1985 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

7003 ]

CONTENTS

Tabling Documents –– 7003

Committee of Supply: Office of the Ombudsman estimates. (Hon. Mr. Smith)

On vote 3: office of the ombudsman –– 7003

Mr. Howard

Mr. Williams

Mr. Reynolds

Hon. Mr. Nielsen

Hon. Mr. Gardom

Ms. Brown

Mrs. Dailly

Hon. Mr. Waterland

Ms. Sanford

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations estimates. (Hon.

Mr. Gardom)

On vote 47: minister's office –– 7017

Hon. Mr. Gardom

Mr. Howard

Committee of Supply: Legislation.

On vote 1: legislation –– 7019

Hon. Mr. Curtis

Mr. Howard

Tabling Documents –– 7020

Supply Act (No. 2), 1985 (Bill 53). Hon. Mr. Curtis

Introduction and first reading –– 7021

Second reading –– 7021

Mr. Stupich

Committee stage –– 7021

Third reading

Royal assent to bills –– 7022

FRIDAY, JUNE 28, 1985

The House met at 1:16 p.m.

Hon. Mr. McClelland tabled the annual report for the British

Columbia Development Corporation and the consolidated financial

statements as of March 31, 1985.

Hon. Mr. Smith tabled the annual report of the B.C. Racing

Commission, 1983; annual report of the Legal Services Society, 1983-84;

Ministry of Attorney-General annual report, 1983-84; corrections branch

annual report, 1983-84.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

On vote 3: ombudsman's office, $2,031,156.

MR. HOWARD: Initially, I'd like to say in a broad, general

way that in my view the person who currently holds the office of

ombudsman has all of those qualities which an ombudsman should have.

The primary one is that without fear or favour, or attempts to cow him

on the part of the government, he has proceeded to protect the rights

of the citizens in this province –– I think he has done an admirable

job. He has an obligation, under law, to do that, and he proceeded to

do it.

Thousands of people have been assisted in their relationship with

government. They have had their cases satisfactorily dealt with when

they had complaints against government activity, and they would not

otherwise have been helped had it not been for the office of ombudsman.

I know in my own riding of a particular instance of a small logger

who was refused timber sale — improperly refused — by the minister. He

went to the ombudsman and had the matter satisfactorily resolved.

That's just one of thousands.

Within a matter of a couple of days the office of the ombudsman will

become vacant, and if this House is not meeting — and that looks to be

what the case is going to be — then the government, I submit, has no

other alternative but to appoint the current holder of that office in

an acting capacity. If the government does something different than

that, it will be signaling to the whole of the province that it does

not want to have in place an effective ombudsman; that it wants to have

a joe-boy in place as an ombudsman; that it wants to have somebody as

an ombudsman that will not be fearless and push forward to rectify

abuses by government against the citizens of this land. We fully expect

that the government will follow that thought and will appoint the

current holder of that office in an acting capacity.

I want also to deal with something which has just become public, and which

is basically saying exactly the same thing that we have contended in the Committee

of the Whole for the last couple of days with respect to the Minister of Forests

(Hon. Mr. Waterland), which is that he has not been following the letter of

the law in administering the Forest Act or the Ministry of Forests Act. We have

contended and argued steadily that his sole purpose in being in that office

is to do what industry wants him to do.

We had occasion to have a complaint lodged with the ombudsman a

while ago by the Nishga Tribal Council. That subject matter came to

light first with the disclosure of what I thought would have been a

confidential letter, but apparently the person who disclosed it had no

respect for confidentiality. The subject matter first came to light by

the revelation and the disclosure of a letter from Mr. Sandy, Fulton,

president of Westar, to the ombudsman, in reply to a letter from the

ombudsman making certain inquiries of Westar Timber about its

activities. I don't want to go into the self-serving nature of that

letter from Sandy Fulton, the president of Westar, but the contents of

that letter were the revelation of a member of this House. Now either

the president of Westar sent that letter directly to the member of this

chamber who revealed its contents — and if he did, there's no

indication that a copy of the letter went to the member in question —

or else somebody in the Ministry of Forests presented that letter to

the member of this chamber who revealed its contents, because a copy of

the letter, which is in the report released today, went to the Deputy

Minister of Forests, and somebody in the Ministry of Forests office

thereby had access to that particular letter. It wouldn't surprise me

if it was the minister; but that's for him to declare or not to

declare, as he so desires.

What this report of the ombudsman shows, with respect to the Nishga

Tribal Council and tree-farm licence 1, is that the declarations we

have been making in this House — that the minister does whatever Westar

wants him to do — are proving to be fairly accurate. In the minister's

mind the purpose of administering public law is to administer it as if

it were private law. It is to administer the statutes of this

Legislature as if they were for the sole purpose of assisting a private

corporation. We've been saying that for days.

Let me have a look at some of the internal documentation in the

Ministry of Forests that refers to this particular matter. The director

of timber management of the ministry wrote to the then assistant deputy

minister on May 26, 1983. The director reviewed some recent purchases

by Westar. In 1980 Westar had purchased two other companies in the area

— I recall relating this to the House on an earlier occasion — the

Skeena mill for $15.5 million and the Rim mill for $15.7 million.

Subsequently, Westar sold the Skeena mill for about $2 million. They

took a bath of $13.5 million by that capital acquisition and capital

disposition. That was a loss to Westar. In the process, as I referred

yesterday, when the minister was in Terrace at the announcement by B.C.

Timber — as it was then — with respect to the sale of the Skeena mill

to West Fraser Products, it was Chester Johnson of West Fraser who

declared: "We are not in the business of closing down sawmills. We're

in the business of keeping them operating."

The timber available to that Skeena mill was the same quality after

the sale as it was before. The quality of timber came from different

tree-farm licences, but it was the same; same valley, same type of

timber. The ombudsman's report refers to that as well. What that shows

is that B.C. Timber was totally incompetent in being able to manage its

internal affairs. The minister went along with that. The director went

on to say, and I quote: "It is bordering on the unbelievable that the

company that has put such high value on the timber a mere two or three

years ago now argues that it has negative values and that the

harvesting of it should be subsidized by the taxpayer."

That was the proposal. They bought the mill, the commodity; they

paid $15.5 million for it, and two years later said: "Gee, it's bad

timber." Either they didn't know what

[ Page 7004 ]

they were talking about or they had mismanaged it.

They took a bath of $13.5 million on the transaction, and wanted the

taxpayer to pick up the difference and subsidize the harvesting of it.

That's the approach. We're talking about the Ministry of Forests'

mismanagement of the Forest Act and the Ministry of Forests Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I appreciate what the hon.

member is probably going to reply, but we have discussed the estimates

of the Ministry of Forests at some length, and the member has alluded

to that. We are on a separate vote now, and we are discussing the

actions in the administrative offices of the office of the ombudsman.

I'm sure the member can continue with respect to the reports and the

material available to him but relating it to the administrative offices

of the office of the ombudsman.

MR. HOWARD: Part of the argument I'm making is that the

ombudsman should be continued and should be reappointed in an acting

capacity, and I'm using this latest report as the foundation to

indicate that he acts without fear or favour and protects the citizens

of this province, and that another ombudsman — another person —

selected by order-in-council would not be able to do that, and that the

government must appoint Dr. Friedmann, who currently holds the office,

in an acting capacity until the committee can get around to doing

whatever it wants to do. So I need to refer to these matters that I'm

sure anybody else — I shouldn't put it that way — that somebody else in

the office of the ombudsman might not have pursued so diligently when

talking about the Crown.

It points out that the province has, for a hundred years, sold

timber harvesting rights. "Let us not change from that very basic

premise to subsidize timber harvest, for we would need a bottomless pit

of money for such undertaking." That's what Westar wants.

I want to run quickly to the recommendations in that report, but

before I do, there is a very intriguing letter from the Deputy Minister

of Forests to the ombudsman dated June 20, 1985 — just a few days ago.

It's in response to a letter from the ombudsman. After the

preliminaries of references to letters, dates and the subject matter,

he says: "Given the economic and social choices that were available to

this ministry, we do not feel that it would have been reasonable,

albeit it would have been more lawful...." Well, things are not more

lawful or less lawful; things are lawful or they're not lawful; they

are legal or they are illegal. The act is followed or it's not

followed; it's adhered to or it's violated. And when the deputy

minister writes and says, "It would have been more lawful," he's

euphemistically saying that what they were doing was not lawful; it was

illegal. That's what the deputy minister was saying. What a

condemnation to make of his own minister!

[1:30]

What are the conclusions? This is a

summary of them, seven in

number. One of them says that the Ministry of Forests acted improperly

in doing a certain thing — I don't want to refer to what it was at the

moment. The second one was that the Ministry of Forests acted contrary

to law — broke the law. "The ministry has neither encouraged the

maximum productivity of the forest resource nor managed or conserved

the forest resources having regard to the immediate and long-term

economic and social benefits which they may confer upon the province."

That's directly from the Ministry of Forests Act, which places a legal

obligation upon the minister to do those things. What this is saying is

that the Minister of Forests acted contrary to law.

Then there are a couple of references to how the ministry will be

acting contrary to law if it does certain things. Another one: "The

Ministry of Forests acted contrary to the law in its approval of

paragraph 4.05 of instrument 90.... Another one: "The Ministry of

Forests acted contrary to law in fettering the chief forester's

statutory authority to establish the annual allowable cut for a licence

area." All in all, Mr. Chairman, it's a severe condemnation of the

practices of the Ministry of Forests by the ombudsman, Dr. Friedmann.

It relates to a particular area of the province, and to a particular

tree-farm licence, and to the administration of activities under that

tree-farm licence, and to a particular company. I submit to you that if

this situation exists with one tree-farm licence, in how many other

situations does it exist and has it existed? How many other times has

the Minister of Forests broken the law? How many other times has the

Minister of Forests acted contrary to the law? How many other times has

the Minister of Forests violated the law, violated his oath of office?

How many times?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The reference to another hon. member....

MR. HOWARD: Silent Tom won't answer that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The references to another hon.

member's behaviour or honour are most unparliamentary. I'm sure the

member can present opinion and argument without being unparliamentary

to another hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: Indeed I can. What's asked for, with respect to

TFL 1, and the activity of the ministry with respect to it, along with

a number of questions that need to be asked that weren't asked.... We

need probably to look at what was billed, and how

section 88 operated

up there. It poses a question about how much stumpage, after set-off

for

section 88 credits, Westar has actually paid to Crown for the

timber harvested from TFL 1, since the management and working plan No.

6 came into effect in 1979. He lists years, here, about stumpage billed

and money paid: stumpage billed, $4 million; money paid, $117,000; and

accounts receivable, as of May 1985, $25,000. A whole range of

activities of that nature.

The finale of the report — and I don't want to extend it

unnecessarily — is that there are one or two recommendations. I think

the second one is a very sensible and reasonable one. I think also,

though, that there is another obligation devolving upon the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) and that is, with his responsibility

as the chief law enforcement officer of the province, dealing with a

fellow minister's administration of his ministry under statutes of this

Legislature, that when accusations are made that the Ministry of

Forests acted contrary to law in three separate instances, there is an

obligation on the part of the Attorney-General, regardless of what else

is going on, to investigate those from a law enforcement point of view.

