1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st 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)

THURSDAY, APRIL 29, 1976

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1217 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Transportation costs of rural patients. Mr. Cocke — 1218

Grants to school districts. Mr. Gibson — 1218

Vancouver General Hospital strike. Mr. Wallace — 1218

Victoria recycling depot funding. Hon. Mr. Nielsen answers — 1218

Lease to Halfmoon Bay Developments. Hon. Mr. Nielsen answers — 1219

Fingerprinting of juveniles. Mr. Lauk — 1219

Access to welfare application files. Mr. Macdonald — 1219

Board of inquiry into human rights dispute. Mr. King — 1220

Severance pay for Capilano College principal. Mr. Wallace — 1220

Payments to hospitals. Hon. Mr. McClelland answers — 1220

Saving on discontinuance of paid-escort service. Mr. Lea — 1221

Committee of Supply: Department of Finance estimates.

On vote 66.

Mr. Stupich — 1221

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 1221

On vote 68.

Mr. Stupich — 1222

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 1222

Ms. Sanford — 1222

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 1223

Mr. Nicolson — 1223

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 1223

Mr. Lockstead — 1223

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 1224

Ms. Sanford — 1224

On vote 69.

Mr. Lauk — 1224

Mr. Nicolson — 1225

Ms. Brown — 1225

Mr. Cocke — 1225

Mr. Lauk — 1226

Amendment to vote 69.

Mr. Nicolson — 1227

Mr. Cocke — 1228

Division on the amendment — 1228

On vote 69.

Mr. Stupich — 1229

Division on vote 69 — 1229

On vote 70.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 1229

Mr. Stupich — 1229

Mr. Hewitt — 1229

Mr. Wallace — 1230

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 1230

Mr. D'Arcy — 1231

On vote 73.

Mr. Stupich — 1232

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 1232

Mr. Lauk — 1232

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 1232

Mr. King — 1232

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 1233

Committee of Supply: Department of the Attorney-General estimates.

On vote 10.

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1233

Mr. Macdonald — 1234

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1238

Mr. Gibson — 1239

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1242

Statement

Hospital workers dispute. Hon. L.A. Williams — 1245

Mr. King — 1245

Mr. Gibson — 1245

Mr. Wallace — 1245

Committee of Supply: Department of the Attorney-General estimates.

On vote 10.

Mr. Wallace — 1246

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1248

Mr. Macdonald — 1248

Mr. Nicolson — 1249

THURSDAY, APRIL 29, 1976

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, today

in the gallery — and yesterday in the gallery — is an alderman from the

city of Vancouver. I would ask the House to recognize Alderman Helen

Boyce who serves Vancouver well.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today

is a group of students from the Georges P. Vanier Senior Secondary

School at Courtenay, accompanied by their teacher, Delbert Dahl. I

would ask the House to join me in making them welcome.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today

is a group from the B.C. Federation of Agriculture. I would like the

House to make them welcome, please. Also in the gallery, from North

Okanagan, is Bill Hesquith, who is a representative of the John Howard

Society. I would ask the House to make him welcome.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): In the galleries we have,

from Powell River, Mr. and Mrs. Peter Blake and guests from England,

Mr. and Mrs. Johnson. I ask the House to join me in welcome.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery

today are two of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Syd Swift of Coquitlam.

I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I

would like to add my regards to Alderman Boyce, a distinguished former

Liberal candidate, and to welcome as well Lucille Partington of

Granisle.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I

would like the House to give a very warm welcome to the brother of the

former Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr. Lorimer, and his wife. Mr.

Lorimer is an executive of the Point Grey Social Credit Association.

MR. W. DAVIDSON (Delta): Mr. Speaker, in the House today are

five of my constituents. I would ask the House to join in welcoming

today Mr. and Mrs. Hahn and their children, Tony, Jill, Jane and

Jennifer.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Speaker, with us ip the gallery

is Mr. Dan Wack from the school district of Nelson-Creston, School District

No. 7. I wish the members to wish him welcome.

MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Speaker, also attending this afternoon,

about 3 o'clock, will be students from the Delta Junior Secondary

School and their teacher, Mr. Ian McDonald. I would ask the House to

welcome them as well.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, His Honour the Administrator

today signed a writ of election issued by the chief electoral officer

for an election to be held for one seat in the Vancouver East

constituency.

Polling day will be Thursday, June 3, with nomination day Tuesday,

May 5. Closing date for inclusion on the voters list is Friday, May 7,

and an advance poll will be held Thursday, Friday and Saturday, May 27,

28 and 29.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): It's about time.

MR. SPEAKER Before we start on oral questions this afternoon, could

I beg the indulgence of all of the hon. members to refresh all of our memories

on what oral question period is all about and what the replies to oral questions

should contain.

I'd like to quote first of all from Beauchesne , 4th edition:

"In putting a question, a member must confine himself

to the narrowest limits. In making a question observations which might

lead to debate cannot be regarded as coming within the proper limits of

a question.

"The purpose of a question is to obtain information,

and not to supply it to the House." Following that is a long list of

items which have been ruled out of order and will continue to be ruled

out of order as not being proper questions. I don't intend to cover

that this afternoon.

I'd now like to address myself to ministerial replies to questions.

Ministers' replies should not be argumentative, retaliatory or taxing.

They should not be propaganda vehicles, any more than the question

contents are. So I would hope that, particularly when we deal in

question period with questions without notice, there would be no

criticism of a minister who takes a question on notice, and that the

ministers in replying, if it is a long reply, will follow a custom that

I would like to see continued in this House, in asking leave to reply,

so that they do not take up the time of the question period.

It also follows that if there are to be further questions, they

should be deferred to another day in question period, because I do not

intend to take supplementary questions after a question has been

[ Page 1218 ]

replied to by a minister by leave.

I hope that all of the hon. members of the House will cooperate with

the spirit of what I have said. In that way we'll be able to

accommodate as many people as possible during the 15-minute question

period.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, I wish to thank the hon.

Speaker for clarifying the procedure. Just one point of clarification:

Are you recommending to ministers that they reply to questions at

length prior to the daily question period, so that we will have an

opportunity to ask supplementary questions in that daily question

period?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I have made no recommendation in

that respect. I believe that that is to be left to the discretion of

the hon. minister involved.

Oral questions.

TRANSPORTATION

COSTS OF RURAL PATIENTS

MR. D.G. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to

the Minister of Health. In order to create some equity for people in

more remote places, emergency health services have paid for escorting

patients to hospitals or to places where they are sent for care. I'd

like to ask the minister, Mr. Speaker, if he will verify that this

service — payment of escorts — is being cut off effective May 1.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, a supplemental question. I would like to ask the minister what he's going to tell his members from the north.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Bad news, Cyril.

GRANTS TO SCHOOL DISTRICTS

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of

Education with respect to the special grants that the minister

announced on April 20.

Since those grants provide no additional relief whatsoever to, for

example, the school district of North Vancouver, which is represented

in the House by myself and the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, and

to other very high mill-rate school districts such as Surrey, those two

being the highest mill-rate districts in the lower mainland, could the

minister advise the House the basis for the distribution of these

special grants?

HON. MR. McGEER: I'd be pleased to, Mr. Speaker. They are

based on anticipated population increases in the various districts. The

basic education programme does not take into account the possibility

that a given school district will have an increase in population, and

this is looked after by the special grants.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplemental question by the member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplemental, Mr. Speaker, since I'm

informed that districts such as Burnaby, for example, which I believe

received a grant of some $450,000, actually had no increase in student

population either, I wonder if the minister could tell us if he might

give favourable consideration to the request he has received from

district 44 board members to meet with him to discuss this further.

HON. MR. McGEER: I'd be most pleased to, Mr. Speaker.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Speaker, to the hon.

minister, a supplemental: would he then please tell the House on what

basis the special aid funds were given to districts? They were given to

districts, I understand, that did not have an increase in enrolment.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I'll take the question as notice and get more details for the members.

VANCOUVER GENERAL HOSPITAL STRIKE

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I'd like to ask the Minister of

Labour, with regard to the possible strike of employees at the

Vancouver General Hospital, if he can tell the House if he has received

the mediation report and if that report offers realistic hope that

agreement can be reached without a strike.

HON. L A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): I thank the member

for his concern. I wonder if he would permit me to defer my response

until sometime later this afternoon, at which time I'll make a

statement to the House.

MR. WALLACE: Certainly.

VICTORIA RECYCLING DEPOT FUNDING

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to respond to two questions asked of me in recent days — first, to the second

[ Page 1219 ]

member for Victoria (Mr. Barber). Information was

released two days ago — but I just didn't have the opportunity to

direct my answer to him — regarding the regional district recycling

depot. I'm very pleased to advise the member that a grant of $10,000

has gone forward to the regional district for their use.

LEASE TO HALFMOON BAY DEVELOPMENTS

HON. MR. NIELSEN: A question was put forward by the member

for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) regarding Halfmoon Bay Developments at

Porpoise Bay. The member asked if an application approved March 25 of

this year was the same application which was rejected last year upon

the advice of department officials on the recommendation of the village

of Sechelt.

The answer to the question is no, in that the application was not

rejected last year upon anyone's advice, according to department

officials. The village of Sechelt, in written correspondence, did not

recommend against the project. Environment Canada had no objection to

the project. The village of Sechelt offered no objection. The water and

lands quality group offered no objection. The fish and wildlife branch

suggested a more detailed impact study be made. The environmental unit

of the land management branch recommended disallowance on the basis of

adverse environmental impact.

The application was later approved by the land management branch

subject to conditions outlined by the branch. That was March 25 of this

year.

In reply to a further supplementary question by the member for

Mackenzie with reference to the political affiliation of the principal

owner of the resort company, I have no personal knowledge of the owner

or his wife or their political affiliation, nor do I particularly wish

to have any such knowledge, and I feel that it is somewhat of a

disservice to the senior officials of the department to suggest perhaps

this may have been part of their consideration.

AN HON. MEMBER: Part of yours.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The decision was made by department officials. It did not require ministerial discretion or approval.

MR. LAUK: They all do.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The member asked if there's a conflict of interest, and the answer is decidedly no.

FINGERPRINTING OF JUVENILES

MR. LAUK: A question to the Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker. I

am instructed that the Vancouver city police are currently

fingerprinting juveniles without laying charges. In view of the fact

that the former Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald) issued a directive

that juveniles were not to be printed unless charged with a delinquency

equivalent to an indictable offence, and in view of the fact that

adults may not be fingerprinted unless charged with an indictable

offence, has the Attorney-General rescinded the previous directive?

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): No.

MR. LAUK: Supplementary. Has the Attorney-General conducted

an inquiry into such reports of fingerprinting juveniles without laying

charges?

HON. MR. GARDOM: In response to that, Mr. Member, the

authority used to justify the fingerprinting of juveniles is found in

the Identification of Criminals Act, which is a federal statue.

Apparently there is nothing in the juveniles Act that specifically

prohibits such fingerprinting. The policy of the former administration

is being carried out, and this department formally sent a letter, I'm

informed, to all police departments advising that they could

fingerprint juveniles who have committed indictable offences but in

other offences only with the consent of their parents. That policy's

not changed. I am happy to look into the matter which you've referred

to me, which you read in the press this morning, as did I.

