collinson, and I would ask that you make him welcome, please.

[4:30]

MR. SIHOTA : I was going to say that I didn't know a solicitor could say "means." I am impressed.

Probably

the final question on this Coquihalla matter is this: I take it the

investigation dealt with the contractors, employees and government

officials?

HON. S.D. SMITH : I will have to say that

the answer to that would be that the review would look at whoever would

probably be implicated for a breach of the Criminal Code. I don't know.

I couldn't give you name by name who was done. If I appear hesitant to

give an absolutely definitive answer, it's simply because I don't have

the benefit of the interplay at that time as to discussions of what was

going on in the ministry. I just don't have it, because I wasn't there.

MR. SIHOTA :

Those conclude my questions with respect to these estimates. I again

want to thank the minister for his responses, and I want to

particularly thank the minister's staff for being in attendance

throughout the last seven days of discussion.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA :

Nineteen hours, the House Leader tells me, which I'm sure, if you go

back in time, is a little more than we normally spend on these

estimates. Again I want to specifically thank Mr. Hughes and wish him

well in the implementation of his report. I think it is a splendid job.

It is really something we should be moving In on. I look forward to the

judicial reform package that will be coming down in the House. I am

sure it will include the matter of merger and no changes on contingency

fees.

Vote 13 approved on division.

Vote 14: ministry operations, $198,902,128 — approved.

Vote 15: judiciary, $20,926,891 — approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I move the committee rise, report remarkable progress — and resolutions — and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 15.

CONTINUING CARE ACT

HON. MR. DUECK :

Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 15, intituled Continuing Care Act, be

read a second time. This bill will provide a framework by which the

government can regulate certain non-profit societies and corporations

which provide continuing care to British Columbians. The Continuing

Care Act will cover such services as: residential facilities; adult day

care; homemaker services; group homes for the handicapped; and family

care homes that currently fall within the mandate of the continuing

care division of the Ministry of Health.

The principal

concern is the health and safety of the ministry's many continuing care

clients. In addition to addressing these concerns, the act will help

protect the province's equity in various continuing care facilities.

The long-term-care program was commenced with an order-in-council in

1978 that contemplated the eventual passage of

an act for continued

operation of the program.

With the introduction of this

bill, we have addressed the specific concerns identified by the

auditor-general about the lack of adequate statutory authority for the

program. The continuing care division of the Ministry of Health has a

current annual expenditure of more than $430 million. Until now the

province has had very limited flexibility with which to address

problems which arise periodically in the area of continuing care.

Provisions

in the new legislation provide the province with the powers to enter

into contract with service providers; to establish levels of quality of

care and other aspects of service delivery through standards,

guidelines and directives; to determine eligibility and residency

requirements; to inspect operations and records of service providers;

and finally

[ Page 6553 ]

this

new legislation will provide the province with the power to appoint a

temporary public administrator where the minister determines that it is

necessary to protect the health or safety of clients in the facility.

There

was consultation with representative associations in the industry: the

B.C. Long Term Care Association, B.C. Pricare, the B.C. Health

Association and the Home Support Association of B.C. All have expressed

support for the purpose of the proposed legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to further discussion and debate on this bill.

MS. A. HAGEN :

First, I want to say on behalf of this side of the House that we very

much welcome this piece of legislation coming before us in this

session. As I think the minister will agree, it has been a long time

coming. I know he is very pleased that it is before us. Certainly there

is a need. As the minister himself has noted, that need was very

specifically referred to by the auditor-general, who has done an

extensive review, in his value-for-money audit this past year of the

continuing-care program of the ministry.

I think it's

worthwhile to quote into the record a few of the statements of the

auditor-general that I believe have helped to stimulate action in

producing the legislation and provided us with a framework in examining

it as it comes before us. The auditor-general said: "It is desirable

for each government program to be supported by

an act which gives the

program a mandate to operate." He noted that the drafting of a new

continuing care act should Include proposed standards for quality of

care as well as enforcement measures. I think the minister has

addressed that in his comments today. He says further: "...set the

program on a more solid foundation." A further quote: "...firm up its

mandate, philosophy, and planning and evaluation processes."

looking at the bill, I think it's good to look at some of that advice,

because some of it has come from an external look at the ministry and

its work in this third largest program of the Ministry of Health. I

would like to comment for a few moments about some of our expectations;

before I do that, I want to note that I've shared some of this

information with the minister by letter. We have had a consultation

with representatives of his ministry. The minister has been advised of

that consultation and has responded to me. I very much appreciate the

interchange and the consultation. It was initiated on behalf of our

caucus to enhance the bill and to facilitate discussion. I think it has

been productive and responsible on both our parts, and something we

might consider doing as we look to the very best legislation that can

come forward with the efforts of members on both sides of the House.

did feel quite strongly that it would be appropriate for a mandate

statement to be included in this bill. I'm advised by the minister and

his officials that such a mandate has no status, if you like; it's

really a statement of intent. The ministry wants to have as much

flexibility as possible in the life of this bill and its usefulness in

many areas where continuing care may be encompassed by this

legislation. I would like to state, however, that I think there is

value in a bill having a mandate statement. I found a very useful one

in some of the material from the Victoria Health Project. I want to

just mention this mandate statement; It's broad and encompassing, very

much a statement of philosophy, and would help to frame the intent and

focus of this bill.