If there are found to be grounds to lay charges, then charges should be

laid. If the Minister of Forests has in fact acted contrary to the law

and it's found there's a case for that, then the Minister of Forests

should be hauled up in court and so charged.

[ Page

7005 ]

Law in this land is not to be pushed to one side to suit the convenience of

Westar or anybody else. The fundamental aspect of law is that it is universally

applicable; it should be universally applied, and without fear or favour. The

full force of it should come down upon those who violate the law. That's

a determination for courts to make, and the initial determination is for the

Attorney-General to inquire into that. If he finds, as a result of the inquiry,

that there is no other way we can approach it, then lay the charges.

Apart from all that, there is the question of administration, and

the possibilities that may arise out of the relationship between the

Minister of Forests and Westar and treefarm licence No. 1, because it

isn't completed. It isn't just the simple question of an accusation of

breaking the law on three occasions or in three instances. There are

potentials. If the Ministry of Forests proceeds to do a certain thing,

he will be acting contrary to the law. There are two or three

references to that — he will be acting contrary to the law if certain

things are done.

The recommendation that I would urge the government to follow, because there

are certain economic factors that we have to pay due respect to, is that the

Ministry of Forests — and if the Ministry of Forests doesn't do it, I suggest

the Attorney-General has an obligation to do this — seek approval from cabinet

for the establishment of an independent body such as a royal commission of inquiry

or a select committee of the Legislature. I want to digress at this moment and

say that my preference is a royal commission of inquiry, not only because the

inquiry will be dealing with administrative matters and the relationship of

a company to the minister and the ministry, but also because there is a political

content to it that I don't think a legislative committee should become involved

in. If that's the route that the government wants to proceed with, that's

fine with me. I'm just saying that my preference is a royal commission of

inquiry to conduct a comprehensive review of the ministry's management of

tree-farm licence No. 1 and of the proposed changes in management and working

plan No. 7.

I think we should be thankful at this late hour, and at this last

moment before, it appears, we adjourn in this chamber.... I think it's

most appropriate we say a word of thanks to the author of this report

for being forced into a position of having to reveal this side of the

case as well. I am sure it would not have been necessary if the member

of this chamber who revealed the first letter from Sandy Fulton to Dr.

Friedmann had given a little bit more care and attention to his own

responsibilities and not tried to carry out his own personal vendetta

against the person who happens to be ombudsman. We would not have had a

situation such as this arise. But there was an obligation to do that;

and Dr. Friedmann, I think, carried that out correctly and properly in

trying to put this other case to the public.

I submit there's an obligation on the part of the government to

respond to it, first, by appointing a royal commission to inquire into

this. I know from personal knowledge, having watched what has happened

in the Terrace area over the last 25 or 30 years, since various

successor companies to the original company that received that

licence.... I know how they have operated, what they have done, how

they have mismanaged things, how the economy in that area has suffered

as a result of that, and what the condition of the forest land in TFL

No. 1 now is. I've driven through it many times, walked on parts of it

many times, and the case stated by the Nishga Tribal Council in its

report that.... I believe Hammond was the name of the forester who did

the work for them. From my personal knowledge of having been a number

of times in the area that Mr. Hammond examined and looked at, it is

accurate. There has been mismanagement of TFL 1. I'm sure the Minister

of Forests knows that as well. The problem is that he has so far kept

it under cover. The problem is that so far he has not responded to

satisfy the public interest; he has only responded to satisfy Westar or

B.C. Timber's interest.

Why would he want to do that? Two reasons. One is his own

declaration that he thinks the purpose of the ministry would be to

serve the private sector. In his statements to this House he says that

his function and purpose is to develop policies and implement programs

in concert with the private sector. Nothing about the public interest.

The other reason is that Westar, formerly B.C. Timber, was a part of

the assets that were given away by the Premier of this province to

BCRIC, when he sought to and moved to have this Legislature establish a

political corporation called BCRIC. For pieces of worthless paper, he

gave away a net $151 million worth of assets to BCRIC, one of which was

B.C. Timber. So there was a parental obligation on the part of the

Premier and the Minister of Forests to look after that ill-begotten,

bastard child that they created, in the hopes for political purposes

that somehow or another, with the friendliness of the Minister of

Forests towards B.C. Timber, it would dig itself out of the hole, show

a profit and BCRIC would be able to be waved around as having been a

roaring success. That's another reason why the Minister of Forests has

been so cozy with B.C. Timber and Westar.

It may also be the main reason why the government won't move to

establish a royal commission into the management of TFL 1 and the

relationship of the Ministry of Forests to it. But I submit that

decency, common sense, respect for what the public in this province are

entitled to have, namely fair dealings, namely honest and open dealings

with their resource, which is the timber and other things.... The

demand for equity in relating to the general public — that requirement

to be responsible, to be responsive, to be careful and considerate and

to protect the public interest — demands that we have a royal

commission into this whole thing. I don't think there is any other

choice open to the government. I urge them to accept it.

HON. MR. SMITH: First of all, Mr. Chairman, the report that

the member is referring to is not a report that has been laid before

the body of the Legislature, to my knowledge, and not one that has been

formally presented. I would simply ask the member where he got the

report. It should be tabled. Apparently he and his colleague from

Vancouver East have it, but the Legislature doesn't have it.

[1:45]

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

MR. HOWARD: I acquired it from the president of the press

gallery just an hour ago. A number of honoured women and gentlemen of

the gallery have it. I'd be very happy to table it when we are in the

House; no question about that.

HON. MR. SMITH: I appreciate that.

MR. HOWARD: Where did you get your copy?

[ Page 7006 ]

HON. MR. SMITH: I don't have a copy of it, and I haven't seen

it, so we won't be responding to it. But I know that we have a very

even-handed process in government of dealing with ombudsman's reports.

We receive a lot of them in draft form. We receive a number of queries,

and they are answered and dealt with. The ministries try to deal with

the problems in advance of the report. We've been getting a great

fluffy of reports this past week. The ordinary process has been that

issues that are dealt with in the ombudsman's reports are many of them

dealt with by the time they get to the Legislature.

A good example of that was the Willingdon matter. Most of the issues

there were resolved by the time the matter reached the Legislature.

There may be some matters that we don't agree with the ombudsman on,

but we certainly try to resolve as many as we can. If there are

recommendations in the report which involve breaches of the law, those

are the opinion of the ombudsman; they are not pronouncements of the

court of law. But we certainly look at them seriously and see what

action should be taken.

MR. WILLIAMS: We live in a province that unfortunately

doesn't have a freedom of information statute. I suspect that worse and

more difficult than anywhere in this land is the problem of getting

material that should certainly be the due of all elected members. Files

and access are continually closed to us. It's only through the office

of the ombudsman that that barrier is broken in terms of having access

to what ministries are doing, in order to keep track of whether they

indeed are being lawful and carrying out the mandates required by

statute.

On this occasion the ombudsman has reported that indeed laws have

been broken; indeed senior personnel have been pushed to make decisions

that are improper in terms of carrying out their professional duties.

It is no wonder that in this Ministry of Forests we have had two

resignations by chief foresters in this past, year, both of them

long-respected career civil servants who worked all of their

professional lives in the Ministry of Forests. It's no wonder Bill

Young left this ministry if he was being pushed to carry out the

decisions, as indicated in the ombudsman's report. It is no wonder that

Ralph Robbins, also a career professional forester, a civil servant,

also left long before the normal ending of a career in the public

service at age 65. They could tolerate the pressures on them no more.

These serious career professional forester civil servants could not

tolerate the pressures on them from the minister, or the way he

conducts that ministry.

It is catalogued again in this report that this minister is willing

to see the laws of British Columbia broken. This minister is willing to

push the professionals to do what they know they should not do in terms

of operating this ministry.

Yesterday we raised Mr. Hammond's report in the House, and we had assurances that all of it would be dealt with.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Back to vote 3.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's right. We're dealing with Westar and

tree-farm licence No –– 1. Isn't it interesting that it's tree-farm

licence No. 1 — the first allocated in British Columbia — that he's

dealing with? We have another 50 on the drawing boards in the hands of

this ministry –– 50 more licences of the same character, where the same

kinds of things and problems can evolve; licences in perpetuity....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you're straying from the responsibilities of the ombudsman.

MR. WILLIAMS: We're dealing with the licences that the ombudsman is talking about.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Hon. member, we're dealing with the administrative responsibilities of the office of the ombudsman.

MR. WILLIAMS: Indeed we are. Indeed we are.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

Please proceed. Vote 3.

MR. WILLIAMS: The kind of unctuous stuff we get in this House from members on the other side — endless.

He starts in the report and says: "It appears to me the ministry is

willing to allow poor forest management practices to continue" — so he

does. "The ministry accepts false reports from Westar." Let's reflect

on who Westar is. Westar is a creation of the Premier of British

Columbia, of this government. B.C. Resources Investment Corp. is the

irresponsible corporate body that has created the problems that the

ombudsman is pointing to in this report. How many unctuous speeches do

we get from Bruce Howe, the head of Westar, about competition and

careful corporate concerns? Behind that smiling face of Mr. Howe lies

this kind of material in terms of gross mismanagement of the public

lands of British Columbia, gross mismanagement that hopefully doesn't

occur on the other licences of British Columbia. But there they are;

they're documented in this report. These people at the highest level of

the corporate sector in this province wander around giving fine

after-dinner speeches about competition and the like to their highly

paid guests, when in fact this kind of monstrous abuse is going on

under their tenure.

The ombudsman carries on: "In this case I have concluded that the

Ministry of Forests has failed in its mandate to encourage the maximum

productivity of the forest and range resources in the province, or to

manage and protect those resources." They've gone through the files —

files that are not available to the rest of us — that show the kind of

pressures on these various civil servants. People like Mr. Bullen, who

was one of the first to start the integrated forest management system

involving fish and wildlife and forestry and has an outstanding

career.... Mr. Bullen starts blowing the whistle in terms of what was

going on in the Forests ministry; Mr. Juhasz starts blowing the whistle

on what was going on in the Forests ministry; Mr. Reid starts blowing

the whistle on what was going on in the forest industry. Mr. Reid, who

must be close to 65 now, if I recall, and who understands the statutes

of the province abundantly — his letters are on file in this document,

indicating that the Forest Act of British Columbia will be broken, and

is being broken — a man who has devoted about 35 or 40 years of a

professional career in forestry in British Columbia, is telling the

minister and his senior people that what you're doing and want to do is

breaking the Forest Act and statutes and laws of British Columbia.

That's the evidence that this ombudsman puts before us today. He says

we have a ministry that is encouraging lawbreaking. That's what he's

telling us in his report.

[ Page 7007 ]

He shows how in fact we're in this incredible situation where we get

no revenues from the public forests, and explains to us how and why

that happens. Sixty percent of the logged area, he says, has not been

reforested, in terms of what he looks at –– 60 percent of abuse in

terms of the public lands in the northwest region of British Columbia.

He says: "Instrument 90, which effected the deletion of the northern

portion of the TFL, did not contain any references to Westar's

obligation to fulfil its reforestation responsibilities." Yesterday I

raised the question about those obligations to the minister in this

House. I talked about $67 million worth of obligations in terms of land

rehabilitation and abuse. When, under the regular legal process, the

minister should have been fulfilling his duties, he did not. He did not

require that $60 million-plus obligation to be registered in any way in

terms of the tenure that in fact was there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please, hon. member. The Chair is

allowing a great deal of leeway in this particular situation, but we

are not discussing the administrative responsibilities of the Minister

of Forests. We are on vote 3, the ombudsman.