MR. LAUK: Further supplemental. Would the Attorney-General

confirm that this letter has been ignored by the Vancouver city police,

and that they continue to fingerprint juveniles without laying charges?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Member, whether it's being ignored or not I couldn't respond to that.

MR. SPEAKER: I believe that's a form of a question that is

completely out of order. It is not within the jurisdiction of the

minister to confirm something on behalf of the Vancouver city police.

ACCESS TO WELFARE APPLICATION FILES

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, to the

Minister of Human Resources: is it or is it not your policy, and will

you give assurance that under your policy recipients of social

assistance would have access to inspect their files upon which

[ Page 1220 ]

that decision as to amount and eligibility is made?

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): I'll take that question as notice and provide the answer.

BOARD OF INQUIRY

INTO HUMAN RIGHTS DISPUTE

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): A question to the

hon. Minister of Labour. I wonder if the minister can tell me whether

one Roy MacKenzie, in a human rights dispute with Echo Bay Mines, had

his case recommended by the human rights branch to the minister's

office for approval of a board of inquiry.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.

MR. KING: A supplementary: can the minister tell me why the delay of some months' time in processing that request from the branch?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Before appointing a board of inquiry I've

asked for another report from the human rights branch, and I expect to

have it at any time.

SEVERANCE PAY FOR

CAPILANO COLLEGE PRINCIPAL

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to

the Minister of Education with regard to the investigation at Capilano

College launched on March 30 into the severance pay of $47,700 for the

principal. In view of the fact that on April 8 the minister stated in

question period that he would table the results of the investigation,

could I ask the minister what appears to be the reason for the delay in

the Department of Education in finding out the basic facts surrounding

severance pay of $41,700 for the Capilano College principal?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the department has asked for a

report from the college. It has not been received yet. I'll nag them

again today and as soon as that report is received I'll table it in the

House, as I've said before.

PAYMENT TO HOSPITALS

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to respond to a

question which was taken as notice April 15 from the hon. member for

Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) referring to payments to hospitals by the

hospital programme branch of my department. It was also raised by the

member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) as well. I ordered an immediate

investigation of the matter and I would have reported earlier except

that I was in Ottawa for the last couple of days.

I'd like to announce at this time, Mr. Speaker, that the payment

referred to was made. It was one of five which occurred as a result of

an error on the part of a senior official in the department who,

without any consultation with his superiors in the department, advanced

funds totalling $4.5 million that should not have been advanced to

hospitals.

Disciplinary action has been taken against the official involved.

The funds have been returned to the department, and I want to assure

the Legislature beyond doubt that this amount will not be charged

against last year's vote. As a matter of fact, the funds are recovered

from the hospitals and have been credited to the 1975-76 vote for

hospital programmes. It was no attempt, in other words, to make any

padding of the expenditures last year.

Perhaps I could explain just briefly, Mr. Speaker, that advances to

hospitals are made twice a month and normal procedure was carried out

in all ways except for this further advance without knowledge of our

department and without any approval from the department.

I apologize if for some reason I was unable to make that answer

before, Mr. Member, but I'm sure you understand. I hope that the answer

suffices.

MR. WALLACE: I very much appreciate the minister's frankness

and I appreciate his absence in Ottawa delayed the response. I'd just

like clarification in regard to the cheque to the Royal Jubilee

Hospital. I inquired again, as recently as yesterday, and was told that

there had been no change or additional information. Could the minister

then clarify his statement that the money's been returned from the

hospitals?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, to the member, your call

just came a few minutes too early. The action was taken shortly after

you made the call to Royal Jubilee, and certainly the administrators at

Royal Jubilee were correct in the answer they gave you at that time.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary. I feel very

sympathetic for the minister, particularly in view of the fact that I

recall very well how they accepted clerical errors with respect to the

former government, but, Mr. Speaker, I would like to know the reason

why a junior bureaucrat would be able to make an annotation of a loan

on that particular money — a loan for 1976-77. That was the annotation.

Interjections.

[ Page 1221 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It wasn't, and I've explained very well

what it was. It was a mistake. The difference between the clerical

errors made by this government and the ones made by the previous

government is that we take some action when that happens.

Mr. Speaker, I have said this was a senior official of the

department. It wasn't a junior bureaucrat. It was his direct

responsibility to handle this kind of payment, and I've said that he

made an error. He has been reprimanded for that severely and, Mr.

Speaker, I think that's the end of the matter. I hope that that

explains it as well as possible.

SAVING ON DISCONTINUANCE

OF PAID-ESCORT SERVICE

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): A question to the Minister of

Health. Now that it's going to become more inequitable to get health

services because of the discontinuance of the paid-escort medical

service, how much money is the government going to save on that

programme of not having medical escorts?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, you're reading into a question

conclusions before you've asked the question. If you want to ask a

question of a minister ask a question, but don't give a hypothetical

answer to the question in asking it, please. (Laughter.)

lnterjections.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

(continued)

On vote 66: taxation administration, $3,991,259.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Chairman, I am going to come

back to the question that I have been asking on some of the other

votes. We were hoping for a 15 per cent cutback in staff, and I think

this is one of the votes that it's rather important there not be any

cutback because of the effect on revenue. I am wondering what is

proposed here. I am curious that of the 238 people provided for in

estimates according to 1975-76...just how many of these are currently

on staff and, if we are considering a cutback in this vote, how many do

we expect will be on staff in the year ahead?

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mr. Chairman, in

answer to the question, in the consumer taxation branch I am advised

that the present numbers on staff are 134.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I am looking at a 15 per cent

cutback in 157 which would bring it down to that same figure of 134.

It's not proposed that there will be any more than the current number

who are on staff right now — no lower, but there will be a paper

cutback. You don't intend to do with any less staff, and I question the

wisdom of that. I wonder if the minister has anything in mind. I am

surprised that the printed figures even show, in the consumer taxation

branch alone, a reduction of two. Now I was under the impression from

the short time I was Minister of Finance that it was important to have

more people in this particular branch and that the additional revenue

would more than make up for the cost of having these people. I question

the wisdom and I wonder if the minister has some plans.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Now, Mr. Chairman, I might say, just by way

of information, that the 15 per cent reduction directed by Treasury

Board does not apply to three departments: the controlling and audit

branch, as we discussed yesterday, the data processing branch and the

revenue auditors. I note also that in the consumer taxation branch the

two audit accountant positions have been transferred to the income

taxation branch. But the existing numbers on staff are 134, which would

represent approximately the 15 per cent reduction from the

establishment numbers.

MR. STUPICH: Well, I did ask about the vote in total,

although I appreciate getting the information by branches. I wonder if

the minister could go on and give us the same information for the

income taxation branch and the real property taxation branch — that is,

how many are currently on staff. You dealt with (

a) consumer taxation;

(

b) is the income taxation; (

c) is the real property taxation. Are they

the same figures?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes, the income taxation branch — on staff

there are at present 52; real property taxation branch, 27; Purchasing

Commission, 89; controlling and audit, 120....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Minister of Finance has the floor.

MR. STUPICH: Yes, but he's moved to a different vote and I can't keep up with him.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Oh, I'm sorry.

MR. STUPICH: Now the other side of the column

[ Page 1222 ]

then, Mr. Chairman, but in the same vote. Under

income taxation we now have 52 people on staff. It is proposed in the

printed estimates that there will be 55. When we apply the 15 per cent

reduction, will there still be 55 in this branch or is this one of the

branches that will be obliged to get along with 52 or something else?

What is the goal with respect to...? I am just hoping, Mr. Chairman,

and I am assuming at this point that the 15 per cent is not just a

magic figure that has been thrown in because it looks good in the

estimates but that there really is some plan in all departments. I

expect the same question will be asked when we come to all departments.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I was only going to explain

with regard to the income taxation branch, which is the next vote, that

the 15 per cent reduction would apply there with the exception of the

auditing staff within that number.

MR. STUPICH: Real property taxation, the same question; we

now have 27 and the estimate is 30. So a 15 per cent reduction would be

down to about 25.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, they have not reached their objective of the reduction. In other words, they are sitting at 27 at the moment.

Vote 66 approved.

Vote 67: Assessment Appeal Board, $100,000 — approved.

On vote 68: government agencies, $4,393,789.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I am going to try two approaches

here: one, to ask my same question. That is, how many of these 354 are

currently on staff, and what is the goal for the total in the estimates

before us now? Then I would like to come to the Nanaimo agency and ask

the same question specifically about the Nanaimo agency.

The question first, then: with respect to vote 68 we are dealing

with a total in last year's estimates of 354, and it's the same figure

for this year; how many people are currently on staff? Of that 354, how

many do you have on working today or yesterday?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, 298.

MR. STUPICH: A 15 per cent reduction of 354 would bring it down to 298. Is it proposed to live with that figure, then?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

MR. STUPICH: Now I realize that this figure may not be

immediately available, but I notice 12 in the estimates for last year

and 12 for this year — in Nanaimo. If you don't know, I can certainly

understand that not being immediately available. But if you do know how

many people are currently employed in the Nanaimo agency, I'd be

interested in finding out.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Member, I do not want to provide the

wrong information, so if you like, I will provide that for you later.

But obviously, if a situation develops where there is a commanding need

for adjustment, we'll have to look at it.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I think that's the point I want to

make with respect to Nanaimo. I was made aware of pressure from two

agencies. I won't deal with the other one right now; I am speaking in

this instance as the MLA for Nanaimo.

There was substantial pressure from Nanaimo to try to get additional

staff to deal with a rapidly expanding workload in that area — it must

be one of the fastest-growing areas in the province. I would urge the

Minister of Finance to have a look at the workload that we do have in

the government agencies around the province. I think these people are

doing an extremely important job in looking after not so much the

problems that other departments have, but in simply dealing with people

in an expeditious manner, in a businesslike manner, and making them

feel that they are being treated properly.

I would urge him to look at this whole question and really consider

whether this vote should be reduced by 15 per cent. I'm just afraid

that over the years the Department of Finance has been one area where

they have asked for a little bit less than they should have had to

conduct their business efficiently, rather than asking for a little

more, as I feel some other departments have done. I think the

Department of Finance has been too low already. I am disturbed, really,

that that 15 per cent formula is applying to Finance as well.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I have the numbers on Nanaimo

here. The present staff is 12 plus one temporary. The member should

keep in mind, Mr. Chairman, that these numbers are not including

temporary staff, which are applicable in many cases.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Chairman, I share somewhat the

same concern as the member for Nanaimo with respect to the workload of

the various people who work in the government agencies. I have three

separate government agencies within my riding, and am always impressed

by the way in which they handle their jobs and feel that they are under

a great deal of pressure all of the time.

In Campbell River, for instance, they are housed in

[ Page 1223 ]

very, very small quarters and have virtually no

room at all for the public to sit down while they are awaiting service

in that particular building. During the time in which they were having

their licences renewed and their insurance paid, at the end of

February, there were line-ups and they had to stand out in the rain

while they were awaiting service. There is room for only one chair in

the service area in Campbell River at the government agent's office.