One of the statements in the early

documents about the Victoria Health Project — the ministry's pilot

project — that deals with continuing care, particularly for the

elderly, is: "To strive for independence and self-reliance of the

elderly in a most appropriate setting." I recognize that this limits it

to the elderly, but I think that statement of mandate is good for any

kind of continuing care and I believe might very well underpin the

philosophy that the minister would have as well. It clearly does deal

with autonomy regardless of setting, and I found it a very fine

statement. Although I don't think the minister is going to agree that

there should be a mandate at this time — in his view it may limit the

usefulness of this piece of legislation — I believe very strongly that

there is effectiveness in having it, because it helps to frame the

philosophy of the bill. I commend it to the minister for his interest

in his own legislation.

The second thing we want to deal

with is to whom this particular piece of legislation relates. We have

had some productive discussion around that. I think the minister would

agree that continuing care is in fact more than just health care,

because we are dealing with the whole person. The social, recreational

and environmental aspects of that person's life are very much a part of

what continuing care is. We really do believe that

definitions should

be broad enough to encompass that. The minister has responded to some

of those representations around a definition that is perhaps a little

less vague than the clinical definition that fits into the health end

of things. I think that's going to be a very good move.

I'll

leave it to the minister to introduce his own amendment in that regard.

The discussion around what is involved in continuing care and the

recognition that it encompasses more than a very rigid concept of

health — and indeed must do so in order to be functional — is implicit

in the understanding of this bill and is an important consideration.

are talking about people who are called clients. I never particularly

liked that word, because continuing care involves people's homes —

whether they are independent homes or facilities in which people live.

I recognize that the word "client" is one that we can't get away from.

Because the decisions made by those who assess people in need of

continuing care are so important to their lives and to their continued

independence and self-reliance, I think the rights of clients are

extremely important to address. During committee stage, we will be

raising some questions around the rights of clients in respect to this

service.

[4:45]

It's a growing concept that process and administration must provide that people who have programs

[ Page 6554 ]

available

to them by statute — which are funded by the taxpayers of the province

— have some role in the choices and services available to them. It's a

complex area. The act makes some references to that. We want to ensure

that the rights of people to due process and fairness are enshrined in

the legislation.

As the minister said, this statute is

designed to allow the ministry to deal with health and safety issues by

statute. I certainly couldn't agree with him more that at times the

ministry has not been well facilitated to deal with concerns for the

care of people in continuing care. The parts of the act which deal with

that are really the nuts and bolts of this act and are very fundamental

to It.

There is language in this act that deals not so much

with regulations, but with what are called standards, guidelines and

directives. I applaud the minister for his desire to have flexibility

in dealing with issues. When we discuss this in committee, I want to be

assured that that flexibility is to enhance the program and will not

leave huge holes in it that allow discretion and separate arrangements,

depending on who may be governed by the standards, guidelines and

directives. It's very important that they be clear, and that they have

the force of law. We want to be satisfied that all of these issues are

covered by the clauses of the act.

When we get right down

to it, Mr. Speaker, the fundamental issue is quality of care. We have

talked about that a lot in this House in respect to this ministry and

the continuing care budget that's available. We can have all the

standards, guidelines and directives in the world, but if there are not

sufficient dollars available for those with whom the ministry contracts

to carry out those services, then we're into problems. The balance

between what the ministry intends to do through legislation and what it

enables the agencies to do through funding is a very important part of

the equation that we must look at as we examine this act in detail.

There

is one other matter in the act that concerns me in respect to the

initiatives of the ministry last year to initiate income-tested user

fees for people receiving continuing care. I believe that one clause of

the act leaves that door open for the minister to have the right —

according to my reading of the act, and I quote specifically — "...to

prescribe different rates for different classes of client." That may be

a very straightforward statement that I shouldn't read too much into,

but it may be a statement that I want to read more into. I think the

appropriate time to canvass that issue is in committee.

did discuss the user fee issue and income tested user fees during the

minister's estimates, and the minister assured this House that it was

not his intent at this time to introduce new user fees for homemaker

services or for residents in long-term care facilities. I think the

issue is a very important one which should not be dealt with except

through due discussion of any change in the user fee concept. Since the

particular clause, I believe, gives the minister the mandate to do that

by regulation or by directive, I want to have the opportunity, as will

other members of this side of the House, to examine the intent of the

clause and to ensure that that will not be the

interpretation and the

possible outcome. I believe that any changes in such a major policy

need to come to the House for discussion, because they are changes in

the philosophy of how the program is delivered.

Let me

conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying again that we do welcome the act and

its commitment to giving the ministry the means by statute to better

govern, regulate and administer the very important continuing care

program, with the intent of ensuring quality of care, health and

safety. We look forward to the opportunity to examine specific clauses

in committee stage.

