1990 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JUNE 25, 1990

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

10537 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Guide Animal Act (Bill 47). Hon. Mr. Jacobsen

Introduction and first reading –– 10537

Family and Child Service Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 45).

Hon. Mr. Jacobsen

Introduction and first reading –– 10538

Ministerial Statement

Meech Lake accord. Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 10538

Mr. Rose

Oral Questions

Sovereignty-association. Mr. Gabelmann –– 10540

Aboriginal self-government. Mr. Gabelmann –– 10541

Private Post-Secondary Education Act (Bill 24). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Strachan)

Mr. Blencoe –– 10542

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 10543

Engineers Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 27). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Strachan)

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 10544

Mr. D'Arcy –– 10544

Mr. Jones –– 10544

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 10544

Accountants (Certified General) Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 42).

Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Strachan)

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 10545

Mr. Jones –– 10545

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 10545

Science and Technology Fund Act (Bill 18). , Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Strachan)

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 10545

Mr. Clark –– 10546

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 10547

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Attorney-General estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Smith)

On vote 12: minister's office –– 10548

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Clark

Mr. Peterson

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Ms. Smallwood

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. CLARK :

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege today of introducing to the House Mr.

Balram Jakhar, who was the Speaker of the Lok Sabha — the Indian parliament — for over ten years. He's here visiting Victoria today. I'd ask all members to give him a warm welcome.

Accompanying

Mr. Jakhar in the gallery today is his party: Mr. Surinder Gill, Mr.

Paul Brar, Mr. Bhinder Mandi and Mr. Khushpal Singh Gill. I'd ask the

House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. FRASER : Mr.

Speaker, on behalf of the government I would also like to welcome Mr.

Jakhar and to bring back some recollections of a very nice meeting the

Speaker and I had with him some years ago in the grand riding of

Vancouver South. From this side of the House, welcome.

MRS. McCARTHY : Mr. Speaker, today in the House we have representatives

from the Canadian Jewish Congress who are visiting both the Social Credit caucus

and the NDP caucus. I would like the House to give a warm welcome to the following:

Mr. Erwin Nest, executive director; Dr. Michael Elterman, chairman; Marvin Stark,

vice-chairman; Dr. Bernardo Berdichewsky, chairman of the ethnoculture subcommittee;

Mrs. Ronnie Tessler, secretary; Irvine E. Epstein, past vice-president of the

Canadian Jewish Congress; Dr. Robert Krell, vice-president of the Canadian Jewish

Congress; and Herb Silber, vice-president, Pacific region, of the political liaison

committee of the Canadian Jewish Congress. I'm sure all members of the House

would want to give them a warm welcome. We look forward to our deliberations

with them.

MR. BARNES :

Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to join me in welcoming some very

special guests who are in the galleries this afternoon. From Los

Angeles is Anne Boullon, my mother. From Portland, Oregon, are: Ethel

Williams, my sister; Anita Williams, my niece; Sheila Williams, another

niece; Delbert Williams, a nephew; Elneta Woods, a girlfriend of my

nephew; Jamecia Jackson, one of my great-nieces. Also here is my wife

Janet Barnes. Would the House please make them welcome.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : As Premier and on behalf of the other member

for Richmond (Mr. Loenen), it's my pleasure to introduce to the House approximately

25 grade 10 students and a few adults from Hugh Boyd Junior Secondary School

in sunny Richmond. I would ask the House to join me in extending a warm welcome

to this very fine group who are visiting our beautiful capital city today.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

I was delighted today to have lunch with and to host two visitors to

our gallery: Mr. Stephen Daub, vice-president of M.T. Associates and

Mr. Jonathan Stewart, senior portfolio manager of M.T. Associates. This

is one of the firms which are investment advisers to the province of

British Columbia. Would the House please join me in welcoming them.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

Here today is a group of Young Socreds from the Tri-Cities Club, which

includes the ridings of New Westminster, Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain,

Coquitlam-Maillardville and Port Coquitlam: Ken Frost, Lisa Rainbird,

Tony Oljacka, Trenton Poy, Richard Merritt, Howard Dahl, Jeff Moss and

others. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

Yesterday

on the grounds of the 100-year-old South Cowichan Lawn Tennis Club, an

event of particular interest to the Speaker of this assembly took place — the

annual contest between the press gallery and the Legislative Assembly

for the coveted Speaker's trophy. You will be pleased to hear that the

Legislative Assembly tennis team acquitted themselves on the lawn

courts with honour, and the trophy which carries your name remains

firmly in the possession of the Legislative Assembly. Since the contest

of last year, which I think I can state in all candor amounted to the

humiliation of the press gallery — considerable improvement has

occurred in this enthusiastic team, and only an innate sense of

fairness and modesty prevents me from giving you the score in the final

event of yesterday's contest. Finally, for those whose curiosity

transcends their sense of fairness, we have posted the actual scores

for the final event in the Speaker's corridor just outside the chamber.