I have made attempts before to see if we can't get this particular

problem resolved. I was informed last year that plans were going ahead

for the construction of a government agent's office — a provincial

building, which would include two court houses — in Campbell River. But

it is my understanding that the court house and the government building

is not going to be constructed during this next fiscal year. That is

unfortunate. I recognize that comes under the Minister of Public Works,

but in view of the fact that they are so crowded, I wonder if the

minister would consider making available for them some additional

space, because they are that crowded. As I say, I have followed this up

last year.

In the Courtenay office I notice that there is one deputy government

agent 4 who does not appear in this year's estimates. I wonder if you

might have any information on that. That's for the Courtenay office

alone.

I would also like to mention briefly, Mr. Chairman, the situation at

Port Hardy. The government agent at Port Hardy is sharing rented space

with various other governmental departments, and I'm always alarmed at

the amount of money that we pay out in rentals for these various

government agencies and government services. For instance, in Port

Hardy, to house the fish and wildlife, Health, Human Resources,

probation, and government agent, the government is paying $4,176 a year

to pay for the rental there. At the moment they're on a five-year

lease, which totals $250,680 for the five-year period.

Now it seems to me that it's important that we try to construct more

of these buildings throughout the province in order to cut down on the

tremendous rents that are being paid. Both Campbell River and Port

Hardy are anxiously awaiting the construction of a courthouse. Campbell

River is in particularly dire need. Mr. Minister, I'm appealing to you

to at least find some new space for the government agent if the

construction of the courthouse in Campbell River is not going ahead

during this fiscal year.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I would just point out that

although I appreciate the information on the current high rentals in

some areas, as the member is probably aware, these become a charge to

the Department of Public Works. They establish the priorities for

these. I'm quite aware of some of the instances where there have been

appeals made for separation of government agents from the combined

duties of courts and so on, so this is a thing we are looking at.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): I've always been impressed

by the work done by government agents' offices. It's very important to

those of us who represent rural ridings. Certainly the job of an MLA

would be that much more onerous if it weren't for the high-quality

service that I've experienced. I notice no additions to the

establishment and no deletions. My colleague was asking if there was to

be a 15 per cent reduction. However, are you going to keep this up to

complement?

What I would ask more specifically is what the role of the

government agent's office is as concerns offering ICBC insurance,

particularly automotive insurance. Of course, traditionally they sold

licence plates; then, when ICBC came in, people had an option. Because

of the fine work that is done in the Nelson and Creston offices, I

think a great number of people elect to go there for their licence

plates or decals and, of course, for their ICBC insurance. So I would

like to know if this work is to continue — if the agents are to

continue offering ICBC as one of their duties.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, yes, we are continuing the

service of ICBC where requested. As a matter of information, there is a

considerable amount of service provided for ICBC customers through

several government agencies. We intend to continue this.

MR. NICOLSON: You said, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the

minister: "We intend to continue in most places." Is it your intention

in Nelson and in Creston for the government agents' offices to continue

offering this service?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I think so, Mr. Member. We'd have to explore

those individual ones. I'm not aware if those are cases.... I presume

the services are being provided now, are they?

MR. NICOLSON: Yes.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Just a few brief questions to

the Minister of Finance regarding government agents. In my riding, of

course, we have a fine government office in Powell River serving

approximately 30,000 people living in the regional area. It is my

feeling — and I've seen the line-ups — like the member for Comox (Ms.

Sanford) that the government agent in that area is overworked and has

more work.... In other words, he does require more help. I would

appreciate it if the Minister of Finance would look into that

situation, perhaps for that office

[ Page 1224 ]

and offices like it throughout the province.

But we have a more serious problem in my riding, Mr. Minister, and that is in the Sunshine

Coast area which takes in an area from Howe Sound up to Jervis Inlet.

There is a total population at times of up to 20,000 people

approximately, and no government agent. The problem there is that

people have to go to Vancouver for various of the functions that the

government agent normally performs. They usually have to go to

Vancouver to have these functions performed. Now with the possibility

of vastly increased ferry fares, it will become more expensive still.

Certainly in the central coast area of my riding people either have to

go to Vancouver Island; drive up to Williams Lake if they live in the

Bella Coola Valley; journey up to Prince Rupert. In any case it's

several hundred miles in any direction you would care to name.

So I am suggesting to you, Mr. Minister, that you look into the

possibility of having, opening or establishing an office in the Bella

Coola valley where the bulk of the population of the central coast area

lives, which serves the areas of Ocean Falls, which we hope will remain

there for some time to come, as well as the community of Bella Bella

and several smaller communities in that area.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, the member might be interested

in knowing that there have been nine new agencies added during the

year. The present total is 52, as compared to what I would imagine

would have been 43 a year ago. So there have been new agencies added

during the current year, the last year.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I'm interested in following up....

The minister did not indicate what the situation is as far as Courtenay

is concerned with the removal of deputy government agent 4. Does this

mean that they are going to be faced with fewer staff? The same applies

to Campbell River, by the way. Are they expected to carry on the

workload with fewer staff? Is that what it means?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I think, Mr. Chairman, that the change here

just represents the change in classification of what was formerly

deputy government agent. It has been changed in classification under

the Public Service Commission to programme administrator 1. I would

take that to be the same person.

MS. SANFORD: Okay. Thank you.

Vote 68 approved.

On vote 69: interest on public debt, $40 million.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Well, Mr. Chairman, we cannot let vote 69 pass without some comment.

This is described as an interest on public debt, when the opposition

has not only claimed but proven that there was no necessity to loan

money. It is not only claimed but proven that $181 million transferred

to the ICBC, a Crown corporation, was totally and completely

unnecessary, and that it was nothing more or less than a shell game

because in the same day the money was loaned back to government at an

interest rate. Presumably part of the sum in vote 69 provided for

interest will be paid to the insurance corporation for that loan, money

that they never received, money that the government does not have. It's

flim-flam.

Vote 69 represents flim-flam, or, to put it another way, Mr. Chairman, the wages of flim-flam is an interest charge.

I think that it's reprehensible indeed for the Minister of Finance

to bring forward vote 69 after the opposition so effectively proved, or

at least exposed, the hoax. Why doesn't the Minister of Finance

withdraw this vote, admit that their little gamesmanship has failed,

cancel that ridiculous loan and make a direct subsidy to the ICBC

corporation through the gasoline tax? Of course, if he did that, Mr.

Chairman, he might have to encourage the corporation to lower its

insurance premium rates to the people of British Columbia, who are

paying through the nose three and four times the amount they paid last

year. No, he wouldn't want to do that, I suppose, but it would be

honest. It would be straightforward. He would give himself great

stature as the Minister of Finance, forcing his cabinet colleagues to

come clean.

I therefore, Mr. Chairman, reluctantly move the following motion:

Moved by the first member for Vancouver Centre and seconded by the

member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), that vote 69 be amended by

deleting the title "interest on public debt" and substituting therefore

the following sentence: "subsidy for Crown corporations" and, further,

that vote 69 be amended by deleting the sentence beginning "provides

for the payment" and substituting therefore the following sentence:

"provides for the payment of a subsidy to the Insurance Corp. of

British Columbia."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Members, the amendment to the motion reads

that vote 69 be amended by deleting the title "interest on public debt"

and substituting therefore the following sentence: "subsidy for Crown

corporations" and, further, that vote 69 be amended by deleting the

sentence beginning "provides for the payment" and substituting

therefore the following sentence: "provides for the payment of a

subsidy to the

[ Page 1225 ]

Insurance Corp. of B.C."

I would refer the House to Beauchesne ,

4th edition, at page 205 and the subsection (3) which says: "Amendments

proposing in a money resolution to substitute a loan for a subsidy to

change the destination" — and this is the

section I want to draw to

your attention — "to change the destination, purpose and conditions of

a subsidy, attaching a condition to a subsidy, affecting the ends and

provisions of a subsidy must be moved by a minister with the

recommendation of the Crown." So regrettably I must call the amendment

out of order.

MR. LAUK: Before you so harshly cast aside this

well-thought-out and carefully prepared amendment, may I be heard? I

couldn't agree more with Beauchesne . I have never agreed more with Beauchesne .

I would argue, Mr. Chairman, that this is an interest payment that is,

in effect, for all intents and purposes, a subsidy to ICBC. They call

it interest on a loan. I was trying to tidy up their language a bit

because it's really a subsidy to the Insurance Corp. of British

Columbia. Therefore I submit we are not affecting the amount. We are

not affecting the nature, how it's to be paid, or the destination. We

are saying only that the language is incorrect in vote 69. We're

assisting the Minister of Finance, and I'm sure he'll agree to accept

the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Member. We appreciate your

observations. I would suggest that you get the endorsation of the

minister, and it would be in order.

MR. NICOLSON: The expression from Beauchesne

you've just read refers to substituting a loan for a subsidy. This

would in effect be substituting a subsidy for a loan. It's the other

way around, Mr. Chairman. So of course I think when you consider that

you'll see the amendment is in order. We noted that in Beauchesne and,

of course, we realized that had we tried to reduce the amount, change

the amount, so on.... This is a loan and not taxation. So that was

ruled out as an avenue. I would submit upon your rereading the

section

from Beauchesne that we are not substituting a loan for a subsidy, but

this would in effect substitute a subsidy for a loan.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate the hon. member's observations.

However, the remarks that you have made apply only to the first portion

of the amendment, still leaving clearly out of order the entire last

section of the amendment, and we must rule it out of order.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): On your decision not to annul the amendment, Mr. Chairman, I

wonder if I could clarify for you that really what we're involved here

with is cosmetic surgery. In fact, all that we're doing is changing the

wording. We're not changing the spirit, or, as the hon. first member

for Vancouver Centre said, we're certainly not changing the destination.

What we're assisting the Minister of Finance to do, through you, Mr.

Chairman, is to call a subsidy a subsidy, rather than to call it a

loan. There really isn't any substitution. What we are dealing with is

correcting in a cosmetic way some vocabulary, really. That's all it is.

I'm sure that a more in-depth reading of Beauchesne

with the very able assistance which I perceive on either side of you

would cause you to reconsider your decision and recognize that this

amendment is indeed very much in order. I think the Minister of Finance

was about to accept it when you hastily brought down that very harsh

decision of yours.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate your observation as well, Hon.

Member. Nonetheless, the amendment does appear to be clearly out of

order, and there's no way that we can allow a full debate.

MS. BROWN: The minister is going to accept it.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I wish to support your ruling

in this matter and would agree that the amendment is out of order. I

realize the members opposite — and I respect this — are trying to help

me in every way. It's not this kind of help that I really want.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Chairman, I understand what's happening here. However, just to speak to vote 69.

I think, Mr. Chairman, you will acknowledge that something occurred

a little earlier today. You probably weren't too perceptive of what it

might be because at that time you weren't in the chair. Nonetheless,

possibly you heard rumours of what occurred in the House earlier today.

The fact was that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) stood

in his place and admitted that there had been some movement of money

into the hospital system on the basis of a loan which we've been

talking about for some weeks with respect to other departments. We all

saw what occurred around the....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, you will relate this to vote 69?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, this is related to vote 69 in that we are paying interest now on the loan that was borrowed to pay for all this.

