1989 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 31, 1989

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

7099 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Sale of Westwood land. Mr. Rose –– 7099

Labour minister's involvement in alleged political interference.

Mr. Sihota –– 7099

Mr. Harcourt

Dumping of dredged material on Westwood Plateau land. Mr. Cashore –– 7100

Labour minister's involvement in alleged political interference.

Mr. Sihota –– 7100

Factory closures in Kootenay and Thompson-Okanagan regions.

Ms. Edwards –– 7101

Labour minister's involvement in alleged political interference.

Mr. Harcourt –– 7101

Tabling Documents –– 7101

Home Mortgage Assistance Program Act (Bill 22). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 7102

Mr. Clark –– 7103

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 7104

International Trusts Act (Bill 18). Committee stage. (Hon. S.D. Smith) ––

Third reading

Supreme Court Act (Bill 23). Second reading

Hon. S.D. Smith –– 7104

Mr. Sihota –– 7105

Hon. S.D. Smith –– 7105

Court Rules Act (Bill 24). Second reading

Hon. S.D. Smith –– 7106

Mr. Sihota –– 7106

Hon. S.D. Smith –– 7107

Small Claims Act (Bill 25). Second reading

Hon. S.D. Smith –– 7107

Mr. Sihota –– 7108

Hon. S.D. Smith –– 7109

Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 12). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 7109

Mr. Clark –– 7109

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 7110

Public Trustee Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 11). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 7110

Mr. Sihota –– 7110

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 7110

Tobacco Tax Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 13). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 7110

Mr. Clark –– 7111

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 7111

justice Reform Statutes Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 26). Second reading

Hon. S.D. Smith –– 7112

Mr. Sihota –– 7113

Hon. S.D. Smith –– 7114

Seminary of Christ the King Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill PR401). Second reading

Mr. Jacobsen –– 7114

Continuing Care Act (Bill 15). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Dueck) ––

Ms. A. Hagen

Third reading

Personal Property Security Act (Bill 28). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 7124

Mr. Clark –– 7125

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 7125

Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1989 (Bill 5). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Couvelier) –– 7125

Mr. Clark

Mr. Miller

Third reading

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. PELTON :

Hon. members, this afternoon I would like to introduce to you John and

Elizabeth Travis. John Travis is a clergyman and was minister to St.

Andrew's United Church in Maple Ridge for some years until recently,

when he retired and moved to Victoria. Would you please welcome John

and Elizabeth to the Legislature.

MR. LOENEN : On

behalf of the Premier and myself, it's always a pleasure to welcome

constituents. Today in the members' gallery we have Sid Treur. Sid

makes a contribution to our community in many ways. Recently he was

appointed to the GVRD transportation study. With him is his wife Jan.

They are accompanied by guests from Brampton, Ontario: John Saly and

his son Anthony Saly. Would the House please welcome them.

MR. RABBITT : Today, on behalf of my colleagues from the Okanagan, namely

the first member (Mr. Serwa) and second member (Mr. Chalmers) for Okanagan South,

I would like to introduce to the House and ask the House to welcome 63 students

from Westbank Elementary. Accompanying them is their vice-principal, George

Waldo — who is also the mayor of Peachland — a teacher, Wayne Lawrence, and

parents Rod Barrett, Marguerite Taylor, Linda Cody, Ruby Eikenaar, Marlene Crosby

and Stan Coster. Would the House please give these students a very warm welcome.

Oral Questions

SALE OF WESTWOOD LAND

MR. ROSE :

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct an unexpected question to the Minister

of Crown Lands concerning the sale of the Westwood Plateau to a single

developer, in spite of much advice to the contrary from both within and

without his party. I want to know if the minister is prepared to table

the contract with Wesbild in this House today.

HON. MR. DIRKS :

The closing of that deal is actually scheduled for June 29, and release

of that sale agreement will be at the option of the buyer.

MR. ROSE : Mr. Speaker, it took almost a year for us to get the Expo contract

when that deal was announced. We had to wait at least a year. Can the minister

tell us now when he will make the Westwood sale agreement public — because it's

public land; it's not just the buyer's land — and also the competing

bids, so that this House and the people of this province can decide for themselves

whether we have a good deal, or whether we were taken to the cleaners?

HON. MR. DIRKS :

Mr. Speaker, I'm very proud of the process that we followed in selling

the Westwood lands, and we will certainly reveal those to the public.

MR. ROSE :

Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary. I wonder if the minister can tell

us whether or not any of the members on the government side, in terms

of the back bench, have seen this deal. Presumably they have, because

at least one of your back-bench MLAs has called this deal "stupid."

LABOUR MINISTER'S INVOLVEMENT IN

ALLEGED POLITICAL INTERFERENCE

MR. SIHOTA :

I have a question to the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. Lee Doney

conducted the ministry's internal investigation with respect to the

referendum on the Knight Street Pub affair. Did Mr. Doney know of the

call between Mr. Poole and Mr. Hick prior to the writing of his report?

HON. L. HANSON : Mr. Speaker, I don't have that knowledge, but I can take the question on notice and find out.

MR. SIHOTA :

Did the minister never discuss the call between Mr. Poole and Mr. Hick

with Mr. Doney during the course of his work on the internal report?

The minister has admitted that he knew about the call before the

internal report. Did he never discuss it with him at that time?

HON. L. HANSON : Again, I don't have that recollection. I know that Mr. Doney was aware of it, but I'm not sure at what time.

MR. HARCOURT :

I have a question for the Premier. The Premier has attacked the media

and the opposition for doing their job. The Premier is the only one who

doesn't recognize that the issue is neither Mr. Hick nor Mr. Poole. The

issue is the minister and the Premier, who condone lying to cover up a

political scandal. Does the Premier accept that on this issue the buck

stops with him?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : What was the question again? Could you repeat it?

MR. HARCOURT : Does the Premier accept that on this issue the buck stops with him?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

As I said yesterday, I am satisfied that the minister considered all

the information, including the ombudsman's report, and took the

necessary steps to respond to what needed doing. I am satisfied with

the resolution of it.

MR. HARCOURT : It was only a

few days ago in this House, contrary to what the Premier said

yesterday, that the minister admitted that he'd covered up a lie. The

opposition has done its duty by raising this issue. The media has done

its duty by reporting it.

[ Page 7100 ]

Your

duty, Mr. Premier, is to ensure that a standard of morality is adhered

to. When are you going to do your duty and ask for the minister's

resignation?

HON. L. HANSON : On a point of order. I

heard the Leader of the Opposition suggest that I'd covered up a lie.

That is unparliamentary and just not true, and I ask the member

opposite to withdraw it.

MR. HARCOURT : Mr. Speaker, I will refer you to the minister's own remarks of last week in Hansard that were read out by the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER :

The Leader of the Opposition knows that in a parliamentary democracy,

if a member is offended at the statement of another member and asks for

its withdrawal, the member under parliamentary procedure would withdraw

the statement.

[2:15]

MR. HARCOURT : I will withdraw that statement Mr. Speaker, and refer to the Hansard when the minister made some statements.

DUMPING OF DREDGED MATERIAL

ON WESTWOOD PLATEAU LAND

MR. CASHORE :

A question for the Minister Responsible for Crown Lands in his capacity

as acting Minister of Environment. It was reported that 60,000 cubic

yards of dredged material from False Creek were dumped in the vicinity

of the Westwood Plateau. Can the minister advise this House whether the

government gave permission for the dumping of this material?

HON. MR. DIRKS : I will take that question as notice.

MR. CASHORE :

A new question to the same minister. In light of the serious soil

contamination known to exist in False Creek, has the government tested

this material to determine its toxicity?

HON. MR. DIRKS : I don't think I'm quite clear as to which land he is asking me to test.

MR. CASHORE : I'm referring to land in the vicinity of the Westwood Plateau.

further supplementary. Can the minister tell the House who is

responsible for cleaning up this soil should it prove to be

contaminated?

HON. MR. DIRKS : There is no proof that the soil is contaminated or that it came from that position in the first place.

LABOUR MINISTER'S INVOLVEMENT IN

ALLEGED POLITICAL INTERFERENCE

MR. SIHOTA :

Mr. Giordano was the Premier's campaign manager's close friend. Has the

Premier ever discussed with Mr. Giordano the matter of Mr. Giordano's

company being allowed to conduct pub referendums?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIHOTA :

Mr. Toigo talked to the Premier on a regular basis, as much as three or

four times a day. Good, close friends. Did Mr. Toigo ever approach the

Premier as to allowing Mr. Giordano's company to conduct pub

referendums in British Columbia?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

First of all, I didn't know that I had the opportunity or the time to

speak to one person so frequently, but that's obviously again an

assumption that we tend to hear from that member and upon which he

bases his questions. The answer is no.

MR. SIHOTA :

Mr. Poole was the Premier's righthand man, and of course they talked

daily. Mr. Poole called Mr. Hick to ask for a favour for the Premier's

campaign manager. Did the Premier ever discuss with Mr. Poole the

matter of placing his campaign manager's company on the list of

companies to conduct referendums with respect to pubs?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : The answer is no.

MR. SIHOTA :

We're talking here about the Premier's inner circle, his closest

friends. The Premier would have us believe that all of his friends

acted together, yet in isolation of the Premier. It's pretty hard to

believe.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. Is the member questioning the integrity of another member? If he is, I wish he would withdraw the question.

MR. SIHOTA :

Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier would have us believe

from his answers that his friends acted in isolation of him. The

question to the Premier is this: isn't it true that the only reason the

Premier is protecting the Minister of Labour is that the Minister of

Labour has gone out of his way to protect the Premier on this matter?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, I would ask that he withdraw. He's attributing motives which certainly I can't accept.

MR. SPEAKER : Withdrawal is asked for.

MR. SIHOTA : Mr. Speaker, I'm explaining the intention of the question. The question is to ask the Premier to....

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please.

[ Page 7101 ]

MR. SIHOTA : I'll withdraw the motive if that's the way the Premier interprets it.

MR. SPEAKER : Thank you. Has the member got a new question?

MR. SIHOTA : No, we'll leave it at that.

HON. S. HAGEN : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, was the statement withdrawn?

MR. SPEAKER : Yes, it was.

FACTORY CLOSURES IN KOOTENAY AND

THOMPSON-OKANAGAN REGIONS

MS. EDWARDS :

I've a question for the Minister of State for Thompson-Okanagan and

Kootenay. Consumers Glass has announced that its Alberta and B.C.

operations must be rationalized by closing one of the plants, possibly

the one at Lavington near Vernon, and Alberta has committed to keep its

Redcliff plant from closing. Are you as the minister for the region

prepared to make a commitment to take whatever steps are necessary to

prevent the loss of about 450 jobs at Lavington?

HON. MR. DIRKS :

I'm very pleased to say that I did meet with Consumers Glass last year.

I had quite an extensive meeting with them, and I'm sure that we will

do whatever is possible to save the jobs at Lavington.

MS. EDWARDS :

Supplementary question to the minister. Mr. Minister, the major

breweries are increasing their use of cans as opposed to bottles. The

cans can be priced more cheaply. This threatens small plants, including

one in your riding, which is the Columbia Brewing plant in Creston

which employs 200 people. Can the minister tell me what steps he has

decided to take to preserve small, regional breweries like the one at

Creston and the employment that they provide?