MR. WILLIAMS: And it's very clear that the man who hides in

the corner simply has left the chamber, in terms of discussion of these

reports. When this House isn't sitting, he's able to pass off his phony

one-liners about all of these problems. We require an educated group to

deal with many of these complex tenure questions and so on. At least

the Legislature allows an opportunity for the discussion of these

complexities, in order to unravel some of the nonsense that surrounds

the minister's comments. The ombudsman is doing that in his report. But

that too can be done in this House at least. As the member for Skeena

(Mr. Howard) says, the director of timber management blows the whistle

on what was happening and says that it's absolute nonsense. "I am

convinced that our province cannot afford to subsidize the forest

industry. I am convinced that it is much easier not to start it than to

limit it, for there are so-called negative-value stands in many parts

of the province" — pretending that there are negative-value stands, the

justification for export of forests, all part of this combined mess

that we face. As the director of timber management says, the province

has for 100 years sold timber-harvesting rights. Let us not change from

that very basic premise to subsidized timber harvest, for we'd need a

bottomless pit of money for such an undertaking. This year that

bottomless pit extends to $100 million — $100 million that we

contribute to the likes of Bruce Howe, in terms of mismanaging the

public lands of British Columbia. That's the circumstance. He says the

proposal that the company wants has conflicts with the Forest Act, and

fetters the chief forester's determination in terms of carrying out his

duties under statute, so that the chief forester, who has legislated

duties under the statute, is hamstrung in terms of the operation of

this minister.

[2:00]

He says further that on December 6, 1984, the tree-farm licence

officer wrote to the director of the timber management branch to advise

that the ministry's legal counsel had telephoned, and that he was

principally concerned over the prospects of basing an annual rent

solely on the sawlog cut in the area, and that

section 90 of the

statute requires that an annual rent be paid on the productive capacity

of the land. Moving into place, then, was a system that would ignore

all the pulpwood in the area and reduce the rental levels to the BCRIC

company, contrary to law — the beginning of a setup in terms of

ignoring the statute, and allowing only rental based on sawlogs, not on

the productive capacity of the land. That's Mr. Howe, the man who wants

to play the clean, competitive game, with Sandy Fulton at his hands in

terms of the Westar Timber operations, pushing the administration and

pushing the minister to break the law — that's what's been going on —

and then having the utter gall, on the part of this corporate boss, to

go to the press and complain about the ombudsman. The gall of it! Civil

servants, professionals for 30 years in the ministry, are saying: "No,

we can't do this; no, we shouldn't do it; no, this is breaking the

law." And when the ombudsman finally finds out about it and starts

unravelling it and gets access to those files of yours, he then begins

to let us know the truth. Where are the complaints? The complaints are

from the lawbreakers, from the corporate sector lawbreakers.

The ombudsman said: "I made the preliminary finding that if the

ministry were to base Westar's 1985 annual rent on the sawlog component

as required by Westar, such an agreement would be contrary to law." And

he has legal counsel of his own. He isn't doing this out of the blue.

He's doing so in consultation with legal experts, longtime public

servants and lawyers in his office. He comes to the conclusions that he

does because on countless occasions they were being pushed to break the

law — in fact, were breaking the law — and the minister was not living

up to his mandate to properly manage the forests of British Columbia

both now and for the future.

He concludes that the timber rights of Westar should be taken away.

Anybody who has reviewed this material would concur. The ombudsman says

there is a

section under the Forest Act that gives you the opportunity

to deal with these problems with this lawbreaking. He says the obvious

way is to take away the tree-farm licence. That certainly makes sense.

His fallback position is: if not that, then have a royal commission to

unravel this mess further.

Those are reasonable proposals that the ombudsman has put forth in

view of the evidence that he provides in his report. It is a

chronicling of lawbreaking. It's a chronicling of abuse of the public

lands. It's a chronicling of the pressures on professional public

servants that should never have those pressures put on them. No wonder

Bill Young resigned. No wonder Ralph Robbins resigned. No wonder there

was trouble establishing a new chief forester in British Columbia to

replace those who were under these pressures.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair recognizes the hon. member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound on vote 3. Before you begin, hon. member, vote 3

is the administrative responsibilities of the ombudsman: salaries and

benefits, operating costs, asset acquisitions, and recoveries, if any.

MR. REYNOLDS: I rise to participate in these estimates. I

hadn't originally planned to, but I was shocked to hear members of the

opposition quoting from a report of the ombudsman's office that has not

been made available to all members of this House. Unfortunately,

because I don't have the report, I have a very hard time debating what

is in that report.

I find it absolutely shocking, and probably a violation of the

privileges of my office as a member of the Legislature, that I do not

have a copy of a report that members of the NDP are quoting from. I

would probably like some guidance later

[ Page 7008 ]

during this day from yourself or from the Speaker

as to whether there is a question of privilege in this area. That the

ombudsman can call a meeting and issue a report outside this

Legislature, when his tradition has been that all his reports were

tabled first to this Legislature and then released to members of the

press, I find rather shocking. I find it rather shocking that members

of the press can come running in here with copies of a report and

interview members of the opposition to ask them questions about

something that all members of this House haven't been informed about.

When it comes to the Westar situation — talking about the ombudsman

— it's interesting that we can have the second member for Vancouver

East (Mr. Williams) getting up and talking about the chronicling of

lawbreaking in a report from the ombudsman when I have been in

correspondence with the Westar people with regard to this report. I

assume it's this report, because I use the word "Westar," and it's the

only investigation I know that the ombudsman has going on with Westar.

I received, as you all know, some letters from Westar around April

3, 1985, from Mr. Fulton, president of Westar: a letter he had

addressed to the ombudsman, and also a copy of a letter he had received

from the ombudsman. In the ombudsman's letter, he says: "During January

1985, I received complaints from the Nakusp employment action

committee" — which, as we all know, is basically Solidarity in disguise

— "that indicated to the ombudsman that he had to do a full

investigation of Westar." Well, he sent a letter to Mr. Fulton, as I

mentioned, and I would like to read from Mr. Fulton's letter to the

ombudsman, because I think it outlines some aspects of the ombudsman

and how he deals with cases which are probably a good example of why I

hope the committee of this House will not renew his contract when it's

completed. This is a letter from Sandy Fulton, president of Westar:

"Dear Mr. Friedmann:

"I am in receipt of your letter of March 28, 1985,

concerning tree-farm licence 23. Before addressing the issues raised in

your letter, I feel it necessary to advise you that I am extremely

disappointed by the manner in which you and your office have handled

this matter. In particular I would like to make the following points.

"You indicate that your preliminary findings and

recommendations are ready to be made and that you are now contacting

Westar Timber because the Ombudsman Act requires you to do so in a case

where a party may adversely be affected by your report. Does this mean

that you would not have otherwise contacted us?

"Your letter details the various parties your

investigator has met with. Do you not feel that it is more than passing

strange that she failed to meet with a representative of Westar Timber

in the course of her research on this matter? After all, Westar Timber

is the holder of TFL 23. Who, in your opinion, would be in a better

position to comment on the current management of the TFL:

self-appointed interest groups or the company charged with managing the

TFL?

"The issues involved with TFL 23 are rather complex

and must be viewed in the context of the history of the West Kootenay

region and the changing environment in the forest products industry of

British Columbia. Your preliminary findings ignore these important

factors. I cannot understand your willingness to advance the cause of

certain complainants who clearly fit in the category of

special-interest groups without also consulting other private interests

obviously involved in this issue. In this case you were clearly used by

these pressure groups and the local media. Coming at a time when we

have entered into discussions with the Ministry of Forests to consider

the management plan for TFL 23 for the next five-year period, your

investigator's very public intrusion was not constructive.

"The persons in a position to make the greatest

contribution to your preliminary findings are Westar Timber's local

management in Castlegar. A single visit with them by your investigator

would significantly alter your preliminary findings as outlined in your

letter. As you can see, I take serious exception to the method by which

you arrived at your preliminary findings. As for the substance of those

findings, they reflect the matters of public debate and discussion

which will no doubt be resolved when Westar Timber and the Forest

Service come to terms on the next management plan for TFL 23.

"As you are probably aware, this document will be made

available for public review and comments. Westar Timber management has

been spending a considerable amount of time during the past several

months explaining our position on TFL 23 and related issues. We have

also been attempting to keep our employees informed of the real issues

concerning the TFL. For your information, I am enclosing a copy of a

background around TFL 23, which I sent to all Westar Timber employees

earlier this year. I believe that this addresses the substance of the

concerns which you raise in your letter.

"In closing, I would like to reiterate that I am

disappointed and disturbed by the manner in which you have handled your

investigation into this matter to date. If you would care to take

another look at the issues related to the TFL 23, I would like to

invite you to meet with my company's local management in Castlegar.

However, I must say that in my view, many unresolved questions remain

about your role. It was my understanding that the ombudsman was the

citizens' defender against bureaucratic abuse. Who then will protect us

from the ombudsman?

Yours sincerely,

S.M. Fulton"

Mr. Chairman, that letter certainly outlines, in a very instructive way, how

a company can be attacked by an ombudsman without being allowed to offer its

point of view. Today we've had an example of the ombudsman abusing his power,

a power that fortunately he will shortly no longer have.

AN HON. MEMBER: Then you're disqualifying yourself from the committee. You know the rules.

MR. REYNOLDS: Certainly. I disqualified myself from the

committee about a year ago, when I took the position that I did about

the ombudsman so that I could speak out honestly from the other point

of view and tell the people of this province that we had a man who was

power-hungry, who was

[ Page

7009 ]

out to destroy business in this province, out to destroy people without allowing them to put their point of view forward.

MR. HOWARD: Don't talk about the Premier that way.

MR. REYNOLDS: The member from Thug down here, who seemed to get a copy of this report....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. REYNOLDS: I withdraw that, Mr. Chairman.

The member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) seemed to get a copy of the

report before this member got one. I find at times — and I've mentioned

this before — that there seem to be leaks from the ombudsman's office

to the opposition. Here today, what better example could we have than

his swan song? He meets with the press and passes them a report that

hasn't been to this chamber yet. Yet it's sitting on the desks of

members of the opposition. Was he concerned that this member might get

a copy because I've been following this case? I see a company that's

trying to do its job get a complaint from the front people for the

Solidarity group in the province, and boy, did he jump to that. He had

to jump quick, I guess I because when the NDP says "jump," he says:

"How high?" He's displayed that today better than ever before.

His arrogance to this House is, I think, unacceptable, and although

it's my feeling that he won't be around much longer, I would hope, Mr.

Chairman, that you could ask the Speaker on my behalf if my privileges

as a member of this House have been violated by that man because he did

not want to give us a copy of a report that was certainly in the media

before this House ever heard of it. In fact, I did go around for the

last half hour to some of our people in the media saying: "Have you got

a copy?" None of them did. I still haven't been able to obtain a copy

to properly debate it during the ombudsman's estimates, and maybe that

is what he wanted. He didn't want us to have a copy of it, because we

might be prepared even better than we are by being able to present

these letters today — even better prepared to properly answer those

questions in this House.