[ Page 1226 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am waiting eagerly to hear the relationship.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, that's it. The $40 million is

related directly to what I am talking about in that respect. We talked

about the fact that the loan wasn't necessary that has demanded the $40

million be put in the Minister of Finance's votes. I would suggest that

the Minister of Finance should talk to all his colleagues and find out

how many of them moved and shifted money around in order to place us in

a position where we would have to be paying this kind of an interest

rate.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Yes, that's what we'd like to see in this province

— just a little bit of law and order — certainly not this kind of

hanky-panky where now the people of British Columbia are going to be

paying $40 million of interest on a loan that was not necessary, a loan

that was devised, a loan just like the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr.

Lauk) talked about with respect to the $181 million.

I certainly suggest that some kind of an amendment should have been

accepted. However, it failed, and therefore, Mr. Chairman, I suggest to

you that we are in opposition to this $40 million, regardless.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I regret deeply that the Minister of

Finance did not accept our motion to amend the description of this

subsidy. I therefore....

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you talking about? Why don't you go back to Penticton!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The first member for Vancouver Centre, proceed, please.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the members of the

Social Credit back bench should learn some manners when we are dealing

with these important matters. In committee they constantly interrupt

the opposition members. I think that's very disappointing and they

should be reminded of some of the rules, or at least have pointed out

that....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I agree, Mr. Member. Now please proceed.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I thought you might.

As I say, I'm disappointed the Minister of Finance did not accept

this amendment. He is probably acting without advice from his

colleagues who happen not to be here. And I don't blame them for not

being here, Mr. Chairman, because they're embarrassed.They're embarrassed with vote 69, and they let poor Evan come in alone to face the music. Now that's a sad situation.

MR. COCKE: There's one minister in the House.

MR. LAUK: One minister of the Crown sitting in Committee of Supply; I've never seen anything so embarrassing.

We're trying very hard to support the Minister of Finance in his

legitimate goals, but it seems to me that vote 69 should not have been

left on the book of estimates for voting in Committee of Supply because

we proved there was no need whatsoever to borrow $400 million or

anything like it. We proved that it was just a political game to try

and put blame on the previous administration for deficits that never

occurred.

AN HON. MEMBER: Prove it.

MR. LAUK: They tried everything. They got the Clarkson Gordon

report, they fed them figures from various departments and said: "Come

up with a deficit." And they came up with one. We have yet to know what

the minister's explanation is in that he received an incomplete draft

before the Clarkson Gordon report that was released to the public was

dated. What went on with that report, Mr. Chairman? I'll tell you what

went on: they created a deficit that didn't exist; they issued an NSF

cheque — old Evan, the paperhanger, and rubber-cheque Bill.

MR. G.H. KERSTER: (Coquitlam): Rubber tongue Lauk.

MR. LAUK: They issued an NSF cheque and it bounced all over

the place, but it didn't bounce long. It took less than 24 hours for it

to get back to the government. They wrote a cheque for which there was

no money and they took that sum of money and borrowed it back from the

insurance corporation. This was all done very quickly because you know

the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) spoke, or had the ear of

the president of ICBC, because they're the same person....

AN HON. MEMBER: Your microphone is off.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Can I address the Hansard console? His microphone seems to be off.

MR. LAUK: Thank you very much. I think it was a mistake by Hansard ,

unless there is an insidious plot by the member for Columbia River (Mr.

Chabot) to cut off my mike. He's been angry with me ever since I

pointed out that he buys his suits in Calgary, and not from the

merchants in his riding, to avoid the sales

[ Page 1227 ]

tax which has since risen by 2 points. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are on

section 69.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: You check with Ralph Long about that.

Now, Mr. Chairman, unfortunately the amendment was found to be out

of order, and although I disagree, you are the Chairman, and I am only

a little opposition member.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Is that true your law partner doesn't want you any more?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Let's not distract the hon. member who has the floor.

MR. LAUK: You don't even know who my law partner is. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Yes, that's right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On vote 69, please. Please proceed.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Do you go through the wastepaper baskets over here, or what? (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Hon. Member. Please be serious,

MR. LAUK: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. In all seriousness, the

$40 million in this vote is a high sum, an unnecessary sum in the

estimates. It's purported to be interest charges. We have proven that

there was no money that needed to be borrowed. I therefore move,

seconded by the hon. member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), that

vote 69 be reduced from $40 million to the sum of 40 cents.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I must point out, Mr. Chairman, that the 40 cents is to cover the bank NSF charge that would be applied to the cheque.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment appears to be in order.

On the amendment.

MR. NICOLSON: I couldn't say how unusual it is; I've only

been in one previous legislative assembly to this one, but here we are

debating the estimates of the Minister of Finance, and normally by this

time we might have had a chance to have gone through other estimates.

Now today we got, as the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke)

pointed out, information from the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr.

McClelland) that part of the funds that were advanced and part of the

cash position of the province, a sum of $4.5 million, had it not been

for the work of members in the opposition in the questioning to the

Minister of Health in the question period, which is only 15 minutes

long, it might have been possible that besides finding discrepancies

like this $4.5 million, and besides finding the history of the

rubber-ducky cheque to ICBC back....

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, Pat isn't here and someone's got to keep

her traditions alive here. But the history of that cheque written on

March 30 is that it was not authorized by the Lieutenant-Governor — the

order-in-council covering it wasn't approved until March 31, and

there's no legislation allowing the province to go into debt.

The province was to be debt-free at midnight, March 31, but they

went ahead and without adequate funds in the bank wrote a cheque for

over $181 million. Then we find out that the transactions took place on

the same day, so we have the $4.5 million in the Department of Health,

which had it not been for the vigilance of the opposition, and I give

credit there to the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), not taking any

credit for this myself.... But one can only wonder what we might have

found in the Department of Agriculture. Was there $4.5 million in the

Department of Agriculture that was forwarded improperly in the wrong

fiscal year — something that might have been advanced, or maybe $4,500?

Were payments made in the Department of the Attorney-General, and in

Education?

MR. COCKE: That's $4.5 million that we know about.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, there's $7.5 million that we know about —

and how much that we don't know about? These are the things that have

gone to make up the cash position which would supposedly justify having

to pay $40 million in interest for the first time in British Columbia

in a goodly number of years.

What might have transpired in the Department of Environment? We

would have had questions to ask. So before we've got to the Department

of Finance we could have found more, had we pursued the normal

[ Page 1228 ]

alphabetical order of the estimates book. We can

appreciate that we might not start out with the Premier's estimates; he

is away at a very important conference. But we started with the

Minister of Finance, and there might be good reasons for doing that in

other times.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, may I interrupt you just long

enough to remind you that in debate on an amendment, the material which

you are covering must be more precise and must limit itself to the

amendment itself, which means that you must limit yourself to the

discussion of the reduction.

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, right. Well, of course, the formula for

calculating interest is principal times rate times time. That's the

basic formula. Of course, it becomes modified when you're talking about

amortized interest. I believe that is.... I forget some of the formulas

of figuring out the rate of interest — for instance, given the

principal and an amortized loan of so many years and so on. I could

work it out from basic principles, Mr....

MR. LAUK: The minister wants to write that down. Repeat it for him.

MR. NICOLSON: Yes. Interest equals principal times rate times time.

MR. LAUK: Have you got that, Evan? And no rubber cheques.

MR. NICOLSON: If you're not too good at per cent, then you

just put it over 100, write it down and forget about the per cent sign.

So we have to talk about the principal, Mr. Chairman, if we are going

to talk about the interest. The principal amounts: $7.5 million in the

Department of Education; $4.5 million in the Department of Health; a

$181 million rubber cheque to ICBC. These are some of the principal

amounts upon which the interest of $40 million has been computed. What

will unfold as we go through the other estimates in the book? Really,

to have at least struck gold in two different departments in terms of

the $7.5 million and $4.5 million — or at least a pretty good

substitute for gold; several millions of dollars — just with the

question period to work with, then the mind boggles at what one might

find with the generous time that we have in the estimates.

I must say that based on the percentage of time we've had — if one

extrapolates the amount of time that we will have in the full

estimates, when we get into them, department by department in these

departments in which grants can be made — I would submit that at the

rate that we have made ground in the question period, 15 minutes a day

— those have been very valuable minutes; we have accounted for about

$12 million — I submit that it is possible, although it is very

difficult to make predictions, that we could account for the amount

that has been advanced so far, the loan that was taken out, the

order-in-council. We might account for the $400 million, given a

reasonable amount of time in the estimates. Therefore this amount is

not necessary.

Certainly, on the evidence that has been submitted to date and what

we have seen to date, it is hastily considered, it's sloppy, and your

house is not in order. You are running a disorderly house, Mr.

Minister. You've got to have a bit better checking of signing authority

before authorizing extraordinary expenditures of $4.5 million and $7.5

million. I think that the methods you are using.... Certainly

expenditures in the Department of Housing of that order came to the

then Minister of Housing (Mr. Nicolson). I think that expenditures of

that order just can't be dismissed as a clerical error.

So I support this amendment, and I hope that everyone in this House

will see the wisdom of doing this so that such shenanigans cannot take

place again.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, briefly in support of the amendment,

I had a great deal of difficulty deciding to support the amendment,

because it has attached to it a price tag. I have argued right from the

outset that the original amount that was borrowed was not necessary.

Certainly there are political judgments made around the whole question

of borrowing the funds — the fact that we have included Crown

corporation borrowings, and grants, and grants in lieu of loans, and so

on. I felt that possibly my colleagues had gone too high at 40 cents —

that it should be zero. But I can understand their motivation, and

particularly the argument that that was what was required — that or

possibly slightly more — to pay for the NSF cheque that was made out to

the ICBC. So in that event, Mr. Chairman, and with some reluctance, I

will support the resolution brought forward by the member for Vancouver

Centre.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

NAYS — 27

McCarthy

Gardom

Wolfe

McGeer

Curtis

Calder

Chabot

Bawtree

Fraser

McClelland

Williams

Waterland

Nielsen

Vander Zalm

Davidson

Haddad

Hewitt

Kahl

Kempf

Kerster

Lloyd

Loewen

Mussallem

Veitch

Strongman

Wallace, G.S.

Gibson

[ Page 1229 ]

YEAS — 12

Macdonald

King

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Lea

Nicolson

Lauk

Sanford

Barber

Lockstead

Wallace, B.B.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I can appreciate that the

government would not accept the opposition amendments on this vote, as

reasonable as they might be, but for partisan, political reasons they

have decided to go this route and they're determined to carry on in

this way. But I do think that perhaps the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Wolfe) himself might adjust this. I'd like to invite him to move an

amendment that the government members would vote for.

It's obvious that there is a substantial cushion in this $40 million

figure, Mr. Chairman. The government to date has borrowed not $400

million but $250 million. So if that is the maximum figure, and even if

it is borrowed for the full time, the amount required in this vote will

be something less than $25 million, rather than the $40 million

provided for in vote 69. It's obvious then that in vote 69 there is at

least $15 million more than the amount required to meet the expense

described in this vote. On that basis I'd like to invite the Minister

of Finance to move an amendment.

Vote 69 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

McCarthy

Gardom

Wolfe

McGeer

Curtis

Calder

Chabot

Bawlf

Bawtree

Fraser

McClelland

Williams

Waterland

Nielsen

Vander Zalm

Davidson

Haddad

Hewitt

Kahl

Kempf

Kerster

Lloyd

Loewen

Mussallem

Strongman

Veitch

Wallace, G.S.