HON. MR. DIRKS :

I really don't think we've got time in question period to answer a

question quite as wide-open as that. Let it be said, though, that I

have met with the president of the brewing company. I am very aware of

their problems and the problems that are presented to the brewing

industry by the import of canned beer. I am working with the Minister

of Labour and Consumer Services (Hon. L. Hanson) to see what can be

done.

LABOUR MINISTERS INVOLVEMENT IN

ALLEGED POLITICAL INTERFERENCE

MR. HARCOURT :

Again, to the Premier. As I said earlier, a few days ago in this

Legislature, the minister said that he had heard a lie from his

official sitting right beside him. He was stunned by it. He admitted he

did nothing about it. Basically, what he said is that he condoned a

lie. Mr. Premier, when are you going to do your duty and ask for this

minister's resignation?

HON. L. HANSON : On a point

of order, I again find the Leader of the Opposition stepping over the

bounds of reality and fair play. I certainly would ask him to withdraw

that.

MR. HARCOURT : I am saying what the minister

said in this House. I am saying that the Premier has still not answered

my question: when are you going to ask for this minister's resignation,

Mr. Premier?

MR. SPEAKER : Government House Leader on the same point of order.

HON. S. HAGEN :

Mr. Speaker, I think that generally speaking in this House the debates

and the questions are carried on in a reasonable manner. But obviously

today the Leader of the Opposition has stepped over that boundary of

fair play. I request again that the statement be withdrawn.

MR. ROSE :

The Leader of the Opposition withdrew an earlier allegation, but it is

very difficult for any of us — no matter how charitable we might be.

Last Thursday the minister said in this House during the debate of his

estimates that he heard Mr. Hick lie at a press conference. He

admitted: "As I said earlier, the knowledge that I had was different

than an answer that was given there. I guess that would equate to

lying." Our Leader of the Opposition has suggested....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE : We're not quite finished. It will be your turn in a second.

am just quoting the Minister of Labour. It seems to me that if the

minister has said that in the House, which he has, and later admitted

that he did nothing about it — he didn't do anything to correct it at that time, or at least up until the time that the ombudsman began to look into it — then he obviously has condoned the lie because of omission. He has said nothing.

HON. L. HANSON :

I am pleased that the opposition House Leader can read that well.

Certainly that was not the request for withdrawal. The request for

withdrawal was the statement that I condoned it.

MR. SPEAKER : The Minister of Municipal Affairs on the same point of order?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : No, but I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER : I would like to talk about the last one.

The

Leader of the Opposition is saying that the minister said something and

that he condoned it. The member is asking him to withdraw the word "con-

[ Page 7102 ]

done,

" and I think that's fair. Under parliamentary tradition, if a member

asks another member to withdraw a statement about his integrity, it

should be done. I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw

the word "condone."

MR. HARCOURT : I feel very

strongly about this issue. I think it goes right to the heart of the

integrity that the people of this province expect from the government

of this province. The minister's actions — his statements here — are exactly what I said. I will not withdraw the remark that I made.

HON. S.D. SMITH :

On the same point of order. The Leader of the Opposition has set

himself up nicely to be asked to be removed from the House. He has even

come today for the television cameras with a flower in his lapel. Mr.

Speaker, I ask that if he does not withdraw his remarks, he be removed.

MR. LOVICK :

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely if there were ever a glaring

demonstration of imputing motive to somebody, we have just heard it. If

the rules of procedure and decorum mean anything to the

Attorney-General, surely he will leap to his feet and withdraw that

remark.

MR. SPEAKER : Does the Leader of the Opposition have a comment to make on this same point of order?

MR. HARCOURT :

Yes, I do indeed, Mr. Speaker. Impugning motives on why I am here is

really a shameful statement by the Attorney-General. For his

information, I'd like him to know that this flower was given to me by

the Victoria Chamber of Commerce today at noon.

MR. SPEAKER :

As Speaker of this Legislature, I also have the integrity of hundreds

of years of parliaments to uphold, and I would suggest that the Leader

of the Opposition withdraw his remark, and so should the

Attorney-General. If the members do not wish to do so, they can both

leave the House for the rest of the day.

HON. S.D. SMITH :

Naturally I would not do anything to offend the House, and I know that

the Leader of the Opposition would join with me in supporting you in

supporting a hundred years of integrity of this parliament. I certainly

will withdraw my comment, and I have no doubt that the Leader of the

Opposition will as well.

MR. HARCOURT : I am proud of

my 20 years of involvement as a public leader in this province. I do

not say nor take these actions or these words lightly. I, with regret,

will not withdraw those remarks.

[2:30]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I've withheld my comments until the

conclusion of the discussion we've just heard, but 47A(

a) of our

standing orders as they apply to oral question period suggests that

"only questions that are urgent and important shall be permitted." May

we ask the Speaker to please review this

section in an attempt to

determine whether or not we can continually deal with subjects which in

some cases are up to a year old?

MR. SPEAKER : I thank the member for her comments.

Hon.

Mrs. Johnston tabled the British Columbia Transit report on conflict of

interest and use of confidential information, prepared by Thorne

Ernst and Whinney.

Mr. Speaker tabled the 1988 annual report of the ombudsman.

Hon. Mr. Parker tabled the 1987-88 annual report of the Ministry of Forests.

Orders of the Day

HON. S. HAGEN : I call second reading of Bill 22.

HOME MORTGAGE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM ACT

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

This bill establishes the B.C. home mortgage assistance program. The

intent of this program is to help eligible British Columbians purchase

modestly priced homes. Under the program a home can mean a house,

condominium, strata title or mobile home.

The intent to

create the home mortgage assistance program was announced in the budget

as part of the provincial housing action plan. The program demonstrates

the government's continued commitment to address housing issues and

overcome housing problems. The home mortgage assistance program

supersedes and substantially improves upon the existing B.C. second

mortgage program. Second mortgage loans will be replaced by provincial

government loan guarantees.

In addition, the level of

assistance available will increase. The maximum house price eligible

for the program will be raised to $100,000 from the present $85,000,

and the maximum value of assistance will rise from $10,000 to $12,000.

This increased assistance will be of particular benefit to British

Columbians outside the metropolitan Vancouver and Victoria areas. The

target group for the new program is all British Columbia residents who

have not received previous assistance from the home mortgage assistance

program or its predecessor programs.

One of the most

attractive features of the home mortgage assistance program is that it

generally permits 95 percent financing. Even with mortgage insurance,

the highest rate of financing usually available is 90 percent. Through

the home mortgage assistance program, eligible purchasers will be able

to apply for a mortgage with as little as 5 percent down payment. This

low down payment requirement is particularly attractive to first-time

home-buyers.

[ Page 7103 ]

the case of high-ratio financing or where the lender insists on

insurance, the guarantee will also have the additional benefit of

reducing mortgage insurance costs. I should also point out that a high

ratio mortgage with a provincial government guarantee attached will

qualify for property purchase tax relief, announced in the budget

speech.

This bill will permit the new program to be

delivered to the public by provincially approved mortgage lenders.

Eligible B.C. residents can apply for the program when they apply for

their first mortgage or mobile home security instrument. Guarantees for

second mortgages will also be available under some circumstances.

Private

sector delivery of the program will greatly improve the application and

approval process for mortgage assistance. Borrowers can apply for the

guarantee when they arrange their first mortgage or second mortgage

financing. This considerably improves an individual's access to the

program. Financial institutions will be able to obtain initial approval

for an application by telephone. Mortgage lenders will be responsible

for the basic administration of the program. This reduces the cost to

government.

Unlike the second mortgage program, the new

mortgage assistance program will also permit loan guarantee assumptions

in the case where both the buyer and the house are eligible for the

program. Alternatively, should the buyer wish to assume a first

mortgage that is not partially guaranteed by the government, it will be

possible to obtain a government loan guarantee for a second mortgage.

Mr.

Speaker, the new B.C. home mortgage assistance program has many

advantages over the existing second mortgage program. The levels of

assistance have been substantially increased. The program will be

delivered locally throughout the province. The application process will

be simpler and quicker, and there will be no delay in receiving

assistance. The guarantee will be attached to a mortgage.

This

bill also seeks to facilitate the transition between the B.C. second

mortgage and home mortgage assistance programs. For this reason, an

administrative amendment measure is introduced by this bill.

Individuals who purchase a home before the new program comes into

effect will be permitted three months to apply for a second mortgage.

This change should not create a hardship for second mortgage

applicants. Transactions closing on or after June 15, 1989, will be

eligible for the new program.

In addition to establishing

the new program, the Home Mortgage Assistance Program Act also

authorizes the disposal of the existing B.C. second mortgage loan

portfolio. The portfolio consists of loans made under the second

mortgage and similar programs. As a result of an extensive tendering

process, the second mortgage loan portfolio is being sold to the Bank

of Montreal for approximately $275 million The completion date of the

sale is June 22 this year The major impact of the sale will be that the

government's administration costs will decline. With the exception that

loan payments will now be made to the Bank of Montreal, there will be

no impact on individual mortgagees. In order to retain control of debt

collection decisions, the province will not transfer title to the

mortgages and loans to the Bank of Montreal; instead, they will remain

with the province. Additionally, the province will repurchase loans

that later go into default, and undertake collection activities in its

own right.

This bill demonstrates the government's

continuing commitment to encouraging home-ownership, without abdicating

our fiscal responsibilities. The program is aimed at moderately priced

housing and is particularly beneficial to individuals who cannot easily

amass large down payments. This would include first-time home-buyers.

Mr. Speaker, I move the bill now be read a second time.

MR. CLARK :

In the absence of the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe), who

would normally respond to what is arguably a housing issue as opposed

to a finance issue, I'll stand in his stead.

It appears to me that this is a very, very, very modest "modest proposal." The housing crisis — and there really is one —

is in the lower mainland, and this bill does nothing to deal with the

housing crisis in the lower mainland. I understand that the ceiling for

access to funds is for homes that are less than $100,000, and my

information is that in March the average single-family home in

Vancouver sold for $215,812. I think you'd be hard pressed to find even

a condominium under $100,000. The crisis is in the lower mainland, and

people outside the lower mainland can take advantage of this program.

As I say, it's a very modest improvement. I have no problems supporting

it, but it doesn't deal with the area where the housing crisis is,

which is the lower mainland. It perhaps gives the appearance of some

action on the part of the government. There is some action for some

people in modest homes, but where the crisis is, in Vancouver and some

other areas of the lower mainland, there are almost no homes, even

condominiums, that would be eligible for this program.

addition, it appears, in looking at the bill and listening to the

minister, that there is some discrepancy. The bill talks about allowing

the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council to make regulations. It's the

regulations — the $100,000 maximum — that the minister

alludes to, but the $100,000 figure is not in the bill, and I

understand that. One doesn't want to enshrine in legislation a dollar

figure which would be outdated at some time. Nevertheless, the bill is

really an enabling bill which appears to me to imply that the work

really hasn't been done yet. The bill just enables the government to do

something, and most of the comments of the Minister of Finance at first

reading, and again today, relate to the regulations that are yet to be

in place. They should be in place shortly, but they are not in the bill.

addition to that, I do have some concerns about the privatization of

loan portfolios of the government, but I will canvass those in

estimates, which I assume we'll get to shortly. I have some concern

about the fact that the government is going to give

[ Page 7104 ]

the

loan guarantee but the private sector will be delivering the loan. It

seems to me that the current practice, where the loan is given by the

government and guaranteed by the government, gives the government more

control over dealing with defaults. So now we're in a situation where

some profits may accrue to the private sector, but it's really the

government that's carrying the can for any defaults on the loan. So

there's a philosophical difference I have with the Minister of Finance,

and it's contained in this bill. I have some concerns about it, but I

will raise those in committee.