It reminds me, Mr. Chairman, of last year when he was dealing with a

case with the Workers' Compensation Board — a very similar situation,

where he told the chairman of the Worker's Compensation Board: "If you

settle this case my way, I'll make sure they drop their case in the

Supreme Court of British Columbia." Here was a man who thought he was

so important that he was more important than a supreme court judge in

British Columbia. Do it my way, and I'll get that client to drop the

case in the supreme court. The arrogance is unbelievable, but I think

something had to be said here today. As I said, I hadn't planned to

speak, because there really wasn't much sense in it. But when this

issue came up, it meant that I had to get up and say a few words,

because Westar, I think, has been abused by the office of the ombudsman

today.

But more importantly, the members of this Legislature have been

abused by the ombudsman today with this contemptuous act of appearing

at a press conference with the media and issuing a report....

AN HON. MEMBER: With the shareholders.

MR. REYNOLDS: The member says the shareholders. I have no objection

to any reports the ombudsman wants to make to the public of British Columbia.

I have great objections when he does not want to go through the body that he

is by law supposed to report to.

[2:15]

No one person, as that member knows, is above the law. Yet today

we've seen a shining example of a man who I think has had that attitude

for the past number of years, an obvious example of where he has abused

members of this House and abused the privileges of his office. Mr.

Chairman, I hope you will discuss this with the Speaker of the

Legislature, because I think it should be brought to his attention that

there is at least one member here who feels that his privileges have

been abused by the ombudsman today.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Skeena.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I wonder

if you might consider that the member for Skeena has had 30 minutes of

debate on this vote already, and perhaps a few intervening speakers

might be considered by the Chair before he once again goes on for

another 15 minutes, if that is his intent.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If that is the wish of the member for

Skeena.... The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Skeena,

followed by the hon. Minister of Health.

MR. HOWARD: I mean, if you really need to speak, Jim, I'll gladly waive the floor to you.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the office of

the ombudsman and the person who has that position now, since that has

been the matter for discussion since this vote has been before the

House, I am quite distressed to hear from members that a report

apparently has been issued by the ombudsman's office dealing with a

public matter, and that copies are not readily available.

I appreciate the wording of the legislation with respect to the

ombudsman, which says that he shall file an annual report and that he

may file special reports to the Legislative Assembly or release them

publicly in the public interest. Mr. Chairman, I know that when the

legislation was originally drafted those words were provided so the

ombudsman would not be prevented from releasing a report if the House

were not sitting. That's why it was written, so that he also had the

opportunity of releasing a report when the House was not sitting.

That's very reasonable. But I am rather shocked to hear that.... I

hope this report they have been referring to is not a report to the

Legislative Assembly. I hope it is under the other category. Perhaps

the ombudsman's office is unaware that the assembly is sitting,

although there has been a rash of reports over the past week or ten

days. So I presume that they were aware that the House was sitting, at

least until yesterday.

But it is distressing to have a report apparently issued without

referring it to the Legislative Assembly. Mr. Chairman, I hope you take

seriously the question by the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr.

Reynolds) as to whether his privilege has been violated by the action

of the ombudsman's office.

Mr. Chairman, a few other comments, if I may. The member for Skeena was imploring the executive council to

[ Page 7010 ]

give every consideration to the reappointment of Dr. Friedmann as

ombudsman, as is permitted under the Ombudsman Act if so recommended by

the committee of the House. The member for Skeena was recommending that

the executive council consider Dr. Friedmann as the interim ombudsman

until such time as the committee makes a recommendation for a permanent

ombudsman. The member for Skeena asked that the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council continue Dr. Friedmann in office as the

interim ombudsman until such time as the committee reports to the House

on a replacement, or on the reappointment of the incumbent. Such is the

authority of the executive council.

The member for Skeena was, I believe, suggesting that no other

person in British Columbia or Canada may have the capacity to be

fearless in the role of ombudsman. Apparently, in the member for

Skeena's mind only Dr. Karl Friedmann has that capacity. That's an

opinion, which is fine, but I would suggest that there probably is a

number of people who have the capacity, the intelligence, the

background, the training and the understanding of our system to perform

most admirably as ombudsman in British Columbia, one of whom could be

Dr. Friedmann. But I would suggest that Dr. Friedmann is not unique to

the point that only he has the qualifications necessary to perform in

that office. That decision, of course, will be made at some time by a

committee of this Legislative Assembly, with its recommendation to the

House on the appointment of an ombudsman.

Speaking of such personalities, I was angered earlier today by

remarks by a member of this House, who was referring to the former

Deputy Minister of Health as a hit man. He was referred to by name:

Peter Bazowski. The member referred to Mr. Bazowski as a hit man. The

member suggested that newspaper reports had suggested that Mr. Bazowski

perhaps may be considered for the position of interim ombudsman. Such

has been the speculation in the press for the past while. The member

referred to Mr. Bazowski as a hit man. We are aware, Mr. Chairman, of

what the expression "hit man" means, but for the member for Skeena and

other members of this assembly, in their wisdom and consideration and

comments with respect to an ombudsman, and for the reference of the

member who offended Mr. Bazowski and his reputation earlier today,

could we, in considering the personality of the person who holds such

an important office as ombudsman, consider for just a moment the

qualifications of some outstanding Canadians who one day could be asked

to perform such a role as ombudsman?

I think we're generally aware of the background of Dr. Karl

Friedmann. Certainly the committee that recommended him as ombudsman

was well aware. But if I may, since we're speaking of personalities and

the role of the ombudsman and the type of person who may qualify, let

me respond to the earlier comment by a member about Mr. Bazowski in his

role as hit man. He was offended by the possibility that Mr. Bazowski

could possibly be considered as an acting ombudsman.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, as members know, Peter Bazowski recently retired as my

Deputy Minister of Health. Mr. Bazowski has served his country for many

years. Upon completion of his education he joined the RCAF in 1942, and

was a wireless air gunner until 1946, serving in Europe, Ceylon and

India. He was released from the RCAF with the rank of flying officer in

1946. He then joined the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, with his basic

training in Regina; then he was in the security service in Ottawa and

Victoria until 1950. In 1950 he returned to university to obtain his

bachelor of commerce degree. While attending university, he was

seconded to the income tax department. In 1954 he was transferred to

Ottawa to work in the estimates and financial branch of the RCMP. He

worked on various administrative procedures and was assigned the

responsibility of reviewing the force's financial management systems,

to make recommendations. He made the recommendations to the

commissioner, and they were accepted.

In 1955 Mr. Bazowski was commissioned to the rank of sub-inspector

and posted to our province to implement a new financial system on a

pilot-project basis. After two years the system was extended to all

provinces and has remained in place to this day. In 1963 Mr. Bazowski

was appointed liaison officer in Washington, D.C., dealing with senior

officials of the U.S. federal law enforcement agencies. In 1967 he was

promoted to the rank of superintendent and appointed officer

commanding, Vancouver subdivision. In 1968 he attended the National

Defence College in Kingston for one year, involving training in

governments of numerous countries. In '69 he was promoted to chief

superintendent and appointed officer in charge, planning branch,

Ottawa. In 1970 he was promoted to assistant commissioner and appointed

director of service in supply, headquarters, Ottawa.

In '72 he was promoted to deputy commissioner in charge of

administration, headquarters, Ottawa. In 1976 he was appointed

commanding officer for the province of British Columbia and was given

specific responsibility for major reorganization of the division, which

was completed. He retired as deputy commissioner in 1978. He was then

appointed by the then Minister of Health as public administrator of the

Vancouver General Hospital. In January 1979 he was appointed Deputy

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and in February 1981 was

appointed Deputy Minister of Health in the government of British

Columbia, until he retired most recently.

Here's further information with respect to who the second member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) refers to as a hit man. During his

service, Mr. Bazowski was the recipient of: the 1939-45 Star; the Burma

Star; the Canadian Volunteer Service Medal; the War Medal for 1939-45;

the Coronation Medal; the Centennial Medal; RCMP Long Service Medal,

Silver Clasp and Star; Officer Brother, Order of St. John, Priory of

Canada; Queen's Jubilee Medal. I think, Mr. Chairman, when we consider

possible candidates for ombudsman at some point in time, perhaps such a

resume should take the place of a cheap shot of hit man.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to deal with something that the Minister of Health dealt with. I guess I do so in his absence.

First, I'm glad that he finally got it correct that I at no time

advocated that Dr. Friedmann be an interim ombudsman, because I pay

attention to what the law says, and the law says "acting ombudsman." I

just wanted to correct him on that. He's so meticulous about such

matters that he should know that.

Secondly, this House appointed a committee, properly done and

properly authorized to examine the question of ombudsman and who should

fill that post in the coming years. I think it would be unwise for the

government to

[ Page

7011 ]

give.... This is why I advocated that it appoint, as it has the

authority to do once this House is gone and the office becomes vacant,

as it will on July 1.... The government has no other choice, I'd

submit, than to appoint Dr. Friedmann in an acting capacity, because to

do otherwise would be giving a signal to the committee, which is

charged with the responsibility by this House of coming up with a

unanimous decision, that the government wanted a certain person.

If they appoint Dr. Friedmann in a continuing capacity as an acting

ombudsman, it would just be saying: "We will carry on with the same

person, and leave the committee unfettered to be able to make the

choice on the basis of its analysis of various people that it

interviews." That was the reason — not that it's advocating a holding

of brief for Dr. Friedmann in that office or against anybody else in

that office, but I think it would be highly improper for the government

to give that kind of signal to a committee which is set up by this

Legislature to permit that committee freely and openly to come to a

conclusion on the basis of what it feels, without public messages by

government being given to it. I did not want the government to be in a

position, even casually, of usurping the authority of that committee.

[2:30]

Thirdly, I'm sorry the hit-and-run member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound didn't stay in the House long enough to listen to this, but I

cannot be responsible for his laziness. I can't be responsible for his

irresponsibility in not seeking to find information. Nobody in this

chamber can be responsible for the fact that he is not doing his job as

an MLA, as others have done. He claimed, Mr. Chairman, that....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. We're on vote 3, and personal references to another member are not permitted.

MR. HOWARD: The member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound claimed

that a certain decision violated his privileges. I am trying to point

out to you that it is....

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are not debating a question of privilege at

this point, hon. member. We are on vote 3, the administrative functions

of the office of the ombudsman.

MR. HOWARD: The member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound was able

to get away with it. I'm just pointing out that he is a lazy member,

because if he had done what the rest of us did, if he had done what I

did, he would have had a copy of this report in his hands.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Personal references like that are not admissible and are out of order.

MR. HOWARD: When the House adjourned shortly after 1 o'clock,

to reconvene in ten minutes' time, I, along with other members, left

the chamber for that ten-minute period and walked out the back

revolving door here. Members of the press gallery had copies of this

report in their hands, and were looking at it and saying to me: "What

do you think about this?" I said: "About what?" They showed me this. I

identified it, I skimmed through it, and said: "Can I get a copy of it?"

MR. REID: You'd only seen it once before, earlier in the morning.

MR. HOWARD: That's a falsehood. That's an absolute falsehood

what that member said. At no time was I privileged to receive this

document before I got it from the president of the press gallery. The

member for Surrey....

MR. REID: I don't believe you.