NAYS — 13

Macdonald

King

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Lea

Nicolson

Lauk

Sanford

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace, B.B.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

On vote 70: grants, contributions and subsidies, $$5,050,000.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make an

explanation on this particular item. There is a printing error in the

estimates. The members will observe, under vote 70, an error at the top

in the

summary totals. The figure of $34,450,000 should read

$9,450,000. On the right-hand side the

summary total of $80,050,000

should read instead $55,050,000.

This is going to be distributed, along with about five or six other

new sheets which represent printing errors only, either later this

afternoon or tomorrow. The other sheets involve other ministers'

estimates. None of them change the totals — just the make-up of some of

the totals.

I would like to cover one other matter while I am on my feet. In

answer to questions raised by the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), I

have answers to his request for a breakdown of the joint-service

programmes revenue for the coming year and, secondly, the amount of

refunds made to amputees during the previous year. I'd like to send

these over to the member.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the payment of

natural gas producers' federal income tax on deemed income, I believe

one of the things we were waiting for was the regulations that were

being prepared by Ottawa. Have these come forward yet, or are we still

estimating this? I'm not questioning the estimate, I just wonder

whether we do have the regulations from Ottawa yet.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, this is merely an estimate at

this stage. I'm not sure that we have the entire matter resolved to the

exact amount at this stage.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, that's really the point I wanted

to establish, that not only were we unable to do it in the last fiscal

period, but even by April 29 we are still unable to determine this

accurately, and it is still not an account payable as such. It is a

provision, and it should be included at this point, but it so far has

not become an account payable as we are unable to establish the amount.

MR. J.J. HEWITT (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to vote 70 and the one item in the power subsidy which is noted there at $3 million.

Mr. Chairman, I brought this up in the debate on the budget, and I

would like to add to the comments I made at that time. This deals with

the rural electrification assistance programme, and I have here the

1975 B.C. Hydro annual report. It states in a

[ Page 1230 ]

section:

"During the year ended March 31, 1975, the government of

British Columbia continued its annual grant of $3 million to B.C. Hydro to provide

financial assistance for the electrification of rural areas of British Columbia.

As a result of this grant, commitments were made to extend financial help to

179 projects serving 1,004 customers in various areas of the province, such

areas being Inverness Passage near Prince Rupert, the Queen Charlotte Islands,

East Egmont, Sechelt Peninsula."

Mr. Chairman, this is a good programme and it certainly has taken power into

areas that I'm sure have assisted the residents of those areas.

Also, on April 1 in the Agricultural Farmer Institute newsletter, it

has been announced that the rural electrification grants have been

increased and there have been changes to them to, I guess, help offset

the cost to the customer. The first $1,000 of capital cost going into

this rural electrification assistance fund would bear that. The next

$3,000, the rural electrification fund would bear 90 per cent of it and

the customer 10 per cent, and a further $3,000 the same thing. So there

is a maximum now of $9,000 per customer, which the customer would be

assisted in getting the capital expenditures to get power into the

rural areas.

Mr. Chairman, the reason I stand at this time — and I'm sure you're

aware — is because Boundary-Similkameen is served by West Kootenay

Power and West Kootenay Power does not participate in this programme. I

feel that it is important. It is an important programme. I think it

deals with the people, the taxpayers of the province of British

Columbia, and I think West Kootenay Power users should benefit by that

programme to expand electricity into rural areas.

Also, Mr. Chairman, I understand that the federal Public Utilities

refunds 95 per cent of the income taxes paid by investor-owned

utilities to the province, which, as I understand it, means that the

West Kootenay Power's income tax as a utility company would come back

to the province of B.C. and go into general revenue. That being the

case, it would appear that users of West Kootenay Power do have a right

as taxpayers in the province, and users of West Kootenay Power.... And

because of the fact that West Kootenay income tax comes back into the

province under that federal Act, I think it would be worthwhile to

expand the programme, not the dollar figures, but the programme, to

cover West Kootenay Power as well as B.C. Hydro. I would ask the

Minister of Finance, since the Minister of Transport and Communications

(Hon. Mr. Davis) is not here today — he's with the Premier — if he

would take that to cabinet on my behalf and on behalf of my

constituents, to discuss the matter fully.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the information from the member and will be happy to do that.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, since the minister

raised the matter of an error in this vote — the recorded figures — I

intended to raise the matter in another vote. So I don't know whether

it would be in order to pursue his statement now or wait until later.

But I just wondered why the figures, regardless of the correction which

the minister has mentioned, that the figures on the left-hand column in

our estimate book showed that the 1975-76 estimates were $114 million,

and yet the book that we got at this time last year, which projected

the estimates for 1975-76, showed a $53 million estimate. Now I realize

that estimates are just that and that the government spends less or

more as the case may be. But how come the figure on the left-hand

column of our present estimate book is so far removed from the figure

that was published by the Department of Finance a year ago as being the

estimate figure for 1975-76?

Interjection.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I think you should try a new word, Mr. Member. Perhaps terminological inexactitude would be more appropriate.

To the member for Oak Bay, Mr. Chairman, I'm looking at my estimate book on the left-hand side of vote 70.

MR. WALLACE: I beg your pardon. I meant the whole Department of Finance vote.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I could answer that by saying it's been put

on a comparable basis to the current year's accounts. In other words,

there have been adjustments to last year's figures which are for the

purpose of putting it on a comparable basis to the current year's

budget. It's the same in every department.

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether we could

get a little more definite explanation, because surely the word

estimate means just that. The whole purpose of the left-hand column

telling us what last year's estimates were surely is to give us, as the

opposition and each member of the House for that matter, an opportunity

to see by what percentage the coming year's fiscal estimates are.... I

don't see how the figure that we debate as an estimate for 1975-76 can

be any different now. That's the figure that we debated in last year's

budget

[ Page 1231 ]

debate. Am I now to understand that this figure in

the left-hand column of our books in every department is different from

the estimate figure that was put forward a year ago?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I think this is an ongoing

programme to put the various accounts through the comptroller-general's

department onto a more modernized approach of distribution or of

classifications. I can get him the information of where those changes

were made in any department if he wishes.

But it's part of an ongoing programme, part of which was done, I

believe, a year ago and part of it in the current year. If you'd like a

breakdown of the reasons for the differences in last year's individual

figures from a year ago, I can certainly get you that.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, maybe I am not the brightest

person at understanding figures, but this is so basic to what I

understood estimates debate to be, all about — that the right-hand

column this year will be the left-hand column next year. For example,

this year our estimate of $164,764,505. Now am I to, understand that

that figure will be a different figure when it comes up next year? It's

an estimate; it's not what the government plans exactly to spend to the

last dollar. Yet I find that the figure that is before us as having

been last year's estimate wasn't last year's estimate at all, because

the book we had last year said...I am sorry if I am just very slow at

learning. There are a lot of slow learners in B.C., I understand, and I

may be one of them, but I am not really satisfied with the explanation

the minister has given. An estimate is an estimate. If an estimate as

at March 31, 1975, was $53,855,000, how did it become $114 million in

this book we are now using as a comparison for the coming year? It's

very puzzling.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, we will endeavour to get the

member the reasons for the differences. It really only applies where

there has been a change from one department to another, as I understand

it. It's only to put it on a comparable basis. So when you look at the

new estimates for the coming year and you look at what was spent last

year, you're really looking at a true comparison. It's not intended to

distort anything, but there are changes in departments as well because

of the new ministerial appointments and so on.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, could I take one last stab at

understanding this? Does it mean then that there were certain

estimates, for the sake of argument, under Municipal Affairs or

Highways or some other department which, in drawing up this left-hand

column this year, have been transferred to the Department of Finance?

Were they estimates that were somewhere in the total book a year ago

but under a different department and are now included under this

department?

HON. MR. WOLFE . Mr. Chairman, I think the major item that would probably

distort those totals is the salary contingencies figure. In last year's

estimates book, the salary contingency amounts were in individual departments;

in the current year's budget, they are reflected entirely in the Finance

department for all departments. Therefore we have lumped the salary contingency

figure for last year's estimates all in Finance. This is the biggest reason

for the difference.

MR. C. DARCY (Rossland-Trail): Mr. Chairman, I would like to

follow up on the point raised by my colleague from Boundary-Similkameen

(Mr. Hewitt) regarding West Kootenay Power and also make some remarks

regarding the Inland Natural Gas Co., which finds itself in exactly the

same situation of seeing 95 per cent of their federal corporate income

taxes, which are going to 15 per cent this year, rebated to the

provincial government and seeing that money simply lost in general

revenue in the consolidated accounts.

I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this is a rather discriminatory

situation. In the case of West Kootenay Power, it amounts to 8 to 10

per cent of those customers' electric bills every month, were it to be

rebated in the manner of Calgary Power and a number of other companies

in the public utility but privately owned field in Canada. In the case

of Inland Natural Gas it would amount to 4 to 6 per cent per month of

the natural gas bill. I would note that with the increasing costs of

energy to consumers, to industry and to institutions such as hospitals

and so on, this is getting increasingly discriminatory in that this is

a tax which the public in the southern interior — those areas served by

West Kootenay Power and Inland Natural Gas — are paying which residents

of other parts of British Columbia served by British Columbia Hydro are

not paying. I would suggest that this is rather an unfair situation.

I realize that you are probably the fourth Finance minister, through

you, Mr. Chairman, to have had the opportunity of dealing with this

problem, but I would hope that some consideration could be given to

allowing these two companies and possibly the Princeton utility as well

to rebate these tax dollars directly to their customers.

Vote 70 approved.

Vote 71: interest on funds and deposits, $2,503,500 — approved.

Vote 72: incidentals, $768,510 — approved.

[ Page 1232 ]

On vote 73: salary contingencies, $53,320,243.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister could

tell us anything about how we arrived at this figure. I'm certainly

intrigued that it is carried out to eight significant figures. I know

the same thing was done last year, but I don't have to answer for last

year; I'm asking the Minister of Finance this year as to how this can

be calculated so precisely that it is taken to eight significant

figures. I am interested also that it's substantially less than last

year and I thought he might have some comments that he'd like to make

at this time about salary contingencies.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, about all I could say to that

is that this is an estimate of salary contingencies which were included

in the amounts voted for individual departments in the previous fiscal

year and which have been consolidated into the Finance department,

which we've covered earlier.

The amount is necessary to pay for increases already committed under

existing contracts for all British Columbia public service employees,

and it has been covered in the budget address on page 15 on March 26.

At this stage I don't have any other breakdown than that that I

could get the member, but it's an estimate of the committed amounts in

wage contracts in the public service.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the minister has

told us, but I am still intrigued that it can be carried out, since it

is an estimate, right down to the last three dollars when you're

dealing with something in excess of $50 million.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance has indicated

that vote 73, which my colleague the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich)

has pointed out is so accurately calculated and represented in the

estimates....

AN HON. MEMBER: That's the way we do business.

MR. LAUK: Yes, it's the way they do business. He says it

represents a figure on existing commitments in contracts. Is the

Minister of Finance speaking on behalf of the government, or does he

not know that there are contracts that are coming up for negotiation?