As I said, on balance it's a

very, very, very modest proposal, one which helps some residents of

British Columbia outside the lower mainland. For that reason, I don't

have any problem supporting it. But it really doesn't come to grips

with the housing crisis that exists in the lower mainland and nowhere

else in British Columbia.

With that, I think that on this side of the House we will be supporting the bill.

MR. SPEAKER : Pursuant to standing orders, the minister closes debate.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

I am very delighted, being a modest man, to be told we're very, very,

very modest with the bill, and further delighted that the opposition

are going to support it — as I suspected they would, in view of

the fact that it is such an enlightened piece of legislation obviously

designed to address a very real social problem we have in society today.

For that reason then, I'll move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill

22, Home Mortgage Assistance Program Act, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I call committee on Bill 18.

INTERNATIONAL TRUSTS ACT

The House in committee on Bill 18; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Schedule approved.

Title approved.

HON. S.D. SMITH : I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 18, International Trusts Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

[2:45]

HON. MR. REE : I call second reading of Bill 23.

SUPREME COURT ACT

HON. S.D. SMITH :

It's a pleasure for me to rise and move second reading of Bill 23. This

bill flows out of the Justice Reform Committee's terms of reference,

which, among other things, were to determine the most appropriate court

structure to meet the needs of this province now and in the future; and

in particular, the relationship between the County and Supreme Courts

and the delivery of court services outside our major population centres.

The

question of merger of the Supreme and County Courts has been debated

many times over the years in this province. Only British Columbia,

Ontario and Nova Scotia still retain both their County and Supreme

Courts or the equivalent of those County and Supreme Courts. Ontario

itself recently announced a process that might end up with the merger

of their courts.

The problem in British Columbia that we

seek to address through this merger is that we have had an overflowing

trial list in Vancouver, which in turn has led to pressure on court

lists in the rest of the province and created an inequity in access to

justice at that level outside Vancouver and Victoria. The Justice

Reform Committee sought a compromise to address that backlog and those

access problems as well as to increase access. It recommended a

decentralization of the Supreme Court, with resident judges and

increased jurisdiction of the County Court.

The response from the public and the bar — when I toured the province —

was that many members of the judiciary found the compromise resolution

to be less than satisfactory. Therefore I made a decision to go further

than that recommended by the Justice Reform Committee report and to go

ahead with a full merger at this time. I want to advise the House that

I have been assured of the cooperation of all the Supreme and County

Court judges to achieve merger by July 1, 1990, as is contemplated in

the bill — or sooner, should that be possible as a result of the activities that are now taking place.

Judges

of the new Supreme Court will be resident in every region, and they

will travel throughout the regions. I believe that the benefits that

will flow from this will be to provide better service for all British

Columbians, to provide lower costs — or at least a cap on the costs —

and less travel for litigants and lawyers. I believe we will see a

smoother administration of justice and less confusion thereby for the

public.

More importantly — indeed, most importantly —

it is my view that this will increase access for citizens throughout

our province. We have had, as I've said, many proposals from many

people with respect to

[ Page 7105 ]

the merger of these courts. We have seen a bill before this House in 1969 to do just that.

am pleased that the decision was left to me to merge these courts,

because it is time that in fact that debate end, so that we can have

Supreme Court service in the county of Prince Rupert, of Kootenay and

of Yale. I'm particularly pleased that I received support for that

decision from members of the bar, from members of the judiciary, from

members of this House — including the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, who supported the decision to go ahead with this merger — as well as from members of the public and municipalities around the province.

With that, I move second reading of this bill.

MR. SIHOTA :

I want to thank the Attorney-General for taking a few minutes out of

his leadership campaign to show up in the House today. More

importantly, I want to thank the Attorney-General for moving on a New

Democrat initiative. As the Attorney-General knows, I was proud to

sponsor a private member's bill on this matter some weeks before the

Attorney-General saw fit to introduce the Supreme Court Act calling for

a merger.

During the time of the introduction of our

private member's bill, I was hopeful that we would have merger in our

courts in British Columbia, that merger was an important step, and that

provision for merger of our courts would take us beyond what the Hughes

commission recommended. In my view, it was a prudent time to move with

respect to merger of our courts.

I know that there was

hesitation from the Attorney-General with respect to introducing this

type of legislation. At the time we introduced our private member's

bill, I encouraged him to follow our lead and to introduce this

legislation. I'm relieved to know that the Attorney-General saw the

wisdom of our ways and finally took the advice of members of the

opposition.

Mr. Speaker, this is good legislation. It means

that individuals in all portions of the province will have access to

our Supreme Court — our highest court, barring the Court of Appeal in British Columbia. It means that people in all parts of the province — whether they reside in Kamloops, Prince George or the Kootenays —

will have access to what in the past has been described as the

Vancouver court of appeal. It's appropriate that they have the same

province do.

I want to also say, in relation to the

Attorney-General's comments, that this legislation is one piece in

ensuring that there is access to the courts — an equality of

access throughout the province. The Supreme Court Act, through the

initiative of merger and the spreading of Supreme Court judges

throughout the province, certainly makes sure that the vehicle of the

courts is available to the people of this province. Fundamental

problems remain, however, the most fundamental being the matter of

affordability, which of course limits access simply because people

cannot afford the opportunity to resolve their disputes in court. A

number of other initiatives are necessary to deal with the element of

access. Some of those factors are evident in other legislation, which

we will be talking about later this afternoon.

I remain

deeply disappointed that inadequate measures are being taken to deal

with access to the courts through the vehicle of legal aid. I'm

disappointed that more affirmative actions weren't taken in that

regard, particularly with respect to people who need access to resolve

family disputes, to resolve matters of nominal monetary value; who need

access in terms of assisting them as victims and in dealing with rules

established by administrative tribunals, such as the Workers'

Compensation Board, which may indeed be questionable and worthy of

challenge in the courts.

Finally, of course, there's the

failure of the government to introduce a fund to finance Charter cases

so that people in this province have equal opportunity to utilize the

Charter in front of the courts. That simply is not there right now, and

it causes me some concern. Based on the study that I quoted earlier

during estimates, of the 600 cases that have come before the courts

with respect to Charter litigation, 66 have been commenced by groups

that one would expect — in other words, women, native groups,

groups asking for the assertion of equality of rights. The vast

majority have really been triggered by corporate interests trying to

deal with such things as Sunday-shopping legislation.

This

legislation takes a significant step, I would say, towards bringing

about access to the courts. By and in itself it does not provide the

answer, and there have to be other initiatives on the part of

government to deal with impediments to access to the courts. We'll be

referring to a number of technical matters during the course of debate

on this bill at committee stage, and I'll leave those comments until

that time. Suffice it to say that in keeping with the introduction of

our private member's bill, we will be supporting this act in its

travels through this chamber, and we look forward to the speedy

implementation of the legislation, preferably in advance of the July 1,

1990 date, if that can be achieved.

HON. S.D. SMITH :

At this time I would like to move that the bill be read a second time

and also give notice to the House that I will be making some floor

amendments to the bill, the subject matter of which I will provide to

the Clerk later today. Those amendments deal with a number of issues,

clarifications and suggestions that have been made by members of the

judiciary since this bill was introduced to the House. I've had

tremendous cooperation from members of the judiciary through a very

extensive consultative process, which does indeed continue.

The

amendments relate to

section 2 with respect to the notion of associate

chief justices and the number of judges as a consequence of that, as

well as dealing with sections 4, 6, 7, 12 and 49, which are to some

extent consequential, with the exception of 12, which makes clear that

a master will be a member in good standing of the Law Society.

[ Page 7106 ]

closing debate on second reading, I want to reiterate that this

people of their justice system in British Columbia and, most

importantly, on the question of merger, it will bring the debate to a

close once and for all in this province and let us get on with the more

important business of trying to build the best Supreme Court of British

Columbia that we can.

I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House.

Motion approved.

Bill

23, Supreme Court Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee

of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House

after today.

HON. S. HAGEN : I call second reading of Bill 24, Mr. Speaker.

COURT RULES ACT

HON. S.D. SMITH :

This is the second bill in the package of bills that deal with the

question of justice reform in the province. It is my pleasure to begin

debate on Bill 24 by moving second reading.

[3:00]

This bill deals with the question of the court rules that are found in a number

of statutes throughout our statute law. The power to make court rules in British

Columbia now rests in nine different statutes. The purpose and principle of this

bill is to consolidate rule-making power under a single act. We believe that

doing that, we will move some way to simplify the law and make it more understandable,

which is a stated intention of our reform package.

also note that this bill, Bill 24, if passed by this House, will create

the opportunity for us to build the economical litigation program,

which I think members will find will be one of the more beneficial

programs for their constituents throughout the province. It will

provide an opportunity for persons to attend in court on their own in a

regime of rules that will be substantially modified in terms of

pre-trial activity, so that individuals may go forward themselves or,

perhaps more importantly, they will be able to afford to retain counsel

at a price that will be somewhat more consistent with the amount in

dispute.

We think that it will help to treat those cases of

$20,000 or less much more simply and therefore much more helpfully.

That will provide us with a less expensive program and one in which

there will be far greater access to the courts. That will also ensure

that, for matters above the new outer limits that are proposed for the

small-claims court, there will be a continuum of economical litigation

opportunities as well as, in plain language, reduced procedures and

enhanced access for individuals in our society.

It is my pleasure, as I say, to move second reading of this bill.

MR. SPEAKER : The Attorney-General seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. S.D. SMITH :

Mr. Speaker, on your behalf it is indeed my pleasure to introduce a

municipal representative from your community of West Vancouver, an

alderman and a good friend of mine and many members in this House.

Would the House please join me in welcoming Mr. Mark Sager.

MR. SIHOTA :

Again, we will be supporting this legislation. It flows from the

recommendations of the Hughes commission, recommendations which we

endorse. Certainly, again, it is long overdue. I've often wondered, as

someone who has practised law in this province, why it was that we

didn't have one enactment to consolidate court rules. Certainly it's a

long time coming. It was a much-welcomed recommendation within the

Hughes report, and I can be confident that this legislation will get

not only our support but our speedy passage.

I want to comment on one aspect of this legislation in general — and more specifically when we get into the next stage of debate —

and that is this matter of economical litigation. The Attorney-General

talks in fairly glowing terms about the concept of economical

litigation. I really hope he is right, because what really is proposed

here with respect to economical litigation is quite an experiment, and

a bit of a unique experiment. It's going to be a real challenge over

the years to develop a set of rules with respect to economical

litigation that remain simple. I look forward to the rules and

procedures that are drafted, because I think one has to walk a very

fine line when drafting the rules with respect to economical litigation.

can think of my experience, and my experience is mostly in the area of

civil litigation and more specifically in the area of personal injury

litigation. I, as counsel, would feel a little uncomfortable about

giving up too much in terms of discoveries and some of the pre-trial

mechanisms and interlocutory applications which exist to benefit

counsel, to prepare you for trial and allow you to make informed

decisions as to whether or not it would be wise to proceed to trial,

and also to advise your client as to whether the chances of success are

as great as one would believe at the beginning of litigation.