MR. HOWARD: I don't give a damn if you believe me or not!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The comment of the member for

Surrey is not in order, and I would ask the member for Surrey to

withdraw that comment.

MR. REID: What comment?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Of disbelief of the other member.

MR. REID: I withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: References like that to other hon. members of this House....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would like

you to bring that member for Surrey to order. He continues to make

innuendoes and statements towards the member who is speaking from our

side.

MR. HOWARD: I just want to say to you, Mr. Chairman, that you

operated upon your own initiative in dealing with that matter. I

wouldn't myself have bothered to get down in the same gutter with the

member for Surrey to talk that way. He can believe me or disbelieve me

as he sees fit. I know what happened. I know that what I'm saying is

true, and it can be verified if people will just bother to take the

trouble to talk to the people I referred to.

In any event, I did go outside, members of the press gallery had it

in their possession, and after they showed it to me and asked me about

it, I asked them if I could have a copy. One of the gentlemen said:

"Yes, here, have my copy. I'll lend it to you." That's how I got it. I

asked for it. I asked to obtain it, and that's how I got it. I also

took the trouble to try to read it in the short period of time between

then and now.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, hon. member, that I must interrupt

you, but the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) should stay in

order. She has an opportunity to participate in debate. If she wishes

to make some comments, she can stand in debate and make those comments.

In the meantime, would the member for Skeena continue.

MR. HOWARD: Anyway, I just wanted to put that on the record

and to say to the absent member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound that if

he considers his privileges as a member to have been violated, then he

knows the course of action to follow, and it isn't to stand up in this

House and whimper

[ Page 7012 ]

about it. It's to do something concrete and constructive about it, which may be beyond his capacity.

The Ombudsman Act, as the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen)

pointed out, gives the ombudsman the opportunity to comment.... Let

me read it. When I heard about this, I looked it up to see just how

this thing was being dealt with or what was happening. Under

section

30(2), the ombudsman, "where he considers it to be in the public

interest

or in the interest of a person or authority, may make a special report

to the Legislative Assembly" — which he has done from time to time —

"or comment publicly respecting a matter relating generally to the

exercise of his duties under this Act or to a particular case

investigated by him." And that's what he did. I don't see how, by any

stretch of the imagination, the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound —

who obviously has some personal grudge against the guy who holds the

office of ombudsman — can come in here and whimper like a little baby

about his privileges being violated, when it was his own laziness that

got him into this position in the first place.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to make one

general observation here. When I was listening to some of the remarks

from the hon. second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams), he kept

referring to the word "unctuous." Unless I'm incorrect on this — and if

I'm incorrect, I'm sure I'll be alerted to that effect by the

honourable opposition, and if not by the opposition, then by our own

side — I seem to recall that it was this administration that created

the offices of both auditor-general and ombudsman. And I also seem to

recall — regretfully — that it was stonewalled and blocked by the

former administration. So when the hon. member for Vancouver East

indicates that we're unctuous insofar as accountability is concerned, I

think the mantle really fits better on his head than over here.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, it's because we recognize and

remember that the hon. minister who just took his seat is indeed the

mother of the ombudsman, and is now about to eat his young.

AN HON. MEMBER: The session's into its dog days now.

MS. BROWN: We're fighting desperately to protect this

minister against himself, Mr. Chairman. That's what we are really

trying to do. There isn't any question that we have an ombudsman in

this province today because of the efforts, the determination and the

commitment of the present Minister of Intergovernmental Relations. He

certainly did an excellent job when he forced the then Social Credit

government — reluctantly or whatever — to accept and to introduce

legislation to put this office into place. The office has lived and

risen beyond our wildest dreams. It has done an excellent job. The

present ombudsman has done an excellent job, certainly in terms of the

definition that we understand the word "ombudsman" to mean. We are

indeed baffled at the attempt by the colleague of the present Minister

of Intergovernmental Relations to destroy this office and to fire the

ombudsman, who has been doing such an excellent job.

In discussing vote 3, the ombudsman's vote, and in view of the fact

that the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds) has just

indicated to the House that the present ombudsman is going to be fired,

that his term is not going to be renewed and that in fact he's not

going to be asked to remain as acting ombudsman until a new ombudsman

is in place, are we going to be permitted to reminisce a little bit

about the six years that we've had this present ombudsman, Dr. Karl

Friedmann, in place? I'm sure you're not going to rule us out of order

if, in reminiscing about Dr. Karl Friedmann, we stray back to 1984, or

maybe even 1983 or earlier, because we are in fact saying goodbye to

Dr. Friedmann, now that the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound has

indicated that a decision has been made not to renew Dr. Friedmann's

contract, not even to ask him to remain as acting ombudsman until the

committee finds a new person to fill the very large shoes which he will

be leaving after today. I gather that his contract ends at midnight

tonight, or something like this.

As the opposition person who is the spokesperson on human services,

on the Ministry of Human Resources and on women's issues, I have a lot

to be grateful to Dr. Friedmann for and a lot to thank him for during

the six years that he has served as the first ombudsman for this

province. A number of decisions brought down by Dr. Friedmann in his

reports have worked to the benefit of the very same people in this

province whom I represent. You may recall that he did a detailed and

careful analysis of the Ministry of Human Resources when that ministry

attempted to get information on five citizens of this province who were

in receipt of income assistance and whose only crime was that they

showed up at a demonstration against the restraint program introduced

by the government, as it would impact on the Ministry of Human

Resources. Dr. Friedmann went to bat for those people. He did an

in-depth review of the behaviour of the ministry in investigating those

people and concluded that the information search which the ministry had

embarked on was unwarranted, reprehensible and improper. Those were his

exact words. He went on to say that that information search should

cease, because the ministry was acting in an oppressive manner; that it

had used arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable procedures against these

five people.

This is a report which I realize was not tabled in the House this

year — it was introduced in 1982 — so I'm not going to belabour it. I

just touch on it very gently as I make my remarks on the coming to an

end of the very excellent term of office and service we have received

from Dr. Friedmann.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

That was not the only time that Dr. Friedmann spoke out on behalf of

people in this province who were forced to survive on income

assistance. A report tabled in the House earlier this year — and this

is in order now — dealt with the Workers' Compensation Board and some

of the really incredible decisions made by them in disallowing benefits

to people who were injured on the job. One of the things that Dr.

Friedmann pointed out in a number of his reports, and certainly in

Special Report No. 12, was that as a direct result of the Workers'

Compensation Board making these arbitrary and unjust decisions to

disallow compensation for these people, many of them ended up on the

welfare rolls. They then became the responsibility of the Ministry of

Human Resources and helped to swell the number of people in receipt of

income assistance.

Not everyone who is in receipt of income assistance is there simply

because they can't find a job. Some of those people are there because

even if there were work, they

[ Page 7013 ]

wouldn't be able to work. It turns out that a number of those people

are there as a direct result of the Workers' Compensation Board

refusing to honour their disability and to pay them the pension which

is rightfully theirs. Dr. Friedmann managed to have at least one of

those decisions reversed. For that, I think, we have to be grateful,

and we have to thank him for his work in that effort. But there were a

number of other instances where he did not succeed, and where the

Workers' Compensation Board insisted on its decision not to pay

benefits where benefits should be paid.

[2:45]

There is also a classic case of the Workers' Compensation Board

paying inadequate benefit to a young woman with two children whose

estranged husband was killed on the job. I think that that case is

worthy of our attention, because what the Workers' Compensation Board

said to that young mother and her two children was that they were not

entitled to the full benefits that would accrue to a widow and

children, because at the time when the worker was killed they were not

living together; there was a separation. Even though there was talk of

reconciliation and the man himself had taken out an insurance policy —

a very small policy — and named his ex-wife and the children as the

beneficiaries, the Workers' Compensation Board decided that they were

not entitled to full benefits because they were not living together at

the time the death occurred.

Mr. Chairman, the report goes on to show some of the contradictions

inherent in this decision. The ombudsman, Dr. Friedmann, discovered

that if that worker had been injured rather than killed, the family —

that is, the young woman and the two children — would have received

full benefits that would have accrued to them as the dependents of an

injured worker. It says here this is not the real name, because he used

a pseudonym that if Mr. Mr. Worth had been disabled instead of killed,

the legislation under which the board operates would have interceded on

behalf of the wife and children and they would have received full

compensation in accordance with the terms of the maintenance order

being enforced, which would have been their right. It also points out

that if he had been killed in a car accident, the Insurance Corporation

of British Columbia would have considered them fully eligible for death

benefits. However, the board's policy is inconsistent, not just with

itself but with other policies such as ICBC. The chairperson of the

Workers' Compensation Board said that legislative changes would be

necessary, rather than the board changing its decision, in order for

that woman and her two small children to get the full benefits. I just

want to point out, Mr. Chairman, that we're speaking about very small

children.

In fact it took nine years. For nine years this widow, who was

working part-time in a logging camp and being subsidized, I would

imagine, through Human Resources, fought for full compensation from the

Workers' Compensation Board, and was unable to get that. This is one of

the things that Dr. Friedmann perceived to be an injustice, as well as

a contradiction, on the part of the board, and intervened on their

behalf.

I'm really sorry to find out that I only have two minutes left.

There are a number of other areas in which Dr. Friedmann, during his

six years in office, intervened on behalf of income assistance

recipients, intervened on behalf of the disabled and handicapped people

in this province, and certainly intervened on behalf of single parents

in the province and their children. He recognized that when justice

wasn't done, in most instances the people who suffered the most were

the children, because they had no one to speak for them and to fight

for them.

I've been very saddened to hear the member for Howe Sound stand on

the floor of this House and tell us that the government has decided not

to renew Dr. Friedmann's contract. It shows that being good, being

excellent, being competent, being the best that you can be at the job

that you do is not good enough for this government, that this

government does not recognize or reward competence. It does not

recognize or appreciate ability, skill, commitment and dedication; that

in fact it did not really want in the job of ombudsman someone who

really would go to war for the little people of this province be

prepared to take on the bureaucracy on their behalf.

I know that this is a sad day for the Minister of Intergovernmental

Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), almost as sad a day as it is for me. What

he is seeing is a travesty of a policy which he fought for. He's seeing

a department and a program which he negotiated to put into place being

undermined and being destroyed as a direct result of the fact that this

ombudsman, Dr. Karl Friedmann, did his job too well. That's why he's

being punished; he did his job too well.

The real sufferers are going to be the little people, the small

people of this province he fought so hard to represent. He's going to

be replaced by someone who will not speak up for them, who will not be

committed to them and who will not be prepared to take on government

bureaucracy and the government on their behalf, because the government

has made it absolutely clear that they do not want in this job of

ombudsman someone who is going to take the job seriously and really do

an excellent, a credible and a good job for the little people of this

province. It's a very sad day for the little people of this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair recognizes the member for Burnaby

North, but I'll also advise the committee that there is a select

standing committee to appoint the ombudsman, and discussions about

appointments, prospective appointments or applicants would be out of

order during this debate.

MRS. DAILLY: I was hoping the Attorney-General could stay

about two minutes more, because my comments deal with one of the

reports of the ombudsman. I will be rather quick, as you probably have

somewhere to go. I first of all want to just say, instead of going into

a lot of detail again about the ombudsman, that I endorse all the

statements made so eloquently by my colleague for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms.