If so, what contingency fund is set aside for that purpose? That's the

first question.

Second question. Can he confirm the suggestion that the drastically

reduced amount for salary contingencies is because the government fully

intends to ramrod an agreement through when those negotiations are

taking place, or are about to take place? I'm particularly concerned

about the ferries.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 73 pass?

MR. LAUK: I don't think that this vote should pass without

some comment by the minister. My first point is that it has been

reduced, and I suggest that the reason is that they intend not to

bargain in good faith with the civil servants. That's why it's been

reduced.

Secondly, the exact figure represents only that already committed in

contract negotiations. It reveals the lack of good faith. Can the

minister deny that suggestion?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes, I deny that suggestion. This amount is

an estimate of the amounts required under existing contracts, some of

which have considerable retroactive pay. As we're aware, there has been

considerable escalation in the pay of all public servants over the past

three years. This has been well canvassed, but this is an estimate both

of that and ongoing responsibilities that might arise. I cannot give

you any more than an estimate covering the full amount.

MR. LAUK: Are you against civil servants receiving high pay?

HON. MR. WOLFE: The answer is no.

MR. W. S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): I just wonder

further to the minister's answer on the question of calculations of

contractual obligations which are now in place and those which loom for

the coming year whether or not part of this reduction results from

plans to reduce the ferry staff in a very significant way. Has the

calculated saving or the publicly announced saving that will flow from

the layoff of 450 ferry employees been calculated in providing the

reduced amount for salary contingencies? Can the minister tell me that?

Mr. Chairman, I'm asking a very simple question. I'd like some

response from the minister. This is just one example I'm using. I

wonder if cutbacks in the employment levels of the Ferry Authority and

possibly various other branches of government — perhaps the Highways

department — are being calculated in terms of a reduced amount for

salary contingencies. It would be helpful to gain this information and

I hope the minister can just give me an indication.

Mr. Chairman, I try not to intimidate the Minister of Finance but

every time I rise to ask a question he becomes mute. Gee whiz, we're on

the last vote here. I would hope that he'd maintain his spirit of

cooperation that we've seen the last day anyway and try to give me some

information.

As my colleagues have pointed out, the amount that is budgeted for salary contingencies is a very

[ Page 1233 ]

precise amount. It's rendered down to $3, as the

Member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) says. Now surely there must have been

a fairly precise way of calculating that salary contingency vote. If

that's the case, then it shouldn't be too difficult for the minister to

tell me whether it embodies calculations of reduction in staff of

various government departments, including the ferry authority.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, yes, the figures contemplated

or estimated do cover the anticipated 15 per cent reductions in staff

and were made as accurately as they could be made at the time they were

Made, which now goes back maybe about two months — a month and a half

ago — so one has to keep that in mind. It's an estimate covering the

coming year, covering many imponderables, and it's very difficult to be

too exact on the answer to that question.

MR. KING: One final thing, Mr. Chairman. I hope that the

Minister of Finance, and the government generally, in striking their

policy of a 15 per cent cutback in staff, are conscious of the

contractual obligations that they have with B.C. government employees

so that any cutback is accommodated in complete conformity with the

collective agreements that are in force with the Public Service Labour

Relations Act which governs and prescribes the mechanism for the

cutback of employees. I'm concerned that in the government's attempt to

cut corners and save money at the expense of both services to the

province and employment to citizens of this province there might be a

tendency to ignore the legal obligations on the government in terms of

staffing requirements. Hence, they could subject themselves to high

costs of arbitration and unnecessary litigation that could flow from

that kind of action.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I can only say that measures of

this kind you can be sure are done in a responsible manner. In regard

to the 15 per cent cutbacks or reductions and so on from staff

establishment, these were measures adopted by the previous government

which we have really continued. They were Treasury Board directives

from the previous government.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I'm not aware of any policy statement

until one was announced by the current Minister of Transport and

Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) with respect to the lay-off of ferry

staff in precise terms. Certainly there was, under the previous

administration, a freeze on hiring, but I was completely unaware, and I

disagree with the Minister of Finance that there was any precise policy

to actually lay off from any authority, Crown agency or department of

government, large sums of employees. My point is that any kind of

lay-offs should be done in strict conformity with both the collective

agreement which the government holds with that unit of employees and

also in conformity with both the Public Service Labour Relations Act.

Vote 73 approved.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT

OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

On vote 10: Minister's office, $88,952.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): I think on a lovely

afternoon like this probably the best thing for us would be debating

this very modest little sum of money in this modest little vote in this

modest little department perhaps in the lovely outdoors in the sunshine.

Mr. Chairman, this is a very encompassing department and it embraces

just about everything dealing with the rule of law. It covers no end of

areas of complexity, difficulty and controversy and, I'd say, with

great ongoing demands for immediacy both in initiating and in

responsive action, and again all within the confines of our heritage of

democratic jurisprudence. All of those people who are involved in the

process, they work hard and they work long, and I'd say at the present

time in very unsettled times, but with most dedicated commitments to

the concepts that I've mentioned. Indeed, without such commitments and

without such concepts the only thing that could replace them would be

anarchy and chaos.

The debates within the process are pretty well ongoing. They always

have been, and they always will be. Very divergent views are expressed,

and I think that's a very good thing, but I think they're all dictated

to the hope and expectation for improvement within all areas of the

legal system, because it's the job of that system to provide the

mechanism whereby mankind can live in justice and peace and harmony,

and free from fear or oppression.

Now under our democratic system I think we'll all agree that no one

group of people, no one political party, has a monopoly on justice or

virtue or good ideas, but for human betterment. It is with those kinds

of observations that I'd like to open these estimates.

First, I would like to express myself — and I think, indeed, on

behalf of the House — my thanks to the many so highly dedicated people

who are within the confines of this department, people whose service

has been to support and perform the concepts that I have mentioned for

the good of all British Columbians.

I would like to say, both for myself and for all former occupiers of this chair — every one of whom I

[ Page 1234 ]

know received complete assistance from those people

who are in the department — that I think the occupiers of this chair,

and the former occupiers, are much more aware than those who are not so

closely related to the administration of justice of the devotion for

service and the level of performance that exists within the Department

of the Attorney-General.

I think if I named some people I would be remiss in not mentioning

others. But to accept an accolade on behalf of all, I would certainly

nominate the Deputy Attorney-General, Mr. David Vickers, who I am most

pleased to announce is here and remaining. I would nominate him to

accept, on behalf of the people of the province to those within the

Department of the Attorney-General, these sentiments: thank you; your

efforts are known and we are most appreciative.

[Mr. Bawlf in the chair.]

I am looking forward to the remarks of all members. I will make

notes, indeed, of their suggestions and I shall endeavour to answer

their questions. Where helpful proposals are raised, they will not be

forgotten; they will be considered within the guidelines that are

facing all of us at the present time — dollars and cents, society's

priorities, long-range suitability.

Mr. Chairman, as I said in opening this vote, we are not in

untroubled times. I think we have to have the commitment of everyone in

society to support one thing, and that is to support law and order. I

am sure we will have the support of all members of the House insofar

as....

Interjection.

HON. MR. GARDOM: And justice and equity, that's right.

So, hon. members, I suppose there is going to be very limited debate

in each and every one of these estimates — if we could wrap it up by

about 4:30, the sun will still be shining. But in the event we can't, I

know that the moon tonight will come up and the sun will come up

tomorrow morning as well — so, let her go! (Laughter.)

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Chairman, I want to

compliment — I am glad the Attorney-General did — the people in his

department, and the officers. If Mr. Vickers is taking the accolade on

behalf of all of them, that's fine. But don't forget he is under a

two-year contract.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, no.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, he signed a two-year contract. I couldn't

change the two years, but I always reserved the right to change the

opening start of that two-year period. By virtue of your office you

still have that right. I hope that Mr. Vickers continues in government

because he's making a public service — and I am not saying that

politically at all — to the whole of the people of the province of

B.C., and so are the others whom I see over there.

I don't want to proceed on the basis of a long speech, Mr. Chairman.

I would rather raise a few matters now, and then raise some others a

little later.

Point No. 1: I hope that the Attorney-General will not allow other

ministers of the Crown in his own executive council to poach on him. He

had a poach on what should be a justice function. For example, I pick

up the newspaper and I see here: "Alimony Collection Agency Planned By

Vander Zalm." I'd like to suggest that that is a justice function — it

involves the enforcement of court orders — and that there exists, of

course, the enforcement division of the Vancouver family court,

situated in Vancouver.

I think more has to be done in terms of the enforcement of

collection orders. I know it is a very difficult subject, but I

suggest, Mr. Attorney-General, it is your function; it is not a welfare

or social assistance function. You are administering a court order; you

need the force of law to make the collection when it is in arrears and

the court order is not being obeyed. That means that the person who is

being charged with the arrears has the right to come into court and

make his case, whether that case is based upon need, or upon an

improper order, or an order that needs varying. But it is your

function. I suggest that this planned bill by the Minister of Human

Resources is entrenching in a justice area, and ought to be abandoned.

I rather suspect there is not proper co-ordination over on that side of

the House.

The other place where I am afraid there could be poaching is from

the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) — I don't see him in his

seat. Yet at the same time I am well aware that the question, say, of

impaired driving, which is so serious — I think that of all the cases

in our courts it takes up the largest portion of the time of the

criminal courts of B.C.... Well, possibly the drug thing, now with some

of these long trials, has come up there as a second and possibly passed

it because of the long trials. But I would hope that the

Attorney-General will assure the House that it's his department, not

the Minister of Health. I think you have to work in conjunction with

him — not the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) — but

the initiative, again, remains with the Attorney-General as a justice

function.

I suggest the two ways that can be considered are these. I think you

should expand the impaired drivers training courses. I think, at the

present time in B.C., there may be about nine of them that are

operational, possibly more, and they've had a number of — what'll

[ Page 1235 ]

we call them? — students who've gone through the

impaired driving.... But the record of repeaters — I've not heard that

there are repeaters coming back to those impaired driver training

courses. I can't think, apart from the traditional sanctions against

the drunk driver of the courts, the fines, the payment of the lawyers'

fee, the possible jail if it's a second offence, the suspension of

licence, the acquiring of points by ICBC.... While all of these are

important, there is nothing more effective than to put that culprit,

who has become a menace to himself and a menace to society, in school.

If you want to make the courses longer and tougher as a condition of

probation, do so.

But the loss to the whole community of the province of B.C. — the

taxpayers — well, the whole load, the financial load of this problem of

drinking drivers is staggering in the province of B.C., running into, I

would think, $300 million or $400 million a year when you look at all

the costs and their side effects. So I say it isn't Marc Lalonde in

Ottawa that can take the initiative in this thing in B.C. It's the

Attorney-General of the province of B.C. He should expand those

impaired drivers training courses as rapidly as he possibly can find

the trained people. They started in Salmon Arm on a voluntary basis,

but it's one of the exciting, effective things that can be done.

And the other one I would stress, Mr. Chairman, is public education.

I can still remember some of the ads about impaired driving that were

done on radio.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, you advocated this, and about

Christmastime — I think it's a couple of years ago — I was driving

along in Peterson's car and I would receive these ads over the radio,

because the car was equipped with a radio...

AN HON. MEMBER: Were you reading ads while driving?