It's

also going to be delicate to draft the regulations in such a fashion as

to reduce court time. You don't want court time to be eaten up in

activity that would normally be the purview of discoveries, so that you

can reduce the time of fishing expeditions, which are perhaps more

appropriate in discovery than in court. The purpose of all this is to

accelerate people into getting in front of a court and reduce the

amount of time they have before a court.

On one hand you've got this problem about people in the bar — people like me who do a lot of civil litigation practice — who are nervous about giving up some of those benefits that we have under

[ Page 7107 ]

the

current rules, and on the other hand, oversimplifying the procedure. If

you make it too simple, people are going to opt to go through the

normal process as opposed to economical litigation — if, indeed, there is an option.

I'm

really looking forward to the experiment that is going to be taking

place here. It's going to be quite a fascinating experiment. I do hope

that we can fine-tune the rules so as to ensure that economical

litigation serves as an incentive and that it is worthwhile to proceed

with the more expeditious form of litigation, through economical

litigation. It will be fascinating, and we'll see how it works. I hope

it works out well. I wouldn't want to oversell it at this stage of the

game until I saw the rules, the reaction of the bar to it, and then the

experience of the economical litigation program in terms of how many

people are prepared to exercise that option and put aside some of the

traditional mechanisms that they have.

In part, I think

that the success of this program is going to be consumer-driven. It's

really important that clients be aware of the benefits of an economical

litigation program, so they can push their counsel to do more

economical litigation work than I think counsel would be willing to do.

We're very comfortable with the rules as they exist now and with the

provisions that we have. One can always find downsides as to why you

would want to deviate from what's there.

I think that the

real trick of the matter will lie in the rules. This legislation will

allow us to proceed with the drafting of the rules, and let's hope that

that aspect of it works out well.

MR. SPEAKER : The Minister of Government Management Services seeks leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

I would like the House to make welcome a group of students accompanied

by their teacher, from Falkland. Falkland is a small community in my

constituency best known for the fact that a community of about 400 or

500 people sponsors the famous Falkland Stampede — a three-day

stampede that always takes place on the three-day weekend. It is a

community with a great deal of community spirit. I would ask the House

to make them all welcome.

MR. SPEAKER : Pursuant to standing orders, I advise the House that the minister closes debate.

HON. S.D. SMITH :

This bill, particularly the economical litigation portion of it, will

not only simplify but also, we are hopeful, address a substantial

problem in our system. Information has come to us over and over again

that in that area between the small-claims limits and $20,000, more and

more frequently these matters simply are not going to court. What that

means is that individuals are not seeking to have issues addressed and

to have justice served because of the imputed cost of doing that. Mr.

Speaker, certainly in the area where there is already a matter of

liquidated damages and perhaps much further than that, the rules

committee under this new proposal in the court rules in Bill 24 will be

able to come up with a process that really addresses that problem in a

very meaningful way.

That said, Mr. Speaker, I now move that the bill be read a second time.

Motion approved.

Bill

24, Court Rules Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of

the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House

after today.

HON. S. HAGEN : Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 25.

SMALL CLAIMS ACT

HON. S.D. SMITH :

Mr. Speaker, I again have the pleasure to rise to move second reading

of a bill, this being Bill 25, to deal with the small-claims court. I

want to say at the beginning that we'll be moving a floor amendment to

sections 17 and 19.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Mr.

Speaker, the small-claims court is known properly and frequently as the

people's court. It is one where citizens who are not lawyers frequently

go to have their problems addressed and issues resolved. It is one

where there has always been a minimum of rule binding: that is to say,

of rules that kind of bind the sorts of things that people are able to

do and thereby create a greater sense of formality. This people's

court, the small-claims court in British Columbia, has been one where

there has been a minimum of formality, although there has always been,

in my view, a significant amount of quality procedural consistency

throughout the province so that people can benefit from those kinds of

procedures that ensure that justice is done. It is a court in which we

seek to avoid the high cost of litigation in the superior courts.

One

of the most important features of this piece of legislation, Mr.

Speaker, is to raise the limits of this court from $3,000 to $5,000. I

would remind the House that two years ago this House entertained a

proposal, indeed enacted it, to raise the limits from $2,000 to $3,000

in the small-claims court. At that time it was recommended by many

people, including members of the staff of the ministry, that those

limits be raised beyond $3,000. Mr. Speaker, a decision was taken by

politicians at that time not to raise the limits beyond $3,000 as was

recommended.

We are going to propose to raise the limits to

$5,000, and although there has been considerable suggestion that we go

beyond that, we are not proposing to go beyond that at this time. It is

our concern that there will be — or could be — a change

[ Page 7108 ]

the character of that court if you move too quickly, particularly in

some of the outer areas of the province where the monetary jurisdiction

may have greater significance on the matters at hand; that, coupled

with the notion that is contained in the bill that we have previously

dealt with with respect to the economical litigation program, we think

will address the basic issues that are there.

There is no

question that this House will be visited again, it is my view, with the

proposition that the small-claims jurisdiction ought to be raised

further. But it is our view that on balance, at this time, following

from the recommendations contained in the "Access to Justice" report,

that movement to $5,000 is sufficient. As I say, two years ago we went

from $2,000 to $3,000, and although it was recommended to go higher, I

believe the Attorney-General of the day was concerned about the

possibilities of some constitutional impediment and other concerns, so

the decision was taken not to go beyond the $3,000 amount.

[3:15]

Further, Mr. Speaker, we will increase access to this court, we

believe, by greater utilization of plain language in the act, in the

rules that will be developed and in the forms that will be used.

Disputed security deposit cases are going to be moved to the

residential tenancy branch of the Ministry of Labour, which were

previously heard by this court. Mr. Speaker, it can take up to nine

months, for instance, in the city of Vancouver, to get such cases to

trial, and there's no question that there have been incidents of

unscrupulous landlords taking advantage of that and in fact imposing

themselves, thereby, on tenants who are not able to afford that kind of

a money-whipping. So we're going to be moving those sorts of disputes

to another system of adjudication from this structure.

Mr.

Speaker, the act provides for improved enforcement by giving the option

for a judgment summons hearing immediately following a decision to

determine when and how judgments will be paid. For those who are

familiar with the Small Claims Act as it now is constructed, they will

note when they reference this bill that there is a whole pot-pourri of

sections that aren't in here that relate to the old judgment summons

provisions that ultimately resulted in a debtor being able to be thrown

in the jug. That is no longer in this act — or at least in this legislation proposed for this House —

and I think the

section in there is a vast improvement, not only to the

extent that it eliminates a great deal of verbiage, but it also is a

more sensible and more reasonable way of dealing with that issue.

I am pleased to be able to take my place in moving second reading of this bill.

MR. SIHOTA :

Once again I'd like to congratulate the Attorney-General on following

an initiative by New Democrats. It was two years ago in this House that

I suggested to the then Attorney-General that he should raise the limit

to $5,000. Again, I'm just glad to see it.

It obviously

gives the Premier some delight to know that his government is beginning

to become very receptive to ideas, is listening to all those positive

suggestions made by the opposition and knows that what we say actually

is often wise, and that one ought not to dismiss it in the rather

cavalier fashion as the Premier has in the past.

It's interesting that the Attorney-General — of course, he was trying for the Premier's job —

took a minute or two out of his comments to slap the wrists of the

former Attorney-General, the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head (Mr. B.R.

Smith). He criticized him — if I heard him correctly — for

not moving with respect to the appropriate increase to $5,000 several

years ago. He said at one point: "...in relation to constitutional

considerations." At another point he said that "simply a political

decision was made." With respect to the latter, I guess it's open

season for people on that side to take shots at one another. I'd be

most interested in knowing what the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head has

to say with respect to the Attorney-General's comments that a political

decision was made at that time.

It's also interesting to

hear what the Attorney-General had to say about security deposits,

because during the course of estimates, we raised the matter of

security deposits. The Attorney-General pointed out with pride — and I would refer him back to Hansard —

that the matter had been referred to the small claims, where he

suggested it was more appropriate. Now it's moved right back to

residential tenancy. In the past, the experience has not been good in

that venue, and unless there are some very expeditious rules to deal

with security deposits under the realm of residential tenancy, that

won't do much good. I think the Attorney-General quoted from a press

release from the Ministry of Labour in December of last year.

There

are a number of other comments that should be made in general terms

with respect to small claims. It seems to me that if you're going to

raise the limit to $5,000, then on one hand you're going to — quite correctly —

invite litigation in an area which in the past has not been litigated

in. On the other side of the coin, it's going to involve more cases in

front of the small claims court. That means more work for provincial

court judges in terms of cases and time, and I think there's an

administrative issue as to whether or not the Attorney-General's

department has calculated out the time and resources it requires to

deal with the increase in jurisdiction and the demands that are going

to be placed on judges.

On the matter of access, small

claims fees were raised last year from $10 to $25. I think it would be

appreciated if, in keeping with the general tenor of the

Attorney-General's comments with respect to access, we went back to

where we were instead of increasing them in the way we have.

Apart

from that, I think it's fair to say again that we'll look at the

amendments we now have before us. But we will be supporting the

legislation, and I appreciate the fact that efforts were made in this

legislation in particular to use plain language. I

[ Page 7109 ]

understand

that the forms being developed are also being tested out in the market

to make sure they comply with the plain language sentiment expressed in

Mr. Hughes' report. I think all that is good.

Again, the bill will receive our blessing, and we look forward to its speedy passage.

HON. S.D. SMITH :

In closing debate, I just want to say to the House that when I referred

to the decision to raise the limits two years ago as a political

decision, I made it very clear that what I was saying, and indeed did

say, was that it was a decision taken by politicians, which are, by

definition, political decisions. Any nuances imputed by the member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) may serve his own oddball

interests, but I don't think they will do a great deal to serve this

House.

It has been said that with this issue we will have

to deal with the question of more time and consideration for more

judges. I don't think that it necessary follows like night follows day.

Indeed, we have just had a report, which has been considered by this

House and by committees thereof, in which it has been clearly set out

that there's an opportunity for us to increase the number of sitting

hours undertaken by judges of the Provincial Court of British Columbia

as well as to reduce the number of what we call judgment days to a

standard that would be more consistent with the norm across our country

and would undoubtedly provide people with more frequent access to their

courts.

From the discussions through my ministry with the

chief judge of that court, I'm sure that the judges of the Provincial

Court will want to work together with us to ensure that it indeed

happens and that we all thereby better serve the people of British

Columbia. I move that the bill be now read a second time.

Motion approved.

Bill

25, Small Claims Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of

the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House

after today.

HON. MR. REE : I call second reading of Bill 26, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if I can withdraw that and instead go on to second reading of Bill 12, we'll come back to Bill 26 later.

SOCIAL SERVICE TAX

AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

I thank the members opposite for this small change in the order of

procedure here. It's obliging my interest in terms of attending another

meeting in half an hour.