HON. MR. DUECK : Mr. Speaker, I

just want to say that the cooperation between my ministry and the

member for New Westminster has been cordial. We went over the

legislation, and some changes were made. Perhaps some more will be

discussed during the debate.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 15.

Motion approved.

Bill

15, Continuing Care 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. REID : Mr. Speaker, before I

get into the next order of business, I'd like the courtesy of the House

in offering a welcome to a White Rock representative. I'd like the

House to make especially welcome Mary Wade Anderson of the Fraser

Valley Real Estate Board, who is taking

part in the great tourism

opportunities of Victoria.

Having said that, I call second reading of Bill 3.

TRADE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ACT

HON. J. JANSEN : Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be read a second time.

am pleased to speak today to the Trade Development Corporation Act. The

British Columbia Trade Development Corporation, which is being created,

embodies the tradition, the vitality and the position of British

Columbia as a trading province, destined to remain prosperous through

its continuing dynamic interaction with the global marketplace.

MR. WILLIAMS : Who wrote this?

HON. J. JANSEN : I did. I try to keep it simple, Mr. Speaker, for the members opposite.

The

British Columbia Trade Development Corporation will work as a business

arm of the Ministry of International Business and Immigration. The

corporation and the ministry will work together in complementary roles

towards the integration of British Columbia with markets around the

world. While the ministry's mandate is to attract and guide

advantageous foreign investment, to manage our commercial

[ Page 6555 ]

presence

in Ottawa and in foreign markets, and to focus the province's direction

in trade and international economic policy, the primary goal of the

British Columbia Trade Development Corporation is to encourage and

facilitate the export of British Columbia's goods, services and

expertise.

We are witnessing the beginning of a global

transition. Our world is changing to reflect a global village unified

by instantaneous communications and interdependent economies. Although

British Columbia has always been viewed as a pacesetter in trade, the

pressures and difficulties associated with transition threaten to leave

us behind. In the new world of trade, an old adage applies: the only

thing constant is change.

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh!

HON. J. JANSEN : Do you like that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS : More! Bravo!

HON. J. JANSEN :

The growth rate of international trade is accelerating so rapidly that

the change to the completely global and liberalized markets foreseen

for the twenty-first century seems as close at hand as tomorrow. Let me

give you some examples. Well over two-thirds of the world's countries

are already participating in GATT talks; that is something we do here

frequently. Other major non-member countries are applying to become

participants. Industries of both the Soviet Union and the People's

Republic of China are now moving towards becoming export oriented and

internationally competitive, a daunting prospect with staggering

implications for modern commerce.

MR- WILLIAMS : Staggering!

HON. J. JANSEN : Something the member does when he walks.

way of freer trade between Canada and the United States, we have

undertaken the largest trade agreement ever concluded between two

countries, creating a unified market of upwards of 270 million

consumers. Phenomenal change is forecast for the Asia-Pacific nations,

home of 12 of the world's fastest-growing economies. Recent studies

project that by the year 2000 Canada's share of Asia's massive $350

billion import market will exceed $50 billion annually. That is five to

six times what it is today.

During the 1980s, trade

activities undertaken by the federal government have not kept pace with

the need for a dynamic provincial business community Outside central

Canada, export marketing assistance to small- and medium-sized

companies at the grassroots level has not been emphasized. North

American trade figures show that of the 700,000 shipments sent abroad

per month, over one-half are filling orders of $5,000 or less.

Assistance to small- and medium-sized exporters, who are clearly the

foundation of our export success, is well worth our investment. In the

1990s the initiative clearly lies with the provinces, and British

Columbia must take a leadership role.

Sending our products

abroad is more than a business practice reserved for the largest of our

enterprises. We must make it an accessible, familiar practice for all

of our enterprises, large and small. This will strengthen our

orientation towards Asia-Pacific, ensure our access to markets in

Europe long past 1992, bring home the enormous benefits of the free

trade agreement with the United States and open us to the boundless

potential that change in the next decade and century will bring —

change which the members opposite don't relate to.

The

British Columbia Trade Development Corporation will help to address the

needs of British Columbia's exporters, through a strong belief that

with adequate marketing our products can compete with the very best in

the world. No one will dispute that, not even the member for Vancouver

East. We also hold closely to the view that by penetrating global

markets with our product and service exports, we are breaking new

ground for future joint ventures and technology transfer, and

positioning ourselves to capitalize on other valuable opportunities

over the long term.

Right now nearly one-quarter of our

gross provincial product and one in seven jobs in the province are

derived from foreign trade. Every dollar of export revenue generates

three more in the provincial economy. We must continue to diversify our

economy and to develop our ability to export a wider product range. Few

areas of the world will benefit as we will from proximity to suppliers

and customers in all three of the world's major trading areas: North

America, Asia and Europe.

[5:00]

The British Columbia Trade Development Corporation will work with

exporters to identify and aggressively pursue market opportunities, and

it will train new exporters in the basics of trade and in the

political, socio-economic and cultural nuances of the markets they plan

to enter. It will provide market intelligence, market assistance and

counselling service on export regulations and procedures. It will also

assist companies to secure export financing, including loan guarantees.

It will work in cooperation with ministry officials in Ottawa, the

United States and oversea