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: ...and I just want to tell you they seared the

daylights out of me. Because they said that a lawyer's going to charge

you this much, you're going to go to jail, you're going to lose your

wife, you're going to lose your car, you're going to walk to work, and

the whole.... But it was effective. We've scared this young fellow

already.

AN HON. MEMBER: He lost the car!

MR. MACDONALD: There's nothing wrong with that car. But if you put on the brakes too quickly, there's a bit of a problem there.

I really mean this, that you ought to have the funds available in

the Attorney-General's budget for a very strong educational programme

on drinking driving, including print media as well as radio and

television. I would say that those would be saved dollars as far as the

total obligations of government are concerned, because this thing is

costing us, through the social services and many other ways, and

especially court expense and loss of life, a bundle in the province of

B.C. It is a major problem, perhaps the major problem: alcoholism.

Because drugs is a specialized one affecting a lot of people, but not

as many as the alcohol problem.

I say it's a justice function. You shouldn't let the other ministers

poach, and I think you should work with them. I appreciated the A.G.'s

opening remarks, but let me just add to that that the justice function

today is so closely related with other departments that you're really

providing a kind of a social service. You should carry on with close

co-ordination with Human Resources and Health and Education,

particularly those three, but it involves all of them and you should

maintain a cabinet committee so that justice is not seen as a

fragmented, separated thing from what's happening in the rest of the

community.

That brings me on to just a couple of remarks about the global

budget. It's too small, Mr. Attorney-General. You see here $111

million. It seemed to me that we were going to spend last year,

allowing an overrun.... We couldn't compete in an overrun with some of

the other departments but we did pretty well. We had a pretty good

overrun coming up there because, you know, we did have expanding

demands out there in the community. The money was being well spent, but

there was going to be an overrun, and I think our overrun was going to

be $10 million or $12 million.

Now here you are, almost at the same stage we were at last year, and

I don't think that's enough, and it shows up in areas like legal aid. I

don't think the Legal Aid Society can get from the Legal Services

Commission enough money to make sure that we don't begin to drift back

to the days of cash register justice in the province of B.C. There are

all kinds of people who need the money — are in need of the funds to

pay for ordinary private legal services — who are drifting into the

legal aid offices, and they're going to be rejected. Maybe possession

of narcotics, maybe shoplifting...and so the whole thing is tightening

up. You know — I've already said it — I don't agree at all with Justice

minister Ron Basford when he says that we have equality before the law.

Of course we do in a textbook sense, but in a real sense, of course, we

don't.

Who can put up bail? Who can get a good lawyer? Who can appeal the

case? So we have very unequal justice — we still have, to a very

considerable extent, a law for the rich and a law for the poor in the

province of British Columbia.

[ Page 1236 ]

The legal aid budget of $7.1 million or something for the Legal

Services Commission is not going to enable them to be able to spend

enough money, particularly with the big cases that you have, to prevent

us beginning to drift back. I'm sure the costs have soared throughout

all Canada, but this, again, is an essential social service because

good legal aid can be preventive. Say it's shoplifting, or say it's

impaired driving, and you go through a proper stage of legal advice and

help; you're less likely to be a repeater. There's a preventive element

in having a proper legal resource, knowing your rights, instead of

banging your head into a court situation, getting a conviction or a

fine, walking out and then repeating the experience — and that can

happen very, very easily. So I think it's a social service in the area

of legal aid that should be continued.

I think the most exciting thing you've got going are the community

law offices, although I think that the time has come to.... I regret

that the Minister of Human Resources has quickly prejudged the

community resource board concept. I think he's left five going —

including James Bay, as an example of a very good one — and the rest

are reduced to advisory. I think that decision was taken much too

quickly. I think it was a mistake, because here was community

involvement, here was tying in of the various social services of

government, and legal services should be part of that.

I think out in James Bay in the community resource board you've got

a doctor, nurse, job-finder, marriage counselling and so forth. Legal

help and advice should be tied in under community resource boards;

there's a saving all round.

The Consumer Services offices should not be independent. There's no

use having one, as happens with the federal. I don't want to make a

long speech, but you've got a federal consumer service office, and a

few blocks away you've got a provincial one, then somewhere else you've

got a legal aid office....

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, that's right. So, you know, when you do

have the community resource board concept under good controls, you

bring these services of government under some sort of co-ordination,

and then there's a saving in providing the total service — because

whose problem is a consumer complaint, whose is a legal one and whose

is a social assistance one? It's very often much the same thing, with

many sides to the same problem. But legal aid should have been beefed

up, and we're going to suffer.

I would add to that that there are problems in the court. I hope

that the Attorney-General — and I'm sure he will be — will be

continuing to work on them. Trial tracking and trial scheduling are

very important to make the courts more efficient, fair and expeditious

in their working. But there have also got to be basic legal changes,

and the Attorney-General should be down there in Ottawa asking the

Minister of Justice of Canada to get on with some essential reforms in

the Criminal Code and procedure of Canada before our justice system

swamps over with too many cases taking too much time and costing too

much money,

The two things I can think of at the moment are obviously this

preliminary inquiry in a long drug case — it is ridiculous, if I may

say so. You go through maybe 30 or 40 days of preliminary inquiry and

then you do the whole thing all over again. I realize that in your

position you can't just say: "Well, I'm going to change everything

procedurally by doing everything by direct indictment." You'd be kind

of breaking the spirit of what's in the present law.

But you should be down there telling the Minister of Justice to get

rid of those preliminary inquiries, and make them, in this kind of

conspiracy case, the exception, not the rule — where you provide for

good discovery and exchange of information between Crown and accused.

There should need be no abuse of the rights of the accused person by

eliminating the preliminary inquiry in drug-abuse cases. But those

preliminary inquiries, some of them are costing the taxpayers, through

legal service, oh, I would think up to $100,000 for a preliminary

inquiry alone in a major drug case. What the Crown should do is open up

its files and its evidence on a discovery basis, and make that

available to the accused so there's no abuse. That procedure is just

becoming too costly, technical and cumbersome.

Another thing is the Privacy Act. While there are amendments there

under the laws of evidence, I think that very considerable improvements

can be made. There's this business of having tapes through electronic

surveillance that sometimes run over many days and weeks. Then having

to provide the accused with a transcript of the whole thing — and

possibly it has to be translated into another language — when the Crown

is only going to use this: "Thursday night the 13th you said this...."

That's what's coming up into court. But this idea of typing the whole

thing out is an extremely costly procedure.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, under the present law. But I think there

are changes in the law of evidence that will be fair to the accused and

fair to the community that is conducting the case as well.

On the question of organized crime, I would hope that more would be

done than we have done in the past in terms of getting at, let's call

him, Mr. Big. Although we're not reverting to the past, I think a heck

of a lot has been accomplished through CLEU.

[ Page 1237 ]

You've got a very good policy board, and I hope the

member — you probably know who I'm referring to — will stay on for a

short space of time, too. He might have to resign, and will in time.

It's been a very good policy board, but I think more should be done.

We've had in the province of Quebec the de Oleo case, where the

federal government kind of took it in the chops legally in the Supreme

Court of Canada, and the Quebec government won, and that enabled a

province to proceed along the route of a crime commission.

I've never been too strong in all cases on the right to silence. It

seems to me sometimes when you're in a situation with somebody in the

community — a neighbour or group that have been badly hurt by some

activity — that there are times when you owe an explanation to your

fellow citizens. Yet Mr. Big, of course, hides behind the right to

silence. He says, "prove it beyond a reasonable doubt," and he does far

too many things through underlings, doesn't get his own hands involved.

Or he finances the thing in the background and grows big and rich on

the profits of the drug trade, but to nail him is sometimes very

difficult. The guys with the prostitution rings are in the background,

too, and it's very hard to get them.

What I'm adding up to saying is that I think you have to consider

and receive the advice of your policy board of CLEU as to whether or

not we should not have crime commission hearings, as appropriate, in

the province of B.C. We now have the constitutional authority. We don't

need that federal amendment even, but that would mean that people who

were obviously growing fat — and we almost know who they are from the

pattern of activities — on organized criminal activities would be

required to come forward in a public forum with a lawyer at their side,

but answer questions that the community wants to ask them.

I think that unless we are going to be swamped by the forces of

organized crime to the point where public officials are intimidated or

bribed — that's happened in many parts of North America — and the thing

becomes too big a cancer in society to be rooted out, we should be

prepared with mobility to consider crime commission hearings, providing

you assemble the necessary essential data first. It is no use going

into them blind or just on a speculative basis. So I hope that will

receive serious consideration.

I said I'd raise two or three things and then sit down at the

present time and resume about 9.30 tonight. I've got quite a few things

that I'd like to ask about, but let me ask about the RCMP contract. I

should say something about that, because now we are without a contract.

We have no contract at the present time for the federal contribution to

RCMP provincial and municipal costs for the province of British

Columbia. It expired on March 31 last.

All I can say about that is that I would hope that the Legislature

is unanimous in its opinion that Ottawa should not be allowed to go

around talking about law and order and then demand the necessary

financial resources to the front-end guys — and also gals at the

present time — who are the first to receive the hint of trouble in the

community. They are the front line, and they're developing exciting

preventive techniques to prevent the thing ending up as a court case,

with a prosecution and a jail sentence with all that attendant expense.

They're developing techniques of team policing, where they travel

around with somebody from the probation office or the Human Resources

office, or a student, and they can divert trouble before it happens,

particularly with young people. So this new preventive role of the

police forces in society which is so essential should be encouraged.

Yet at the present time the federal government are pulling back. I

know they are pulling back now in health and human resources too, but

they never did give the 50-cent dollar for justice, which is the front

line. I think it's disgraceful that Ottawa should be making these

speeches about the enforcement of justice all throughout Canada, and

the protection of citizens on the street and elsewhere, and pulling

back on the dollar resource contribution, because without that

contribution municipalities are not going to fill up their complements

to meet community needs. It's as simple as that.

In the provincially patrolled areas, as the member for Comox (Ms.

Sanford) probably could tell us, you've got so many officers patrolling

an immense area, with islands out there, and they are short-handed, and

they are overworked, and they are working overtime. So we do not have

too many officers out in the community; we have too few,

At this point I would like to ask the Attorney-General — he could

just nod his head — if the RCMP request for manpower additions last

fall was met. Has that been met in the current budget? It may be that

with the formula up in the air he can't answer that question. I'm not

sure, but I hope that you meet their request because they have been

minimal in the past and they have to pass through the Ottawa Treasury

Board too. I hope that their requests will be honoured, as we honoured

them, because, as I say, they're pretty minimal.

Now I'm going to close by criticizing the Attorney-General. Who is

the Chairman? Is that in order? Well, if it's out of order, I can't do

it.

The Attorney-General has rent control under his jurisdiction and I

would like to ask why, after this complete report on rents in the

province of British Columbia by Karl Jaffary, who is a household word

in Canada so far as housing and rental costs are concerned....

Interjection.

[ Page 1238 ]

MR. MACDONALD: No, that one we filed. I'm talking about the

Jaffary report. Don't mention that other one. That was years ago. But

the Jaffary report was there and it came in with a recommendation for a

mean ceiling on rents of 8 per cent. Then suddenly — and I hope the

Attorney-General wasn't the only one; I presume it was a cabinet

decision — that was increased to 10.6 per cent.