Bill 12 contains a number of

amendments to the Social Service Tax Act. Two amendments will improve

the equitable application of the tax and simplify compliance for the

mining industry. An exemption will be provided for magnetite, a mineral

used in coal-processing, which has a comparable function to supplies

and materials used in mineral extraction by other sectors of the mining

industry which are currently exempt.

A second amendment

will replace the present tax refund provision for explosive supplies

used by the mining industry with a point of sale exemption. Other

amendments will improve the equitable application of the tax in other

areas, simplify compliance procedures for taxpayers and clarify

administrative practices. The definition of "lease" is clarified to

remove the ability of lessors to structure agreements as licences or

other rights to avoid the payment of social service tax.

Concurrently, the application of tax to the use of films shown in movie theatres is clarified to remove taxpayer uncertainty.

present, tax is required to be collected and remitted on the selling

price of liquor. This requirement applies to liquor sold at licensed

premises and at events for which a special occasion licence has been

issued. Holders of special occasion licences, many of whom are not

familiar with tax collection and remittance procedures, often find this

requirement difficult to comply with and, in fact, many do not comply.

In order to improve compliance procedures and ensure more equitable

application of the tax, an applicant for a special occasion licence

will prepay an amount equal to the tax on the estimated resale value of

liquor at the time of application.

The application of tax

during a voyage between ports within and outside B.C.'s jurisdictional

boundaries has posed problems of practicality and equity for taxpayers

and tax authorities. So to provide consistency with foreign-based

cruise vessels which are not subject to tax, a vendor on a scheduled,

commercial passenger-carrying vessel which sails between B.C. and

foreign ports will not be required to collect tax on sales.

The

determination of tax on used equipment in certain situations will be

clarified. Property converted from an exempt use to a taxable use or

brought into B.C. for use in the province is subject to sales tax.

Amendments to the act will clarify that for used equipment in these

situations — taxes based on depreciated value rather than original value.

Finally,

the bill contains a number of administrative amendments which will

clarify the assessment of interest, penalties and applications for

refund. I move this bill be read a second time.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

MR. CLARK :

I have a few problems with this little bill. I know it's not a radical

step; in some ways, it's housekeeping. It seems to me that one argument

would be to extend the sales tax to cover everything. In other words,

there should be no favoured treatment. This bill goes some way to doing

that by taxing movie admissions, which I think is a bit chippy.

Let's say that the philosophical move was to tax everything — the bean-counters in the Finance department want to tax everything — and extend the

[ Page 7110 ]

sales

tax. But the same bill exempts explosives for mineral exploration and

exempts magnetite, so it's philosophically inconsistent. It says on the

one hand, "Well, we should tax movie theatres because some other

provinces do it"— not every province, but some provinces do it — "and

they shouldn't get special treatment. It raises a lot of money and I'm

sure there's a reason for doing it." It essentially implies that

there's an argument that we should tax it and we should be consistent

and everything should be taxed. Then the same bill makes exemptions for

the mining industry.

[3:30]

We can argue, Mr. Premier, for exemptions for certain things, and

that might be fair enough, but I think it's inconsistent to extend the

tax to moviegoers and in the same bill remove the tax from certain

other items. I think it passes a kind of moral judgment which I don't

really agree with. I think we would be better off with a genuine

housekeeping bill, rather than one which attempts to gain more revenue

for the Crown by taxing something which is a pursuit — going to movies — which many people like. Clearly people with less income might go to a movie.

it extends the tax there and remits it somewhere else, and on that

basis I really have some problems with it. It's a chippy kind of

extension of the sales tax to certain areas, under the guise of

philosophical consistency, but at the same time it removes the tax from

certain other little things. So there's a conscious decision on the

part of the government to tax movies and not to tax explosives used in

general exploration, all in the same bill and all under the guise of

housekeeping. I think it's really a little more than that; it's a

philosophical statement by the government and it's one which I don't

support.

While it's a small move and while I don't want to

play politics on a relatively housekeeping bill, I do find it offensive

that they would tax the theatre and not tax mineral explosives and

magnetite used in coal production. So on that basis, Mr. Speaker, I

will be opposing this bill.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : We

will get into some details, I suspect, during the committee stage. I

won't waste the legislators' valuable time by responding with the

credible arguments that prompted us to make these changes in the first

place. I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill

12, Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 1989, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. REE : I call second reading of Bill 11.

PUBLIC TRUSTEE AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

This bill creates a special account in the consolidated revenue fund of

the province. The account will record all revenues from service fees

and commissions received by the office of the public trustee from its

clients and provide statutory authority to spend an equivalent amount

in providing services to those clients.

The office of the

public trustee is responsible for managing and protecting the estates

and financial interests of minors and mentally disordered persons, and

also for settling the estates of deceased and missing persons where no

other person is willing or competent to act.

While the

creation of the special account will not directly affect the operations

of the office of the public trustee, it will provide a greater measure

of flexibility and independence from budgetary restrictions. The

account will also provide the office of the public trustee with the

opportunity to enhance services to its clients based on any increase in

available revenue. The creation of this new special account will

therefore insulate this important service from fluctuations in the

provincial economy, and provide enhanced service to clients in the

years to come.

I move the bill now be read a second time.

MR. SIHOTA : This is a radical piece of legislation and we'll be making more comments during the course of the committee stage on this.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

It's very pleasant to finally receive the attention of the hon. members

opposite with some of our forward-thinking legislation.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill

11, Public Trustee Amendment Act, 1989, read a second time and referred

to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting

of the House after today.

HON. MR. REE : Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 13.

TOBACCO TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Mr. Speaker, this bill contains four amendments to the Tobacco Tax Act.

The first amendment increases the tax rate on loose tobacco products to

reduce the tax rate differential between loose tobacco and manufactured

cigarettes. Prior to this amendment, the tax on loose tobacco was 1.9

cents per gram, compared to 5 cents per gram for the same amount of

tobacco in the form of manufactured cigarettes. The truth of the matter

is, Mr. Speaker, pipe-smokers for years have been receiving a tax

benefit as compared to cigarette smokers, and this government decided

it was time to clarify and bring those discrepancies to public

attention.

[ Page 7111 ]

This

tax rate differential resulted in an increase in loose tobacco

consumption from 5 percent of the B.C. tobacco market in '81 to 15

percent in '88. In addition, the much lower tax rate on loose tobacco

has resulted in the development of new tobacco products designed

specifically to take advantage of the lower rate of tax. This amendment

will bring more equity to the treatment of all tobacco products in B.C.

and is consistent with government policy to have those using products

whose consumption results in social costs pay a larger proportion of

those costs.

Secondly, concurrent with this amendment, the

method of calculating the tax payable on loose tobacco products is

changed to remove an inequity. Prior to this change, tax was payable on

the basis of tax per 25 grams of tobacco or any portion thereof; thus,

a 40-gram package of loose tobacco was taxed as if it contained 50

grams. The tax will now be calculated on a per-gram basis, to ensure

that tax payable is not distorted by consumers' preference for package

size.

The third amendment is to ensure that tax is remitted

on all taxable tobacco products sold in B.C. Prior to this amendment,

wholesale dealers were not required to remit tax on tobacco which was

intended for sale outside of the province. This amendment will require

wholesale dealers to remit that amount and claim a refund, or request

approval from the director not to remit that amount. With this

amendment the government will be better able to verify that tobacco on

which provincial tax is not paid is not sold in B.C.

The

final amendment provides authority to implement the tax-paid marking

system for tobacco products sold in B.C. in the event that it is

required in the future. This amendment will ensure that if tobacco

smuggling into B.C. becomes a problem, as it currently is in Ontario

and Quebec, the government will have the necessary authority to deal

with the problem.

I move the bill now be read a second time.

MR. CLARK : The Premier says it's a chippy bill; it clearly is.

There

are some things in it that are good, I think, particularly the last

amendment, which deals with the possibility of smuggling. But the

increased tax on loose tobacco.... It's unpopular to oppose a tax on

tobacco, and I know that....

Interjection.

MR. CLARK : The Premier is helping me. I think we should call for a vote on this one.

I'm sure most of my colleagues would support these kinds of taxes —

the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) was our Health critic.

But I must say I do have a bit of a problem with that kind of mentality

of the Finance ministry. I'm sure it's a staff thing; I called them

bean-counters — I mean that. How much of a tax break was it? The Premier knows.

want to tell the minister that I've had three letters from very poor

constituents who smoke. They roll their own to save a little money. So

what happens? The sort of long arm of the tax department of the

government moves an amendment in this House....

Interjection.

MR. CLARK :

That's a lot of letters, Madam Member. That is a lot on this kind of

issue. Mr. Speaker, three letters on this kind of issue, I think, is

astounding from my constituency — and I mean that seriously.

here they are, rolling their own cigarettes to get a break, and the

government moves to close this tiny loophole, which surely can't raise

any money. The Premier agrees with me, I know. And I know it's not

popular to oppose these kinds of tax. I know the conventional wisdom is

that sin taxes you can keep increasing, because people are supposed to

feel guilty because they smoke or they drink. I have some problems with

that, I'll be quite frank with you. But I'm not going to take the time

here in the Legislature to fight this act. I understand the rationale

for it: so that loose tobacco is now taxed at the same rate that

tobacco that comes in cigarette form is. It makes perfect sense from

that kind of administrative point of view. But I think it's a chippy

tax. Quite frankly, I think it's disproportionate and affects the poor

more than other people. So I personally oppose it, but I won't be

fighting that cause in here, Mr. Speaker. So with that, I'll move on.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : The House is advised that the Minister of Finance will close the debate.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed in front of the committee....

DEPUTY SPEAKER : First of all you must move second reading, before we go to committee.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : I move second reading.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be referred to the standing committee

of the House at the next sitting of the House after today.

DEPUTY SPEAKER :

The actual motion is that the bill be referred to a Committee of the

Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Assuming that the minister had made that motion, may I now call that motion.

Motion approved.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members who believe that these motions do not need to be put in the correct order need only refer to Hansard

from 1979 to find a very lengthy debate that the then Minister of

Municipal Affairs went through for having failed to move second reading.

[ Page 7112 ]

HON. MR. REE : I call second reading of Bill 26.

JUSTICE REFORM STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

HON. S.D. SMITH :

Mr. Speaker, it's again my pleasure to rise and speak to a motion on

second reading of this bill, which is a package of legislation that

deals with the various aspects of the justice reform package before

us — being the legislators — today in the form of bills and in terms of Green Paper activity that will be undertaken in due time.

This

bill seeks to amend various acts, that would include, among others, the

Family Relations Act, the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act, the

Victims' Rights and Services Act, the Municipal Act and the Vancouver

Charter. It thereby deals in a fairly significant way with family law,

which is a complex area of our law, not only in terms of the law, but

in terms of the relationships that family law seeks to provide some

substantive regulatory cloth for.

The Justice Reform

Committee, when it dealt with this area, focused significantly on the

problems of the jurisdictional overlap between the Supreme and the

Provincial courts. They came up with a pretty innovative solution:

namely, that one would have the Supreme Court retain or obtain

exclusive jurisdiction in the area, and that we would seek to make

Provincial Court judges masters — and I use the word in italics — of the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

Thereby

we would try to draw together the jurisdictional separation that now

occurs, but maintain the same system that is there so that largely

provincial court judges would hear the bulk of the issues. Indeed, it

would expand that. In doing that and in fleshing out that process as we

did, we found that there were constitutional concerns posed and raised

that were of significant proportion.