Brown). I find it a sad day too that I am standing here as a member of

the ombudsman's committee and I find out from one of the bank-benchers

in the House that he's not been reappointed. I'll come back to that

briefly.

As the Attorney-General has been kind enough to stay for a moment, I

just want to point out to him that I think one of the finest reports

done by the ombudsman is the one done on Willingdon. I simply want to

say to the Attorney-General that I hope he and his staff will take

time, as you obviously did before, to listen to some of the comments

the ombudsman has made about the Willingdon school for boys. I

understand that you are to be paid considerable credit for making some

major changes at that school which the ombudsman had pointed out.

However, I want to say to you that there is still much to be

[ Page 7014 ]

done there, and I particularly would ask the Attorney-General to

give attention to the ombudsman's report on Willingdon where he

particularly asks for ongoing external evaluation. There has been a

suggestion by the commissioner that it may not be needed anymore, and I

certainly hope the Attorney-General would not accede to that. I hope

that he will ensure that ongoing external evaluation takes place.

As one reads that report, one cannot help but feel pretty upset

about the state of affairs — I can't put the blame on the government

for this — where young people end up in an institution and have to be

treated in a manner that I don't think is ever going to do too much in

the area of creating citizens who will gain something from their

internment. I wish that we could eliminate that institution, as the New

Democratic Party did when they were in government.

I simply want to say to the minister: please read the report with

care, and I do hope particularly you will keep up external

examinations. That is the main point I wanted to make.

HON. MR. SMITH: I appreciate the member's comments on that

report, Mr. Chairman. We tried to address a number of the problems at

Willingdon even before we had preliminary reports from the ombudsman.

One of the changes made in advance of that was to bring in full

education programs for Willingdon, something that had been lacking

hitherto. I think quite an effort was made by the staff in Willingdon,

and that is conceded in the ombudsman's report. But all the

recommendations there are ones that I personally reviewed, just as I

personally reviewed what was going on there before the ombudsman came

in, and reviewed his preliminary reports.

MRS. DAILLY: We're very concerned that there is slippage

occurring at Willingdon, and that's why keeping up the external

examination and evaluation is tremendously important. I am hoping that

in our next session, when we deal with the Attorney-General's

estimates, we can have a much more detailed discussion on the whole

area of Willingdon, because I certainly intend to make some visits to

it again. I hope we can deal with it positively for the benefit of

those young people, many of whom are leading tragic lives.

A brief comment on the ombudsman. I realize the Chairman says that

we're not to get into the area of the jurisdiction of the committee. I

simply want to say, however, that the ombudsman was severely criticized

here for not showing respect for due process in the issuing of his

report today. I must say, although it may not excuse a person for not

paying attention to due process, the ombudsman must indeed be

frustrated when he had to take this step. When it comes to due process,

that the whole matter of the handling of the committee to select the

ombudsman — I'm not getting into what it's doing — has been a bit of a

mockery when we, as members of this committee, sit here today and find

out from someone who does not even sit on the committee that the

ombudsman is not being reappointed.

I regret that, because I think it is an important committee. I am a

member of it. I want to play a positive role on it. But I don't want to

feel that my role on that committee is meaningless. I would certainly

hope that the government would ensure this kind of thing doesn't happen

again. I feel it has been very discourteous to the ombudsman to have

treated him in this cavalier manner. I feel, Mr. Chairman, that the

kind of debate we are having here today about the ombudsman should have

taken place a number of times through a special committee set up by the

Legislature so that the ombudsman could have had an opportunity to meet

directly with the MLAs on both sides of the House to really explain why

he is doing what he is doing and explain his process and the reasons

for it.

[3:00]

But he was never given his day in court. The ombudsman asked for it

repeatedly. I regret that the House Leader, who I know had a very

special interest in this, was not able to influence the government to

carry through and have those regular meetings of a committee with the

ombudsman. If those had taken place, I really think we would have not

have reached this situation today where one of the finest ombudsmen in

Canada is now going to find that he is not going to be reappointed. I

think much could have been done there.

All right, Mr. Chairman, I'll leave that. I simply want to sit down

on this vote by saying along with my colleague the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds that we in the opposition indeed find it a sad day when

a man who did so much for so many people in British Columbia in his

role as ombudsman has been found by this government to be too good to

stay on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Once again I will advise the committee that any

discussion with respect to appointment of any person to the office of

the ombudsman is clearly out of order, since there is a select standing

committee appointed to discuss that. If it was stated previously, those

previous statements would also have been out of order.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, I just rise to correct a

statement made by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, who said to this

House that I had informed the House that the ombudsman wouldn't be

reappointed. That is not what I said in this House, Mr. Chairman. I

said that I would wish that the ombudsman would not be reappointed, but

as the member knows, the chairman, who is the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks), is calling meetings. It's being

represented by all members of this House, and the ombudsman will be

chosen by that method. I said that I would hope that he would not be

reappointed, not that the government.... I don't make that

decision; the committee does. I wanted to correct that on the record so

that they couldn't misuse the statements outside this House that were

made by those members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Again, that comment is not within the confines

of the debate before us. There is a select standing committee to

discuss the appointment.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, the record will show when the Blues

are out that that member did say that the ombudsman's contract was not

going to be renewed, and when it was pointed out to him that he was

making the announcement that the ombudsman was fired, then he changed

and said that that was his hope. But unless the Blues are tampered with

— and I know they never are — the Blues will show that he did in fact

announce to the House that the ombudsman's contract was not going to be

renewed. So the question I'm putting to the House Leader, or whichever

minister is responsible for this vote, is: "When was the ombudsman

informed that his contract was not going to be renewed?"

[ Page 7015 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: To respond to the question....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has problems with this if we are

discussing any appointment to that office. That is to be discussed by

another committee.

MS. BROWN: No, I'm not discussing an appointment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate that. The minister may wish to answer.

HON. MR. GARDOM: In answer to the hon. member, he's not under

contract; he's under statutory appointment. If you read the statute

you'll see the terms of his appointment and the tenure of his time in

office.

MS. BROWN: Has any contact been made with the ombudsman to inform him that he is not going to be reappointed for another six years?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Not that I'm personally aware of.

MS. BROWN: Has any contact, Mr. Chairman, been made to the

ombudsman at all by either that minister or any other member of the

government prior to today when his contract runs out, to....

MR. PARKS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I have a great

deal of difficulty, as the chairman of a special committee that has

been struck by this Legislature, to deal with the issue of appointing

an ombudsman.... It seems to me that once the committee reports to the

House, any question this member might have would be in order.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The member for Nelson-Creston (Mr.

Nicolson) and the Minister of International Trade and Investment (Hon.

Mr. Phillips) will come to order.

Your point of order, please.

MR. PARKS: I don't believe that that issue should be brought

back to the House other than through the special committee struck by

this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That was pointed out to the committee, but it

appeared that we were talking about the incumbent and the statute

dealing with the office of the ombudsman, which would be in order.

But again I'll caution the committee that any discussion of the

appointment of any applicant or proposed applicant would be out of

order. That is the business of another committee.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, through you to the member who is so

concerned about the committee which he is chairing, we are discussing

vote 3. Vote 3 is the present ombudsman, whose term of office runs out

today, June 28. All I'm trying to find out from the government is

whether anyone over there — either the chairperson of the committee,

the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, or anyone else — has had

the courtesy to contact the incumbent ombudsman, the one whose vote we

are discussing at this time, to say: "Thank you, but your services will

not be needed after midnight on June 28." That's all I'm trying to find

out. Has there been basic common courtesy?

Here's a man who has worked for the government for six years, and

this is the very last day that he's on the job, and I'm just wondering.

This has nothing to do with parliamentary procedure or anything, just

basic old-fashioned courtesy. I'm wondering whether anyone has taken

the time to pick up the phone or to write a letter, now that the six

years are up, and say: "Thanks and goodbye," or "No thanks and

goodbye," or whatever. Or is it that the six years are over, midnight

will come and go and that will be the end of it? No contact whatsoever

either from the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, the

chairperson of the committee, the Premier of the province or anyone

else over there. Has there been any kind of contact with him? That's

all I'm trying to find out from the Minister of Intergovernmental

Relations, and maybe he'll go back to his seat and respond to my

question.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I informed the hon. member that no one has communicated with the ombudsman, as far as I know.

MS. BROWN: I just want to say that that is absolutely

unacceptable behaviour on the part of.... You don't treat a dog

that way. I don't care whether you're satisfied about how somebody

works for you or how somebody doesn't work for you, the quality of work

you do; at the end of the time, you at least say goodbye. Here we have

someone who has worked for this province for six years, and the

government has not even picked up the phone to say "So long, Karl."

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We didn't hire him; the Legislature hired him. Can't you get that through your thick skull?

MS. BROWN: Why don't you get it through your thick skull that you are ill-mannered?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MS. BROWN: Basic courtesy, that's all it calls for. Here we have....

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Take your seat, please.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: First of all, I'm going to ask the Minister of

International Trade and Investment to withdraw that most

unparliamentary remark made to another hon. member. Will the minister

so withdraw.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm not aware of what

I said. If I in any way offended the House or the member I would

certainly be most gracious in my withdrawal, because I want to assure

you that there was never, ever any intention on my part, by any stretch

of the imagination, to offend the House or the member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Now I'll ask the member for Burnaby-Edmonds to offer the same courtesy to the

[ Page 7016 ]

House, because there appeared to be a reciprocal response to the minister. Please apologize.

MS. BROWN: Yes, sure. I would like to apologize to the House for anything that I might have said which offended them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.

MS. BROWN: I think, Mr. Chairman, that after the ombudsman's

serving the province for six years, the very least that could have been

done would have been a phone call saying: "Your six years are up. So

long." Don't even say thanks or no thanks; just say so long. Here we

have someone who has worked for the province for six years and until

midnight tonight will not know whether his contract is going to be

renewed or not because no member, the minister responsible for him, no

other member of the government....

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: Make a motion that the Speaker send him our regards.

MS. BROWN: If I move a motion, are you willing to accept it?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Sure.

MS. BROWN: Okay, I want to move a motion. Can I move a motion?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It depends on what the motion is.

MS. BROWN: I can't move a motion. See, there you are, Mr.

Chairman: the member for Surrey is always giving bad advice. I can't

move a motion.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Which member?

MS. BROWN: The male member. The male member for Surrey, Mr.

Chairman, is advising that I can move a motion that this House thank

the ombudsman for his six years of service and say so long. But then

I'm told by the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) that I can't move

a motion. So I don't know who to believe.

I just want to say that I find it absolutely incomprehensible that

after six years of service to this province the government has not had

the common courtesy to at least pick up the telephone and notify Dr.

Karl Friedmann that as of midnight tonight his services will no longer

be needed. That's all that I want to say.

AN HON. MEMBER: You can do it.

MS. BROWN: I can't do that. I'm not the government.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I take it that the Minister of

Forests has made no comment whatsoever in this chamber regarding this

report under this debate.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I just advise the chamber that at exactly 14:56, which is about 16 minutes ago, I received the report. I really

haven't had a chance to study it.