I would like to know what research or justification there was for

10.6. With one swoop of a cabinet edict, you increased the rental on

accommodation rents for 1976 throughout B.C. — it varies, of course,

from apartment — by about $2.50 or $3 a unit per month. You suddenly

presented the landlords with from $5 million to $7 million in

additional rent in a period of inflation which it didn't seem to me

they were really demanding. They were always mad, but they were no

madder at the time last December than they had been at any other period

of the year that I could see. There was no justification whatsoever for

that rent increase.

This government says they are fighting inflation. Well, they're

fighting inflation as if they were shadow-boxing, because here was a

totally unnecessary rise in the cost of living for the tenants of the

province of B.C., and it flew right in the teeth of the facts that had

been assembled by Jaffary and by the experts in the Department of

Housing. I think that was a giveaway

So I would like to know if there was any justification for that. Was

there a study or any facts of figures, or did somebody just say: "Oh,

10.6 — I read that in the paper somewhere and that must be it."? I

think it was a giveaway and I think it was most unfortunate.

I am finishing on a critical note at the present time, but I am

ready to resume. That will have to be later tonight. But in the

meantime, I would be glad to have answers to things I have brought up.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The member, Mr. Chairman, raised some very,

very interesting propositions and made some very, very good

suggestions. I'll endeavour to deal with some of them, if not all of

them. Vis-a-vis the collection of alimony orders and the processes of

improving our attitudes in society against the drinking driver, I don't

really think this is a situation of one department attempting to poach

upon another; it's a situation of us trying to do a better job as

government through a cooperative effort. I indeed would welcome not

only the Department of Human Resources and the Department of Health,

but I think this is also a matter for the Department of Education

apropos of the remarks that you made concerning drinking and driving.

The social damage, we all know, is enormous. It's a topic that I

have raised in this House ever since I've been elected and I felt that

we have never ever properly addressed ourselves to the problem. The

members who have been here for some time can, perhaps, recall that I

did suggest that the fine was not a useful yardstick insofar as

drinking- driving is concerned. It seems that those within the

governmental process — the administrative side — feel that the best

lever is the lifting of the licence and keeping people off the road.

Well, that in itself is difficult to apply in an equitable situation

constantly. Maybe we should take a form of social agency custody.

I thoroughly agree with the member insofar as advertising the

results that can occasion from drinking-driving. Alberta has a pretty

good programme going on at the present time — Checkstop — and we are

taking a careful look at that. But I don't think it would be remiss to

certainly see that at every liquor outlet — in fact at every gas pump

in this province — we indicate to people what the levels of tolerance

are and also indicate to them exactly what kind of penalties they will

face in the event that they are on the road in an intoxicated state.

It's just like going down the highway with a loaded gun. We all

appreciate that fact.

I am happy to see that the federal government in the amendments to

the code that are now before it has given consideration to additional

measures. It's true that they haven't proclaimed the sections — the

road-stop testing and so forth and so on — but they are working at it.

I would like to make one observation that there is far more public

awareness and, indeed, far more political awareness of improvement in

this particular area, I'd say, in the year 1975-76 than we ever found

up until then. So I'd be optimistic. I think we're going to be moving

in the right direction there.

The hon. member talked about legal aid and I think I'd only be

reiterating the remarks that I made in the House before concerning the

Government of British Columbia's attitude and the federal government's

attitude. The federal government and this government are of the view

that legal aid, under existing priorities and under existing dollars,

cannot be open-ended, and a lot of people who are dispensing this

service and who are involved in it are similarly minded. This is not a

unique position. A lot of people feel that there should not be a

continuous programme of legal aid for people who are repeaters. People

also are feeling that there should not necessarily be legal aid in

certain types of offences. Drinking-driving is one example. Other

people have suggested the narcotics offences, and this is today being

looked at by the federal government when it is considering the

formalities and the finalizing of the legal aid agreements with the

provinces.

Now I cannot give the House or the member any commitment as to whether it's going to take that route

[ Page 1239 ]

or not. But in B.C. I know it appears that we're

not going to be able to have the necessary resources this year. With an

upturn in the economy, let us hope that we can maybe have a different

attitude in the future, but the necessary resources at this time to

say: yes, we shall have total, open-ended criminal legal aid.

If I again in good spirit could perhaps criticize the former

administration, I think there should have been greater emphasis placed

upon civil legal aid than there was on the criminal. Criminal legal aid

is receiving the bulk of the dollars at the present time, as we all

know. The member made reference to the difficulty of court problems and

preliminary inquiries. That's related also to legal aid and the cost of

legal aid, and the position that he's raised is one that we're

considering. I've discussed with him, I believe, in the past and with

other people who were involved in this process that, indeed, the

preliminary inquiry has perhaps become an anachronistic mechanism in

this day and age.

England has gone the other way. My learned friend down there does

not agree with me or with you, Mr. Member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Macdonald), But perhaps it has become an anachronistic mechanism.

England has taken a different route by way of discovery, and perhaps

that might be a better approach rather than have one judge,

particularly in these conspiracy cases, have his courtroom tied up for

the better part of six months or 10 months with a host of lawyers in

front of him doing that which could just as easily be occasioned along

the route of pre-trial discovery. Now the whole pre-trail process is a

matter that is under consideration and will be under consideration when

the provincial Attorneys-General meet together with the Minister of

Justice in British Columbia in June of this year. I can also inform the

hon. member, if he's not aware of the fact, that this is a point that

is being very carefully considered by the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr.

Basford) in Ottawa.

The crime commission: it's a suggestion. It's one we'll look at indeed.

The RCMP contracts — I'd like to say that a concerted effort and

stand is being made by all of the provinces in Canada who are party to

that contract with the federal government. I appreciate the remarks of

the hon. member and all of the items at the present time are under

ongoing negotiation, and there are a multitude of items within that

contract, as the member for Vancouver East is aware.

Now insofar as rent control is concerned, I would like to express

that which has been the stated policy of this government, and that's

this: the government per se does not favour the continuance of rent

control. The government is, however, not prepared to abandon rent

control until such time as there is a sufficiency of accommodation. Now

we're most hopeful that effective means can be taken over the years. I

can't say when this will happen. This depends on economic circumstance.

It depends upon building starts. It depends upon the mobility of people

and the lifestyles of people. But I'm hopeful that over the years, and

certainly during the term of this administration, we will be able to

phase out rent control, perhaps not totally eliminate it, I don't know,

but hopefully phase it out. Because it has been proven, Mr. Member —

and this is perhaps where we

part company, but I don't know why if we

do

part company you'd not look at the evidence — it's been proven

anywhere in the world that rent control has not done the job. It has

compounded the problem, and it's a terribly difficult thing.

I think if you really search your soul, it was an error on the part

of the former administration to ever bring rent control into B.C. I

think that British Columbia would have been able to provide the

necessary accommodation and we would not necessarily have had the need

for it, and perhaps in many cases the raises that eventually came into

effect, would not have come into effect. But it has created an

artificial market, an artificial standard and an artificial level, and

it's a very difficult thing to bring to an end.

MR. MACDONALD: It means a lot of tenants were being exploited.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): I enter this

debate with all the humility that is proper for a layman engaging in

debate with the learned members who have just spoken so far...

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: ...and, Mr. Chairman, I will simply be asking

layman's questions in the hope that the Attorney-General can shed some

light on them.

I might start off with a point of order and ask the Attorney-General

what this document is that's just been distributed to us. Is this a

revision of the...?

Interjections.

HON. MR. GARDOM: These are amendments to the first printing

of the estimates to correct printing errors. Sorry, they just arrived

on my desk too.

MR. GIBSON: I'll start off by echoing the words of both the

minister and the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) in

congratulating and extending my regards to the deputy minister of this

department who, I believe, has done a first-rate job in his term there.

I hope he will be with us for a long time to come.

During question period the other day I asked the

[ Page 1240 ]

Attorney-General if he could investigate the ways

and means by which — and the rentalsman is investigating this, which is

why I bring it up under his estimates — the ways and means in which

some developers are avoiding the requirement that any strata conversion

of rental units should be approved by the municipality concerned. The

way in which this is being done, Mr. Chairman, is that so-called

cooperative style of ownership wherein would-be owners are asked to buy

shares in a building corporation. As a result of the purchase of those

shares, they obtain the right to live in one of the units. It is, in

effect, the purchase of everything that you get with a strata title

except that you don't have a certain equity in a particular room in the

structure. Nevertheless, you have a right to live in a particular room

and it's just a way of getting around that strata conversion permission.

As I say, I asked the Attorney-General the other day to investigate

this. I'd be grateful if he could give us his conclusions because, in

my opinion, this is a loophole which ought to be plugged. The apartment

situation in British Columbia is where the real shortage lies, and

those conversions should not be allowed under any guise or pretext

without municipal approval, as is provided by the law.

Next I would ask the Attorney-General if he could give us some kind

of an overview of the provincial prison system, and particularly the

situation at Wilkinson Road jail. The Attorney-General will recall that

on February 20, I think it was, he called publicly for such a review of

the provincial prison situation after the hostage-taking incident at

Wilkinson Road and some of the public descriptions at that time of the

deplorable facilities there. The Attorney-General will recall as well

that in August, 1974, the then Premier (Mr. Barrett) promised that that

particular institution would be closed within a year. It's been going

on and on and on. I would be grateful for a status report on that.

The first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) mentioned

alimony enforcement provisions and mentioned in particular having

regard to interdepartmental jurisdiction. I would like to bring them up

in the sense of what is being done to put some teeth in these statutes

to provide for interprovincial enforcement. I know that there has long

been discussion between the various provinces and the federal

government to end the deplorable situation where persons subject to

maintenance judgments can, in effect, avoid those judgments with no

trouble whatsoever simply by changing their province of residence. It's

been a situation which has been very unfair to many families for many

years, I wonder if the Attorney-General could tell us what developments

he sees on that scene.

With respect to cost-sharing negotiations with the federal government concerning

the services of the RCMP, I think I'm correct in saying that the percentage

paid by the federal government was, until some years ago, 60 per cent. It was

then reduced to 50 per cent, and I think that the federal government has come

to the province and proposed something a good deal less than 50 per cent.

MR. MACDONALD: For the provincial force.

MR. GIBSON: For the provincial force, that's right — for the provincial force, not the municipal.

I would like to go on record as saying that I would support the

government in taking the line which I assume they will, that there

should be no reduction in that percentage of federal cost-sharing.

Generally speaking, I'm against British Columbia being in cost-sharing

programmes, because I think we would be better off to opt out of most

of them, but this is a special case. This is one of those rare cases

where British Columbia gets back somewhat of its due because we are the

largest province participating in this programme — Ontario and Quebec

do not participate. Therefore this is one of the ways of getting back

some of that enormous volume of tax money that we send to Ottawa.

MR. MACDONALD: They make the law and the government has to enforce it.

MR. GIBSON: The first member for Vancouver East makes a very

salient point, as he always does, that the government in Ottawa makes

the law — in terms of the Criminal Code, that is — and then the

provinces have to enforce it. It is only proper that the federal

treasury should bear a goodly proportion