[3:45]

We've done a great deal of consultation in that regard over the last

five months. Some of it has involved members of the judiciary as well

as members of the larger community in the practising bar. As a result

of that, we will be providing and releasing a Green Paper later on this

summer. Following that, we will have another round of the same process

we have for implementation with a vast number of people with input in a

consultative way. We hope to be able to recommend legislation in that

area to this House in the spring of 1989.

There has been some thoughtless criticism in that regard —

that it was undue delay. I would simply point out to the House that

among others who have been involved in this consultative process is the

former Chief justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia — now a justice of the Supreme Court of Canada —

whose consideration was that this process of consultation ought to go

on, and that we ought not to force something into a legislative package

just for the sake of doing so.

Sometimes I think it's safe

to say that daring is dumb and rapid is ruinous. While we listen to

those who suggest we ought to press on instantaneously, and who say

they have instant solutions to this, more thoughtful people in our

community — who, after all, would be charged with administering these issues — have raised the flag of caution to make sure that we do it properly, rather than rapidly.

That's

what we will be doing in that regard. We are proceeding now with some

important amendments to the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act —

to accept maintenance orders under the Divorce Act that are made in

another province, where the creditor resides in the province of British

Columbia; and to the Family Relations Act — to strengthen

provisions with respect to the freezing of assets, to put a clear

statement in law that arrears of maintenance can be cancelled only in

exceptional circumstances, to provide the authority to file separation

agreements in the Supreme Court for their enforcement.

believe that's one of the more important provisions in this piece of

legislation, because when separation agreements are entered into, it

necessarily follows that they were done somewhat more voluntarily than

when you have to go to court. The parties presumably were ad idem

about what they wished to have in that agreement, and sometimes it is

done at a time before the relationship has descended into an

exacerbated situation where the problems are so extreme they cannot

agree to anything. If we can provide for the filing of that kind of

agreement when people are ad idem ,

and it takes on the force of a Supreme Court order, I think we probably

will have served ourselves and our society reasonably well.

We'll

also seek to broaden powers to make attachment orders, to make more

timely investigative reports with respect to custody and access, and to

provide for new rules with regard to the disclosure of financial

information during the period when one is dealing with the issues of

family breakup and the consequences that flow from that.

Mr.

Speaker, we are looking, through this legislative package, at

recommendations respecting the apprehension of children, to be

addressed by the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr.

Richmond) — as I have said previously, specifically to change the

responsibility and onus for when a child is apprehended, so that there

is available to the parents in a timely way notice and information

about what kinds of charges they face.

As well, this bill

seeks to address the question of legal fees. The government and the Law

Society are concerned to ensure that the public is protected from

excesses in the provision of legal services and in the costs that may

be imposed upon the public. We are therefore proposing amendments to

the Legal Profession Act that will permit the Law Society to establish

a system for a sliding scale of maximum contingency fees and enshrine

in law the principles to be used by a registrar in reviewing a lawyer's

bill: a provision known as Yule v.

the City of Saskatoon. We have worked with the Law Society very closely

on this, and we have, I am pleased to say, their concurrence with what

we are doing, because they are charged primarily with the

responsibility for undertaking

[ Page 7113 ]

these issues and it is for us to provide them with the enabling authority to do that.

might also take the opportunity at this time to say that it might

behoove other professions in our society to incorporate the principles

of Yule v . the City of

Saskatoon into their processes, if they have any, for reviewing their

own bills. Perhaps the accountants, dentists, podiatrists, architects,

doctors and others, to the extent that they provide services outside of

the medical profession as experts — reports — would do the same

thing and follow the lead of the legal community to provide for a

system whereby people can review their accounts against a predetermined

set of rules and a predetermined consideration and standard, in that

there is a system by which a citizen can have them reviewed and indeed

lowered.

We're also looking at amendments to the Municipal

Act. Because of the increased volume of criminal prosecutions, many

municipalities have been led to be frustrated by the apparently low

priority assigned to bylaw enforcement. Bylaw enforcement is very

important to the quality of life in our community Sometimes people tend

to sneer at the sorts of things that are undertaken by municipal bylaw,

because they're talking about issues that in a relative sense don't

seem to be all that important compared to others that are under the

Criminal Code. But in terms of the people who live in the community and

who have an expectation that.... When their municipal leaders create

bylaws to provide for noise or for some standards of community life,

they want to be certain that there's a mechanism by which those bylaws

and laws will be enforced.

We'll seek through this

legislation to provide that enabling power and amendments to the

Municipal Act and the Vancouver Charter to provide for a bylaw ticket

system similar to the ticket information now used for provincial

statute offences. The provisions will allow for the voluntary payment

of fines if a person does not wish to dispute the allegation that is

made against them and, if there is a refusal to pay or if a dispute

results, for a deemed conviction.

We'll be looking for

support for amendments to the Provincial Court Act to clarify the

status and the authority of bylaw and traffic adjudicators, formerly

referred to as sitting justices of the peace, to enable them to hear

provincial statute and bylaw matters as well. We are also going to ask

for support to address a concern for the resulting amendment to the

Offence Act to deal with the issue of unpaid fines and to provide for

an early fine payment incentive program, so that people who are issuing

these tickets that we're developing.... We'll be able to ensure that

the cost of collecting does not outweigh the benefit of what they're

producing here.

Among other important amendments to

acts contemplated by this bill now before the House is one to the Court

of Appeal Act, so that we may introduce new technologies, allowing for

filing in either the Vancouver or the Victoria registry. Essentially

what we're doing is merging those two registries, which is going to

enhance access here on Vancouver Island. Amendments to the Evidence Act

will allow administrative tribunals to make their own rules with regard

to filing of expert evidence and filing of expert evidence in court

through changes as well to the rules of court. You will be asked as

well, as a matter of principle in this bill, to seek to support

amendments to the Victims' Rights and Services Act to clarify that the

victim fine surcharges apply to ticket information fines under the

Offence Act.

I know there's a kind of pot-pourri of acts

that are being asked to be amended, but the cumulative effect of them

is to be able to provide me with the ability to fulfil a commitment I

made last November when I released the Justice Reform Committee report,

which was to have before this House during the month of May, and

hopefully passed before the end of the session, a series of legislative

changes to the extent that legislation was necessary to fulfil the

commitment to implement that report.

I'm pleased that we

have been able to do that in such a timely way, after perhaps the most

extensive consultative process ever undertaken in this province with

respect to justice reform; indeed, the most extensive consultative

process ever undertaken. I know, Mr. Speaker, when looking at other

jurisdictions that are taking two, three and four years to accomplish

the same thing, that legislators in this province have many reasons to

be pleased with the way this has been developed and the support that is

being gained because we are drawing people into the process who are

coming together in a positive way and providing input that is useful.

Particularly,

I want to extend my gratitude to the members of the judiciary, who have

been most supportive in doing this. It is a difficult thing for them to

provide us with that kind of support and clarity from all levels of the

court. They have done that, and they've been most helpful.

Especially

in the area of the Green Paper proposal I mentioned earlier, it is very

important that we do it right, rather than to do it rapidly to fulfil

some urgency that those who are without knowledge and information have

in that regard.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

MR. SIHOTA :

I'd like to congratulate the Attorney-General on filibustering his own

bill, but I know that there was good reason for doing so.

will be supporting this legislation as well. It's good legislation in

terms of the amendments it makes, I would take issue with some of the

comments the Attorney-General makes about the Green Paper and the delay

consequent, but that's probably reserved for another time and place.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

want to let the Attorney-General know that I am most disturbed over his

decision to place in this legislation a provision which allows for

changes with respect to contingency fee agreements. I don't think that

that was necessary. I don't think that that's what

[ Page 7114 ]

the bench wanted in British Columbia. I must say, as someone who practices —

and I think someone suggested I practice criminal law; the

Attorney-General should know full well that I practice in the area of

personal injury litigation — that I don't know why the government

sees a need to try to fix something that isn't broken. Those agreements

work well. They've traditionally worked well. There have been no

complaints to the Law Society over the years with respect to

contingency fee agreements, and there is no reason for the government

to intervene on that issue where, indeed, the consumer of those legal

services has a right, statutorily, and is notified of that right upon

signing those agreements, as to what they can do to challenge the

account that is rendered at the end of the day.

Those are my comments, and we look forward to debate at committee stage on this matter, Mr. Speaker.

HON. S.D. SMITH :

In closing debate on this bill, I simply want to say that there are

many worthy amendments to legislation and acts of this House to be

considered here, and I hope the House will give it timely and full

consideration. One of them, of course, is the important Legal

Profession Act. We all have a responsibility. The primary

responsibility rests with the Law Society of British Columbia to ensure

that there is fairness and there is seen to be fairness and that abuses

don't take place in any of these matters. But the ultimate

responsibility rests with us in this House to ensure that the public

interest is served.

I am pleased to report that I have had

great cooperation from the benches of the Law Society, and what is here

contained are matters which have been undertaken as a result of

consultation with them. I am pleased, as well, to stand without any

self-interest in this matter whatsoever in terms of the contingency fee

arrangements.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

Motion approved.

Bill

26, justice Reform Statutes Amendment Act, 1989, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House after today.

MR. REE : Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill PR401.

SEMINARY OF CHRIST THE KING

AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

MR. JACOBSEN :

The purpose of this act is to remove the requirement of two semesters

of theological study for students obtaining a bachelor of arts degree.

I understand that the bill has been unanimously approved by the private

bills committee.

I move second reading of Bill PR401.

Motion approved.

Bill

PR401, Seminary of Christ the King Amendment Act, 1989, read a second

time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration

at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. REE : Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 15.

CONTINUING CARE ACT

The House in committee on Bill 15; Mr. Peterson in the chair.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

section 1.

HON. MR. DUECK : I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

On the amendment.

[Section 1., in the proposed definition of "continuing care" by adding ", or to a person with a frailty" at the end.]

MS. A. HAGEN :

I want to acknowledge the action of the minister in bringing in this

particular amendment to the definition of "continuing care."

Interestingly enough, I think it came about as a result of a number of

submissions to the minister, including one from myself, that the

definition recognize frailty — in an older person most likely — as

a cause or condition for continuing care to be available. It's a

welcome amendment. The minister has, I think, listened and responded,

as he often does when there is an opportunity for that dialogue to take

place.

I want to ask a couple of questions in respect to

the

definitions in

section 1. The definition of an operator will be

seen to apply to someone providing facility care. I just want to

confirm that "operator" involves an agency providing home support,

facility care or anything under that broad rubric.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Just before we proceed, the Minister of Transportation and Highways asks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. VANT :

This afternoon it gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House Mr.

Bob Hatton, the brother of my executive assistant, and his wife Doe,

visiting Victoria all the way from Midway, B.C. Bob is in Victoria

attending the fiftieth Municipal Officers' Association convention. I

know the House will give them a warm welcome.

HON. MR. DUECK : Yes, the operator is the individual or society or corporation that contracts with the ministry to provide continuing care.

MS. A. HAGEN :

I'm never quite sure whether to discuss the whole

section or just the

amendment. With your indulgence I've really broadened this to

[ Page 7115 ]

deal with the whole section, and then we can deal with the procedural things.