MR. WILLIAMS: The report was available. The initial material

from the ombudsman in terms of his conclusion was available. His deputy

had the material. The evidence was in. The evidence that the ombudsman

brought forth was there, that there has been law-breaking in this

ministry, law-breaking under that minister and impossible pressures put

under professional staff in terms of that ministry. He says today that

he still hasn't read the report. He doesn't have a comment.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you read it?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, I have.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the ombudsman has made a

number of allegations in a number of reports. Statements and

allegations by the ombudsman do not necessarily mean that they are

correct statements.

MR. WILLIAMS: No explanations from this ministry. We have not

had the kind of volatile material regarding the Ministry of Forests

since the days of Gordon Gibson Sr. We have not had this kind of

evidence since the days of Gordon Gibson Sr. when he spoke in this

House. That's the reality. That's what the ombudsman has said to us

today. It's what he has said to us before. This minister has no

comment. The material is there. Chief foresters have left. The best of

the profession have left because of the pressures under this ministry

in terms of doing the opposite of what the Forest Act requires them to

do.

Still this little man has no comments.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: The silence speaks for itself.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The member will take his place.

(Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will now ask the second member for Vancouver

East to withdraw the personal reference made to the Minister of

Forests. Will the member so withdraw and continue with vote 3.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. WILLIAMS: What personal reference?

MR. CHAIRMAN: There was a personal reference that offended the Chair.

MR. WILLIAMS: I am not aware of any.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, will you please withdraw? The Chair was offended by a personal reference.

[ Page 7017 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: You mean calling him the little man?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the member please withdraw?

MR. WILLIAMS: If that is offensive, I will withdraw. His

actions are offensive, Mr. Chairman — his lack of action, his pressure

on the ministry staff, the loss of the best people and the

mismanagement of the public lands. That's what is offensive. It's

everything around him that surrounds his office in this ministry that

is offensive to thinking people in this province.

[3:15]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, if the member wishes to

learn why Ralph Robbins and Bill Young, who had at one time in their

careers held the position of chief forester, resigned, I suggest he ask

them rather than try to tell the public why they resigned, in his view.

I think he is doing a disservice to these honourable gentlemen who have

spent many years in the public service.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds

made comments about members of this government thanking the ombudsman.

I'd just like to inform her — so she will sleep better tonight — that

even though I disagree with the ombudsman and hope that he is replaced,

I did write him a letter today thanking him for his six years of

service to my constituents.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a couple of

comments. Firstly, it is my belief that the shabby treatment and the

lack of common decent courtesy that the government has shown towards

the ombudsman is typical of the attitudes that they show to the people

of British Columbia as well.

Mr. Chairman, that ombudsman is well respected by the people of this

province. He certainly is well respected by the MLAs who have had any

work done for them by him. He is well respected to the point where

people are in tears in the ombudsman's office because of the fact that

this government has treated him in such a shabby way. It's a disgrace,

and they should hang their heads in shame.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. My

point of order is that the Legislature, not the government, appointed

the ombudsman. In her usual way, the member opposite is fouling up the

record. The government didn't hire the ombudsman; the ombudsman was

hired by this Legislature.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Comox continues.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: So keep your comments. You're talking against yourself

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, it is pretty clear that the

members of the government have no respect whatsoever for the current

ombudsman. They have displayed the most arrogant attitude that I have

ever seen towards a person who has served this province extremely well.

Mr. Chairman, I don't have any more to say on this issue.

Vote 3 approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS

Vote 47: minister's office, $126,917.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few

remarks, notwithstanding the hour and the day. There are quite a few

things that I would like to discuss: constitutional property rights;

the ownership of B.C. seabeds; constitutional matters that affect our

aboriginal community; the reform of our central institutions and

specifically the Senate of Canada; free trade for our country; a number

of matters that have been on the constitutional tray for quite a while,

the non-aboriginal constitutional items; an observation perhaps for

partial solution, if nothing else, of the very difficult experience

that Manitoba is undergoing concerning the language problem and the

recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada; equalization; methods

and process for appointments to our courts and particularly the Supreme

Court of Canada; Canada's taxation maze; marketing boards; and capital

punishment.

Mr. Chairman, it appears to be the will of the House this afternoon

that I not spend too much time. But I would like to refer, if I may, to

two topics, and first make a general observation. I read this morning,

or perhaps it was yesterday, a very interesting quotation in an

article

by Mr. Ronald Anderson in the Globe and Mail . He was quoting

Mr. Grant Reuber, who is the president and chief operating officer of

the Bank of Montreal. He identified four principal factors that were

likely to determine the success or failure of our country. He said

those are the willingness of Canadians to meet international

competition in every field — we've had a lot of discussion about that

on each side of the House; their willingness to invest in the

development of the talents of their people; their readiness to provide

scope for wide-ranging initiatives and adaptation by individuals and

institutions; and underlying everything else, a reasonable sense of

national unity and consensus enabling the country to focus beyond

internal quarrels about the division of power and income.

By great coincidence, I happened to see in the Daily Telegraph a

quotation attributed to Prime Minister Thatcher in Great Britain when

she was referring to her concern about what she called the belittlers,

the cynics, the denigrators, and she said she felt they are a corrosive

influence on our society. I think the statements of Mrs. Thatcher and

Mr. Reuber indeed bear scrutiny as far as the political process in our

country is concerned today, and to a great extent the way it is indeed

operating in our own province.

This is a small ministry, but I would be remiss if I did not express

my appreciation to all of its members for their effort and their

dedication and industry over the year; to our government secretariat;

also to Mr. Peter Heap, our senior federal-provincial representative;

certainly to Mr. Norman Tarnow for his industry and research

throughout; to Mrs. Heather Sheffield in our Ottawa office; and I know

all members would like to certainly have me recognize and extend my

very best to our most capable and conscientious agent-general in

London, Mr. Alex Hart.

[ Page 7018 ]

In referring to our secretariat, they spend a great deal of time

processing the cabinet documents and acting as secretary to the many

committees of cabinet. I would like to mention Mr. Bert Hick, Mrs.

April Katz, Mr. James Alley and Mrs. Kathy Mayoh, and last but far from

least, deputy minister Mr. Mel Smith, QC, who is certainly no stranger

to this House or to the Canadian constitutional and intergovernmental

role through three administrations, which is much longer than most of

us have been here.

Now very shortly I would just like to make one reference, and that

is to the offshore situation in our province and what we are attempting

exciting interest to all British Columbians and, I think, very

necessary. I'm not going to be too long with this, but I would really

like, if I may, to just define the ballpark.

We really have four areas. We have internal waters, which we call

the inland marine zone, between Vancouver Island and the mainland. The

territorial sea used to be three miles extending from Canada's base

line on the western extremity of the Charlottes and the western

extremity of Vancouver Island. However, by virtue of Canada, way back

in 1970, altering its territorial sea, the distance is now extended

from 3 to 12 miles.

The third point I'd like to mention is the continental shelf. That,

in British Columbia's case — but not the case, say, in Newfoundland —

is almost contiguous to the western extremity of our territorial sea.

In other words, it extends about 12 miles out, give or take, off

Vancouver Island, and certainly off the Charlottes.

Finally, there is the economic zone, which is a relatively new

concept throughout the world, and that extends 200 miles from the

baseline of any country. Within that area the country does not have

ownership per se, but it certainly has the right to explore for and

harvest resources.

We have really had our course charted insofar as developing this

potential by virtue of judicial action. In 1967 there was a decision of

the Supreme Court of Canada, and it held, as you remember, that the

territorial sea, which was then three miles, and the bed of the

continental shelf came under federal authority. However, in order to

better clarify and confirm the British Columbia situation, the seabed

of the internal waters — i.e., landward of the territorial sea — was

designated by British Columbia order-in-council in 1981 as the

provincial inland marine zone. In order to ensure orderly transition,

arrangements were entered into with the various petroleum companies who

had federal exploration permits — that they would be first recognized,

and so forth, in due course. Then a couple of years later, in 1983,

there was a federal-provincial agreement which established a joint

environmental review process to assess the affects of offshore oil and

gas exploration. As you all know, a moratorium currently exists.

Having the seabed of the inland waters provincial territory as

opposed to federal, in essence, parallels the situation in other parts

of Canada. Very few people, regretfully, understand that. The seabed of

Conception Bay belongs to Newfoundland; the bed of the Bay of Fundy

indeed belongs to Nova Scotia; and the bed of the Great Lakes, which is

relatively unknown, right to the Canadian international border and

right to the middle of the Great Lakes, belongs to the province of

Ontario. So Canada's borders, seabed-wise, and Ontario's borders,

seabed-wise, are exactly the same.

We had a great decision, as you all remember, way back in 1984. The

Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the seabed of Georgia strait was

provincial, so there was no longer really a no-man's-land, a federal

land, between mainland B.C. and Vancouver Island. The court concluded

essentially the position that we had always taken: that the seabed of

those internal waters was part of B.C.

If you are speaking to your federal colleagues, or anyone else who

might be interested in this, none of this interferes whatsoever with

the normal division of powers of the British North America Act. The

federal authorities still have their specific powers under the

Constitution Act and the BNA Act, as does the province. Quite frankly,

it's just a red herring to suggest that if there's provincial ownership

this will interfere with the normal division of powers, because it

doesn't. So what we're seeking here is simply an updating of Canadian

constitutional law and an affirmation of the Georgia strait seabed

inland marine concept to our northern waters, plus the extension of

the boundary of the province of B.C. 12 miles westward off Vancouver

Island and off the Queen Charlottes to include the bed of the

territorial sea.

I said a word before about Ontario. Well, as I mentioned, its

borders come right to the Canada-U.S. international water boundary

line. Their boundaries are exactly the same as Canada's. Most

significant is the fact that it owns these resources not out to a

three-mile limit or out to the 12-mile limit but right to the

international boundary. So that's what we're suggesting here.

[3:30]

This has been unchallenged since Confederation, so we have a different standard,

regretfully, across the country. It has meant some dollars to Ontario, because

every penny of royalty revenue has gone to the government of Ontario. I can

give you a couple of figures here: in the last 11 years, licences, leases and

royalties have come to over $21 million. That's all money for Ontario. We

see absolutely no reason why Ontario should be in a different position than

we are, and no reason why Canada should take any different attitude toward the

resources off our coast.

There is abundant precedent in other parts of the world, which is

again largely unknown in these quarters. Australia is one example. They

did it as a result of agreement. The United States is another example,

and they did it as a result of

an act of Congress in 1953, wherein the

coastal states in the United States were granted offshore jurisdiction

to three nautical miles and to nine miles for the states in the Gulf of

Mexico — Texas and Florida. But that again was before the 12-mile

concept.

Mr. Chairman, just a word in closing this issue about a few items of

policy. It's possible today under the Constitution Act and BNA Act for

Canada and the United States to reach agreement one on one, but if they

don't reach agreement, it has to be left up to the courts, either as

the result of actions taken by a province or by the federal government

or by taxpayers. The gentleman who really provided the breakthrough in

Canada was the Rt. Hon. Joe Clark. I think he deserves a terrific

amount of credit for this. His policy was of the genesis that

appreciated that people who lived in the coastal provinces view the

ocean and everything under it as an extension of their livelihood. He

made a very forceful statement when he was Prime Minister, and I'd just

like to read it to you: "We've been long dedicated to the belief that

the provinces should own the mineral resources off their shores and

enjoy legislative jurisdiction over those resources

[ Page 7019 ]

comparable to their jurisdiction over natural resources located on

shore within their boundaries." In short, he said, seabed resources in

the province should be treated no differently than resources on land.