Let

me ask this specifically of the minister: "operator" here is the

operator of a home support society as well as a continuing care

facility; is that encompassed in the definition?

HON. MR. DUECK : It's my understanding that this is so.

MS. A. HAGEN :

With that response from the minister, then, I think we understand that

as we go through committee stage of this bill we will be talking about

continuing care as it applies to the whole continuum of care: home

support services, intermediate care facilities and, where applicable,

personal care facilities. That's the compass, if you like, of the bill.

[4:00]

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

section 2.

MS. A. HAGEN :

This is the

section that deals with the scope of the agreement which

the ministry can enter into on behalf of the government. First of all,

I note again that for the first time since continuing care was

formalized as a program within the Ministry of Health, this is a

statute dealing with the right of the ministry to enter into such

contractual arrangements. As we noted in second reading and as the

minister himself acknowledged, this particular act, long called for, is

a direct outcome of the recommendation of the auditor-general that

there be a statute.

It's interesting — and I know we've had some discussions about this —

that there is no broad mandate for this act. So when we look at the

agreement section, we're beginning to look at the substance of the

bill. I regret that there is not a mandate statement with this act. The

minister has responded to some earlier discussions which I've had with

his officials in respect to this by stating — and I'd just like to note his comment for the record:

"Firstly,

with respect to "a mission-mandate statement," this is something that,

like a

preamble, is not customarily used in legislation today. There

are two basic reasons I would not be inclined to include such a

statement in Bill 15. One, significant developments in continuing care

from time to time are likely to lead to changes in the mandate. This

would mean we would be likely to 'outgrow' the statutory references at

some point in the future. Two, we would like to retain as much

flexibility as possible to apply the principles of this act to other

programs that may not fall strictly within the realm of 'continuing

care.'"

I think if we look at agreements, it would be

helpful for us to understand what indeed the principles of these

agreements are, and how those contracts will evolve. Perhaps the best

way for me to deal with this is to ask what mandate he sees within

these agreements as forming the basis for the agreements that he will

be now entering into with continuing care operators. What are the basic

principles of these contractual arrangements that are encompassed by

the various clauses of

section 2 of this statute?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Thank you, hon. member. Before we proceed, the member for Burnaby North has asked leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. JONES :

Mr. Chairman, those of you who have looked at electoral boundaries

realize that Burnaby North is one of the larger ridings in this

province. One of the reasons for that is the tremendous growth in a

beautiful area of my riding on the south slope of Burnaby Mountain

called Forest Grove. In that area is a lovely young school that was

opened by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) only a couple of

years ago, which has since undergone tremendous growth and is looking

to further expansion.

Visiting us today in the gallery from

that school are 48 grade 5 students accompanied by their teacher Mrs.

Wong and their principal Mr. Carter. They have done a super job in

preparing for this visit. They were well informed about the buildings

and the operation of the Legislature. I would like members of both

sides of the House to join me in welcoming these grade 5 students.

HON. MR. DUECK :

Mr. Chairman, we were talking about mandate, and I explained that we

needed some flexibility, or we'll still be working to enhance or to

perhaps develop a mandate that is more than what we have at this time.

Currently we say: "...to provide an efficient, effective and affordable

range of health care and health care support services for persons who

have, or are at risk of having, chronic disabilities that are primarily

physical in nature, and persons with acute-care needs who do not

require care in an institution."

MS. A. HAGEN : Could I ask the minister the source of that particular statement, Mr. Chairman?

HON. MR. DUECK :

It's the provisional mandate that's been adopted up to this point in

time, and it is being developed to perhaps be more encompassing. But

normally this is not part of legislation. It is my understanding that

it would constrain us in certain ways, so we're leaving it out of the

legislation itself.

MS. A. HAGEN : Mr. Chairman, I am

really pleased that there is a statement even if it is, as the minister

notes, in an evolutionary stage. I'm glad that it's a part of our

record of debate.

I question the leaving out of the

mandate. I want to make this statement, if I may, before we proceed

with some further questions, Mr. Chairman. I recognize that there is an

evolution. We've waited 10 years for the evolution of this act, and I'm

sorry that the minister hasn't risked; his counterpart in the Minis-

[ Page 7116 ]

try

of Education has risked. There is a proposed

preamble in a draft school

act, and that

preamble is reflected in the actual body of the act to

give it status. I would hope that should the minister still be the

Minister of Health when we next sit and debate some bills, he might be

prepared to risk including that mandate in the bill.

I want

to just question a couple of things in respect to it. The purpose of

this questioning is to get to some aspects of the agreement that are in

the clause we are now discussing. I note that the minister — and I didn't get all the words —

referred to the "physical health" of persons. Does that limit the

definition of health? Does it perhaps exclude the mental health of

patients, clients, residents and people who are being served?

HON. MR. DUECK : No, it does not exclude it. I think the wording is "primarily physical in nature, " but certainly we have the other as well.

MS. A. HAGEN :

One of the largest groups of people in need, particularly of facility

care, is a group of mostly older people who are often called

"psycho-geriatric" in respect to their needs. Although we don't

necessarily know the cause of their disability, the very fact that they

are defined as psycho-geriatric would suggest some degree of mental

disability. I wonder if the minister could perhaps comment on why there

isn't some reference in the draft working mandate statement to that

particular group of older people.

[4:15]

HON. MR. DUECK :

It's probably a valid point. We could probably include that. I don't

have any argument with that, because we are, in fact, including those

people but it doesn't specifically say that.

MS. A. HAGEN :

This is one of the reasons why doing things in committee can be

productive. I think it would be very important to include that, and let

me just provide a bit of further rationale for that statement. One of

the areas we discussed during the minister's estimates in which there

was a deficiency in the support service available for continuing care

was what's called intermediate care 3: the person who has

psycho-geriatric needs, the person who has some neurological

disability. It's often umbrellaed under the term Alzheimer's, but more

broadly deals with anything that disables that person.

do know that continuing-care facilities at the present time, for

example, have been talking to the minister and his officials about

deficits in the quality of care they are able to offer, from the point

of view of development of services. I think that whole area is one

which has been identified as having a high level of need.

we want to go into the community and talk about people staying in the

community independently, one of the areas of greatest need is mental

health resources for older people. Geriatric social workers, for

example, are in short supply. In my community of New Westminster we

have one geriatric social worker for a population of 7,000 older

people, which is clearly inadequate to provide for their needs. I hear

constantly from people in my community about how they struggle to deal

with that deficit in resources, to work with families and to work with

people in the community who have those needs. I hope there would be

reference in the mandate statement.

One final comment. I am

not sure I got the wording. It was in the last part of the statement,

and the minister made some reference to, I think, community support

services or home support services for those people who may be in need

of acute care. Perhaps it would be helpful if I asked the minister to

read that last section, because I don't have the wording clearly in my

mind; therefore it is difficult to frame a question intelligently.

HON. MR. DUECK :

That particular

section is: "...to provide an efficient, effective and

affordable range of health care and health care support services for

persons who have, or are at risk of having, chronic disabilities that

are primarily physical in nature" — that's where that amendment would come in — "and persons with acute-care needs who do not require care in an institution."

MS. A. HAGEN :

That clarifies it. I commend the minister for that last statement,

because what he is really saying is that if we can care for people in

their homes, we will do so. That's a plus and an excellent clause in

that working mandate statement.

If I may turn to some of

the specifics in clause 2, it specifies that the agreements will

include an obligation for the operator to comply with any applicable

standards, guidelines or directives issued by the minister. I think

most of us are more familiar with the umbrella word "regulations" in

respect to the details, if you like, of the agreement. One of the

things about regulations is that they are available. They usually go

through an order-in-council process; people know the kinds of

guidelines they must follow, and they have considerable force, by

virtue of being printed and available.

I'd like the

minister to expand a bit on what is meant by this terminology:

standards, guidelines, directives. I want to know how people will know

what they are, what the standards, guidelines and directives are, and

whether there's any difference in the meanings of those three words.

There must be some reason for all three of them to be used. How are

they known? To whom are they known? And what does each of these words

mean when we're talking about the outcome that we would want to see

from all this — that is, quality of care in the facility that is contracted with the ministry to provide for the needs of a certain population?

HON. MR. DUECK :

Under

section 2(2), then 2(3) and 2(4), "standards" refers to care

standards to be met by operators, for example, expecting nursing levels

corresponding to care needs of a client.

[ Page 7117 ]

"Guidelines"

and "directives" refer more to operational requirements. An example

would be what forms to use, methods of handling clients, assets in

trust, etc.

MS. A. HAGEN : If I heard the minister

correctly, Mr. Chairman, the minister would have the authority under

this clause to deal with any aspect of the operation of a facility,

from health care standards to standards for the recreational needs of

the residents to directives for custodial trust relationships. Is that

the scope? Is that what the minister is suggesting?

HON. MR. DUECK : Yes, that's true.

MS. A. HAGEN :

Could I ask the minister if encompassed in that brief definition

there's anything new in what he proposes to require in the way of

standards, guidelines, directives? Is there anything new that the

ministry will be requiring of the operators as a result of this

particular statute?

HON. MR. DUECK : Mr. Chairman,

the standards that we're speaking of are in use and have been in use

for ten years. We're following through with the same ones, although

we're constantly reviewing and improving where necessary. But there's

nothing new from what we've had before, except that this is new

legislation, and we're certainly trying to improve the whole area of

long-term care. So as we're moving along, we'll probably make some

changes. But we're not introducing anything different in that area or

anything that people in continuing care should be afraid of.

MS. A. HAGEN :

I want to note, Mr. Chairman, that my line of questioning has to do

with being concerned about the quality of care that will be, I hope,

guaranteed by this statute, and also about the people's right to know

about what those standards are, both the people within facilities and

us as the public.

Let me ask the second question; I phrased

it a moment ago, but let me repeat it. We don't have regulations. We

don't have something printed that says that these are the standards. If

I want to know what the standards of care or guidelines are that an

operator must follow in the care facility in my community, we don't

have that written down, as I understand it, or available. I want to

know if the minister can advise how the public can get information

about what standards — to just use the code word — are

encompassed in the language of this agreement. How do we know what we

have a right to expect in a care facility in the way of standards for

leading to good, quality care for residents?

HON. MR. DUECK :

Of course, we have a provider's handbook, which I'm sure you're aware

of, and we're carrying on with that. But with this new regulation, I

hope that the care that we will be providing and be able to control and

police, if you will, will be better than what we've had before, with no

legislation. As I said, we will constantly improve and provide more

information to operators and people who inquire of the kind of service

they can expect in these facilities.

MS. A. HAGEN : Two brief questions to the minister, and then I think we can probably move on to the next clause.

Could

I ask the minister if one of the guidelines he might be considering,

and might be prepared to fund adequately, would be that all care

facilities would have activity staff for the residents within that

facility — not just nursing staff and housekeeping staff but staff

specifically charged with the responsibility of organizing and

providing for appropriate activities for the residents of that

facility. Let me just leave it with that one, and I'll ask the other

question after the minister has responded.

HON. MR. DUECK : Up to this point in time no, we do not specify exactly what staff the facility operator must have in his facility.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

MS. A. HAGEN : Is the minister considering that being one of his guidelines?

HON. MR. DUECK :

I certainly wouldn't want to make a statement in the House that it will

be provided for at a certain date. But I must say that we travelled

throughout Europe, and when we looked at some of the facilities there,

activity time for every facility resident was one of their main

objectives. They found that it was very important. Certainly, as time

goes on and we can improve on looking after seniors in particular, and

others too, this is very important.

MS. A. HAGEN : I

hope that travel has broadened the minister's mind and that he will in

fact be enlightened and push for that initiative. It's just one, but in

terms of quality care the fact that it made that impression on the

minister I think simply demonstrates how very significant and important

that particular funding and that particular requirement is.

There's

one other thing I'd like to ask about. It's one I can't really examine

very thoroughly in the time we have available, but I want to flag it

because I think it is increasingly a matter of concern.

The

minister made some reference earlier on when he described the scope of

the guidelines for operation to trust relationships, the handling of

money and things of that nature. I have long been very concerned about

the inadequacy of the public trustee and guidelines for operators in

the matter of client affairs.

[4:30]

I won't take the time of the House, but I have some horror stories

in my own experience around what I would consider to be elder-abuse in

that regard by some facility operators. The problem is that there has

been, in fact, no clout and no way for the continuing care people who

are responsible for moni-

[ Page 7118 ]

toring

the standards within facilities. There has really been no way for us to

deal with that. There has been no way for a third party to deal with

some kind of initiation of an investigation. It's a very vulnerable

area, particularly for people who are perhaps in some interim stage in

being able to manage all aspects of their financial and personal

affairs.

Again, I want to ask the minister the status of

current guidelines in that area and whether he is in fact looking at

that particular area for some good, tight, regulated and clear

guidelines for operators, families and staff, who might be

whistle-blowers when they're seeing that kind of thing happening and

are concerned but fearful. It's very much the case with many people who

work in care facilities who are often minimally trained and underpaid.

There has to be something there that protects people and encourages

those who are concerned about the well-being of people who are at risk

and vulnerable that they can be advocates, take action and have

something occur.

HON. MR. DUECK : Back to the other

question of activity and recreation people to assist patients in these

facilities. I don't have to tell you, because I think you're as

familiar with some of these facilities as I am, that many of them have

those people in place now. I didn't want to leave the impression, or

have it on the record, that we don't have those people in facilities at

this time. The question was whether we would ensure that every

facility, regardless of size, would have that. Just so that is clear.

However,

when we're talking about specific problems, we do have a quality

assurance program now in place, and we certainly have the continuing

care licensing staff that continually would be concerned. I myself and

my ministry, of course, would be very much concerned if anyone....

These complaints come to us from time to time, and we investigate every

single incident. I don't think we just have them operating these

facilities and they carry on regardless.

Yes, there have

been complaints coming to my office. You mentioned horror stories; they

sometimes have been described as horror stories, and often they turned

out to be a complaint and a concern, but it wasn't necessarily a horror

story. But if you know of any instance like that, I would certainly

like to hear from you later, anytime, and let's correct it.

MS. A. HAGEN :

I certainly would let the minister know, but what I'm looking for is

something that is preventive: something that provides some guidelines

within the care facilities themselves so that there are clear

directives.

I'm not sure that the minister really answered

the question about whether he's satisfied that in the current standards

and guidelines there is sufficient protection against a form of elder

abuse that can occur. The problem with this, Mr. Minister, is that if

the guidelines aren't there and we don't know what the guidelines are,

then it's more difficult to uncover this. It's not something that those

people who are doing the abusing let us know about. It's something that

goes on, if you like, in secret or behind closed doors, and with people

who aren't protected.

Neither of us is saying that we don't

have excellent facilities and that this is prevalent; but it shouldn't

happen at all. There should be, within your guidelines, very clear

stipulations about what trust relationships the operator may enter into

and how that operator is in fact accountable for those trust

relationships. I'm not satisfied that the minister has indeed answered

that those exist within the present guidelines that are operational; if

they do not exist, that it's his intention that they shall be included.

HON. MR. DUECK :

Quality assurance, of course, is one area that would be certainly

concerned, with respect to the question you asked. I don't disagree in

concept. As you know, this is new legislation, and maybe we will evolve

into that, because I don't disagree, when we talk about people who are

perhaps less than capable of looking after themselves, that there

should be some guidelines that would assist the operators and assist

people who perhaps have relatives or friends in a facility like that.

MS. A. HAGEN :

I'm going to conclude on the

section with this comment. I take it that

as a result of this discussion we have highlighted what is in fact a

deficit, a less than adequate guideline in the present state of the

manual that the minister mentioned, and that this need will perhaps get

some attention. I recognize that the minister and his officials are

saying at this time that they are working at improving the calibre or

the quality of care, and what we're talking about is this act as a

means for providing the minister with the tools to do the job. I would

hope that it is not just a codifying but something that is going to

produce ongoing action and improvements in quality care issues as they

relate to the 20,000 or 25,000 people in facilities.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

MS. A. HAGEN :

This clause, as I understand it, makes the minister responsible for

determining who is eligible to receive continuing care paid for under

this act. Obviously, there are people who get continuing care in

facilities which are not in a contract with the ministry. It also

states that the minister may issue guidelines respecting the

eligibility for payment, and that the minister's determination, his

decision, is final and binding.

Something that comes to

MLAs quite often is the concern about a decision of the ministry's

representative, the long-term-care office, in all of our various

communities and constituencies. As I understand it, the present method

of dealing with any concern and appeal of that decision is that it goes

back to the administrator of the long-term-care office, whose staff has

made the initial decision on behalf of the ministry. If there is a

further inquiry, it goes to the head of the continuing care division.

[ Page 7119 ]

don't think that people have a very clear knowledge of what right they

have to question the decision of the minister. I know — again, in letter form —

the minister has replied to me in my earlier inquiry about this in

preparation for this debate. I would like the minister to perhaps

outline briefly what happens if a senior or a senior's family is not

satisfied with the decision that is taken for the care plan of a person

who is covered under this act. Could the minister please give us a

brief idea of how that would work?

HON. MR. DUECK :

Just to shed a little light on this, as far as the assessment is

concerned, it is the minister or his designate, and it would always be

the assessment people. Just to give you an idea: there were 14,697 new

assessments for benefits under the long-term-care program. Of those,

395 were determined to be not eligible. Then they have an appeals

process, and of these, 44 appeals.... If they're not satisfied with

that, they can go one step further and appeal to a committee.

I think the system is working fairly well when you have that many

assessments and of the 14,000 plus, only 394 were considered not

eligible and then there were only 44 appeals. I think that's a fairly

good record. It can always be improved, but I don't think you can

improve it by much.

MS. A. HAGEN : I thank the minister for that information.

Given the fact that long-term-care nurses work with incredible workloads — the auditor-general says 400 to 800 per nurse; I know in my district it's 400 per nurse — that is a good record, and it speaks highly of that dedicated and incredibly overworked staff.

However,

I am still not clear that people know how to appeal. While I don't want

to question whether the record is good and adequate, I want to know if

there is information available and what information is available and

perhaps have a brief outline of what that appeal procedure is. The

minister mentions 44 appeals, and if they're not satisfied, there is

another step to a committee. What's the committee? So just very

briefly, let us know what processes are available. It should be

information that the community has, just as it has information about

the standards that we were talking about a few minutes ago.

HON. MR. DUECK :

Of course, the process is all in the long-term-care program policy

manual. When the assessments are made, it's explained clearly to the

individuals requesting to be assessed. I think the system is working

very well. I don't think there are too many people out there who are

not aware that they can appeal.

MS. A. HAGEN : That's an important part of the answer: that they are in fact made aware that there is a process available to them.

I wonder if the minister could let me know, for my own information, what the committee is that he spoke about?

HON. MR. DUECK :

It's the assessment appeal committee from within the ministry; it's an

interdisciplinary committee appointed by the executive director of the

continuing care division. So it's from within the ministry; it's not

lay people or a committee made up of outside people.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

MS. A. HAGEN : This is an interesting clause — given some discussions we have had in this House around long-term-care fees —

because this states that, by order-in-council, rates that the operator

may charge the client for continuing care will be set, and that the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may prescribe different rates for

different classes of clients.

There are two ways of reading this. One is that there might be different rates for different classes of clients — namely, those receiving homemakers' services under this act; that's a class different from those receiving care in a facility.

[4:45]

But we might also read this clause as the kind of thing that gives

the minister and the government of the day the opportunity to set

different rates based on needs assessment, means test and user-pay

different from the present system, which in the long-term care facility

has a standard rate for everyone.

My question to the

minister is: does

section 4(1) give the minister the authority to

do what he was proposing to do last year, and that is to have a

differential rate based on an income test? Does it give the minister

the authority to set different rates based on an income test for people

who are resident in long-term-care facilities?

HON. MR. DUECK :

I suppose the minister always has that authority by legislation

otherwise to change what has from time to time happened. It's not the

intent to change. When we talk about cabinet or order-in-council, it is

to establish the daily user charges that an operator is permitted.

There may be different rates for different classes of client. The

example would be two married persons sharing the same room. We made an

exception last year. I have the authority to do so. It was to make it

more equitable.

This arrangement parallels the present

system for setting user fees under the Hospital Insurance Act and the

Mental Health Act. It's really to be in tandem with what is in place

with those two acts.

MS. A. HAGEN : The minister

didn't need

an act, in fact, to move to a different classification of

fees last year. In fact, it was proposed. I think I heard the minister

say that he would have the authority to take

[ Page 7120 ]

that kind of action under this clause. It's not his intent to do so. I want to be sure.

I understand the minister is responding to my question — does this give him the authority to do so? —

with a yes. I think that's what was there. But he's qualifying that by

saying: "It is not our intent to do that." It has the other

interpretation, which is that there are different classifications

within the fees that are presently charged. That's where we intend to

leave it at this time.

HON. MR. DUECK : Yes, that's correct; though in the absence of this, I would still have the authority.

MS. A. HAGEN :

That means he's got it both ways. I don't know whether that leaves

people who are worried about that particular policy and fee-paying

shift feeling any more comfortable. I accept the minister's

interpretation, and it helps to clarify it.

Section 4(2)

says: "An operator shall not charge a client an amount exceeding the

rate prescribed under subsection (1) except in accordance with

directives issued by the minister or as permitted in an agreement...."

Another major issue last year as we were dealing with the increase in

the base rate from 75 percent to 85 percent of a senior's fundamental

income was the question of additional charges for a whole range of

things that were a part of care. I still hear that there are problems

with that, although there have been ministry directives about what may

or may not be charged for by the operator.

Perhaps we could

start with just a quick look at this by the minister outlining the

kinds of directives he might presently have in place that either allows

or disallows an operator from charging anything over the per diem rate

that is presently in effect?

HON. MR. DUECK : The

directives are in place. We have communicated this to the operators. In

most cases, we've been successful, but as you mentioned, there could be

some that are still in contravention. This

section will eliminate that,

because it's intended to eliminate the overcharging by some operators

who attempt to force payments from clients for items that are deemed to

be included, like tissues, bandages and incontinent supplies. This will

give us that authority to make it an offence. It's for the protection

of the client. That's why this

section is in there.

MS. A. HAGEN :

I think that's a good move. I would hope that there is some latitude in

the directives that the minister does issue in respect to