We agree with this wholeheartedly, Mr. Chairman, and we have taken steps, with

our federal colleagues. We attempted to do this with Prime Minister Trudeau's

administration. Some of his ministers were favourably inclined, but as far as

he was concerned it was no way, Jose, and it just didn't move forward an

inch. But at the present time, my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Rogers) and I have been in communication with

the Hon. Clark and the Hon. Pat Carney. We've informed them that we would

like to get on with negotiations as soon as we can. We've requested meetings

and we're looking forward to them. Their responses have been very cordial

and certainly affirmative as far as process is concerned. It's the expectation

and hope of both of us, and indeed for the interests of our province, that this

will be able to get underway as soon as possible.

With those few comments perhaps it would be a little more propitious

if I left the other 17 topics for discussion at a later date, perhaps

in this form or perhaps in another one.

MR. HOWARD: I think it's very appropriate that the Minister

of Intergovernmental Relations chose to relate the most detailed

portion of his remarks to the ocean and the sea. That reflects

precisely where this government is most of the time: completely at sea

with things.

I would like to point out too that I think he missed a very

important aspect of the base line from which is measured seaward the

territorial sea; that is, the portion from the northwestern tip of the

Queen Charlotte Islands, Langara, or North Island, as it's locally

known, across Dixon Entrance to a point of Canadian territory at Cape

Muzon. That has been a question in conflict with the United States for

a long period of time. Their claim is that that is international

waters, and our claim is that it is not but should be contained within

the territorial sea and a straight base line drawn across there

outwards from which we measure the 12 miles. I regret very much that

the minister didn't see fit to refer to that as being probably the most

important aspect of the question of territorial sea in the northern

waters of this province.

We want to form an alliance with the former minister of transport,

the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), who thinks that the

office of Intergovernmental Relations is a sinecure, unnecessary, a

waste of money, and should be abolished. We just think the Ministry of

Intergovernmental Relations is not a ministry; it has as its head a

person who really is looked upon as a senator. It's a sinecure; it's

not really a functional part of government. There are two parts to it.

One is intergovernmental relations, and any time there are any

intergovernmental relations to become involved in it's the Premier's

office that does that, not the minister's office. And if it's just to

be a secretariat to cabinet and handle the various secretarial

structures to cabinet committees, that can ordinarily be done with a

public servant; we don't need a full minister for that. We think this

ministry is a waste of money.

Vote 47 approved.

Vote 48: intergovernmental relations, $2,504,861 — approved.

Vote 2: auditor-general, $3,655,695 — approved.

On vote 1: legislation, $10,458,961.

MR. HOWARD: Before vote 1 passes, there's an item in here of

$59,553 for something called "legislative procedure review." We just

got through with a parliamentary committee spending an extensive amount

of time last year going over the rules, revising them, updating them,

modernizing them, eliminating the jargon, and that sort of thing. We

have a brand new set of this century quality rules. Why do we need to

fork out $60,000 for some legislative procedure review? It has been

reviewed. We came in with a decent set of rules. When it comes to the

procedure, that is what we do and how we function under those rules. We

rely on the distinguished gentlemen at the table to do that. Is this

what this is for? Or is this for something else?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, to the hon. member for Skeena

and to the committee, in the preparation of vote 1, as the member would

appreciate, the process is not quite like the preparation of other

votes, where ministers must make their case with respect to how much is

to be spent and whether it should be spent. Vote 1 is pretty much, I

think, year in and year out and under any number of administrations, as

it is considered to be by the Speaker.

The specific amount to which the member refers $59,553 — is somewhat less

than that which was estimated for 1984-85. Frankly, at the time of the preparation

of these estimates, I had no way of knowing whether there might be further considerable

work to be done by a committee in legislative procedure review. Therefore I

can tell the committee that it is likely that this amount will be underspent.

But I still do not have that guarantee. When we reconvene at some point, there

may be something to be assigned to that review process.

MR. HOWARD: I just wondered if there was any plan with

respect to that. I realize that this comes under Mr. Speaker, and I

realize how improper it is to engage Mr. Speaker in a debate in this

House. I do recall, though, that under vote I in the House of Commons

of Canada, when the Hon. Roland Michener was Mr. Speaker and I was

first elected there, Mr. Speaker Michener did occupy a seat in

Committee of the Whole and answer questions posed to him by members of

the committee as to what the funds were available for.

I would also urge perhaps a different mechanism for dealing with the

legislation item vote, and that is for us to have in this structure

something similar to that which exists in other legislative assemblies

and other parliaments — that is, perhaps a group of commissioners of

internal economy, which comprises members of the assembly and members

of the treasury benches, who work together as a team and as a group in

conjunction with Mr. Speaker to have a sort of composite approach as to

how the expenditure program is to be developed and what is required. It

thereby permits input into that group, which is in another jurisdiction

called the commissioners of internal economy, and permits for input

from members of the House as to the development of this sort of thing.

That process then allows an examination that involves Mr. Speaker but

does not subject Mr. Speaker to what I would consider to be — and I

felt so then — an indignity of that office: being involved on the floor

of the chamber in a

[ Page 7020 ]

debate answering questions, in what sometimes can become a political

arena rather than a simple exploratory one. We could overcome that by

the commissioners of internal economy.

Secondly, there is a legislative....

AN HON. MEMBER: Political arena?

MR. HOWARD: Sometimes. Not now, because the Minister of International Travel has gone from the chamber for the time being.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, I haven't. I'm right here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Reference to another minister when dealing with the Speaker's vote....

MR. HOWARD: I looked in that direction where he sits, and I was hoping.

But sometimes it does. In any event it would obviate that.

Secondly, there is a legislative procedure review act — or some

statute of a title similar to that. It's under that that the office of

Mr. Speaker is established. It's under that that the authority is given

to Mr. Speaker to assign functions and to undertake examinations of

things so that we are all operating on a current basis. One of the

provisions in that statute authorizes Mr. Speaker to engage in an

examination of televising this chamber, and broadcasting, etc. The

parliamentary committee of the last session unanimously recommended

that we proceed to televise the proceedings in this chamber. They

recommended also that the next phase of that be an examination into the

logistics and the costs, and what may be required from an engineering

and a technical point of view actually to put the camera system in

place and how it would function. That was not followed up by a

subsequent motion during this session to reassign the committee to have

that authority, but as I read the Legislative Procedure Review Act, Mr.

Speaker has that authority. Unless I hear a voice to the contrary, I

have to proceed on the basis that there is an authority in that — I

don't want to dig it out — to examine the question of television.

[3:45]

What I'm getting at is that I think we should be televising the proceedings

of this chamber. [Applause.] It took the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations

(Hon. Mr. Gardom) a little while to catch up on that one, because he and I had....

I am very serious. I don't think we should be deterred by the fact

that the government has not seen fit to bring in a motion authorizing

the Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services

to proceed to authorize that other kind of examination. I would hope

that there could be an opportunity under the Legislative Procedure

Review Act. If the person in charge of that act or who has knowledge of

that act would open it up and look at the fine print and implications

of it, there might be an opportunity to proceed with the next phase of

that examination so that we get television into this place, and thus

get this place into the homes of the thousands and thousands of

citizens in this province who would just love to know what's going on

here. They may turn it on once and then decide they want to go to

something else. That's what television is all about: the more channels

there are, the more options available. People may opt for something

else, but they should have the choice. They should have the option of

turning it on in their living rooms, or wherever their television set

might be.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: They can also turn it off.

MR. HOWARD: Maybe. That's an option. But if we don't televise

it out of here, they ain't got the option. We should give them that

choice: to view or not to view. That's a fundamental part of a

democratic system. It was fundamental in the gallery, when the media —

which call themselves by some estate name now, fifth estate or whatever

it is — got into Parliament at Westminster. That was bringing the

people in to see what Parliament was doing. They didn't have television

then, but we've got it now. We've got radio and television, and people

should have the opportunity to see what we're up to. This is not our

Legislature. We're not the owners of this institution; we're just the

tenants. The owners are the people out there who foot the bill — $9

billion worth of bill this year. The least we should be able to afford

in return is the opportunity to see what we do with their money.

Vote 1 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, during proceedings in Committee of

Supply I made reference to a particular report and document, and upon

request offered to table it in the House. I ask leave to table the

document referred to.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Gardom tabled the 1984-85 annual report of the British Columbia Systems Corporation.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move that the reports of resolutions from

the Committee of Supply on the April 9, 23, and 30, May 9, 10, 13, 14,

23 and 30, and June 3, 4, 6, 10, 13, 17, 18, 20, 25, 27 and 28 be now

received, taken as read and agreed to.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move that towards making good the supply

granted to Her Majesty for the public service of the province there be

granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund: first, the sum

of $8,929,000,000 towards defraying the charges and expenses of the

public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31,

1986, the sum to include that authorized to be paid under

section 1 of

Supply Act (No. 1), 1985; and second, the sum of $413,491,000 for

recoverable disbursements required for the purposes referred to in

schedule C of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31,

1986, the sum to include that authorized to be paid under

section 2 of

Supply Act (No. 1), 1985.

Motion approved.

[ Page

7021 ]

SUPPLY ACT (NO. 2), 1985

Hon. Mr. Curtis presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Supply Act (No. 2), 1985.

Bill 53 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be committed for second reading forthwith.

MR. WILLIAMS: On a point of order, the intent of the bill before the House is not clear to me.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. member will bear with us for just one moment, the bill will be circulated to the members in the chamber.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I was going to explain that the

bill will be circulated — as you wish — in just a moment. It is the

supply bill introduced in order to provide supply for the 1985-86

fiscal year, and it will be here in a moment, sir.

MR. SPEAKER: The bill will now be circulated. If members would just keep their places for a moment or two....

Hon. members, the bill, having been circulated, I would call on the Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I have very few remarks. The

supply bill, Bill 53, has been circulated as you observed, sit, and I

moved second reading.

It is introduced in order to provide supply for the 1985-86 fiscal

year. The amount requested is that resolved by vote in Committee of

Supply after consideration of the estimates that were tabled on March

14, 1985. Included in the total amount to be appropriated is $540

million for expenditures associated with the government's economic

renewal program. These expenditures are to be made in order to

facilitate the program as dealt with in previous sittings this session.

Mr. Speaker, in order to maintain uninterrupted delivery of

government programs, may I suggest to the House that it is essential

that this supply be granted expeditiously. I also understand that His

Honour is in the precinct awaiting our deliberations this afternoon.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, as the minister noted, this process

started on March 14, some three and a half months ago. During that time

the opposition has advanced many arguments concerning the ways in which

the government is raising the amount of money that it's raising, and

concerning the proposed expenditures. They are concerns that in many

instances the expenditures were not adequate to meet the needs of the

people of the province. We raised those arguments over and over, both

during the general debate on the budget itself and in the various

estimates that have come before us.

In dealing with the estimates, we have an option of either voting

against them or reducing them. We have no option to move increases in

expenditures. While we could advance the arguments, we could not move

that there be increases in expenditures. It's easier, I suppose, to

argue in favour of increases when one is on the opposition side of

House. But I believe there were some very sound arguments raised with

respect to various ministries. I won't mention them at this time for

fear that I might be out of