MR. SPEAKER : I will see the matter is circulated to all members.

MR. RABBITT :

It is with great pleasure today that I welcome an old friend and

colleague on his return to the Social Credit caucus. I would ask the

House to give the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) a warm welcome.

Introduction of Bills

GUIDE ANIMAL ACT

Hon. Mr. Jacobsen presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Guide Animal Act.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

Bill 47 replaces the Blind Persons Rights Act. The bill extends the

legislative protection now enjoyed by people with visual impairment who

use seeing-eye dogs to others who use guide animals for assistance.

This will include people with hearing impairment who use hearing-ear

dogs, people with wheelchairs who use dog assistants and

[ Page 10538 ]

other people with disabilities who may use other animals for assistance.

Bill

47 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

FAMILY AND CHILD SERVICE

AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Hon. Mr. Jacobsen presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill Intituled Family and Child Service Amendment Act, 1990.

HON. MIL JACOBSEN :

Bill 45 addresses recommendations 25 and 26 of the justice Reform

Committee's report of 1989. The bill requires the superintendent of

family and child service to provide parents of an apprehended child

with a copy of the report to court, and particulars, if requested in

writing.

The bill was first tabled in the Legislature as a

White Paper on July 10, 1989, to allow public input. Input received was

positive about the intent, but some concerns were identified. Concerns

included potential delays in hearings and clearly defining particulars.

On the latter point, it was essential to strike a balance between the

parents' right to information and the child's right to protection. Bill

45 provides this balance.

The importance and timeliness of

Bill 76 is underscored by the fact that cases directly related to the

issues addressed in the bill are referenced in the ombudsman's 1989

annual report. Child welfare legislation in other jurisdictions — including Alberta, Saskatchewan and the Yukon — includes provisions for parents to know particulars of their child's apprehension.

The

following are details of the changes made by Bill 45. When a child is

apprehended for neglect or abuse, the superintendent must present a

written report to the court within seven days. Bill 45 would require

the superintendent to provide a copy of that report to the parents

before the report is presented to court. After presentation of the

report to court, the court may fix a date for a hearing to determine if

the child is in need of protection. Bill 45 would allow a parent of the

child to make a written request of the superintendent for particulars.

The superintendent would be required to provide particulars within 14

days. Particulars would....

MR. SPEAKER : Thank you, hon. minister. Your time under standing orders has expired.

Bill

45 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Ministerial Statement

MEECH LAKE ACCORD

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with respect to the situation we now face as

Canadians as a result of last week's events. The Meech Lake accord was

approved by this Legislature two years ago this week with support from

both sides of the House. On the weekend the deadline for the accord ran

out, with the legislatures of Manitoba and Newfoundland not having

decided on their positions. Many things were said about the accord in

the three years since it was signed in Ottawa. Many concerns were

raised from a variety of quite different perspectives.

[2:15]

At the meetings that took place in Ottawa between June 3 and June 9

a great many of those concerns were addressed and an agreement reached

among first ministers as to how they might be resolved.

Neither

Meech Lake nor the agreement of June 9 were perfect solutions, as I

said in the House two weeks ago. The government supported the accord

and worked hard to shape the agreement that was reached on June 9. We

did this because it was our view that the most effective way to ensure

the continued unity and stability of the Canadian federation and at the

same time to allow for progress to be made on the institutional and

economic concerns of great importance to British Columbians and the

west was to complete the Meech Lake round and marshal support in other

provinces for an agenda which had western concerns at the top.

have been witness to some remarkable events in Canada in recent days

and weeks, and today we should be under no illusions, Mr. Speaker: the

situation we face is serious. Whatever the views of British Columbians

on the merits of Meech Lake or the value of the agreement of June 9 or

the process by which those agreements were reached, I know I can say

without contradiction that all British Columbians are strong Canadians.

We love Canada. We want Canada to stay united, and we want Canadians to

work together to make a better, stronger country for our children and

for their children. Despite the outcome of the discussions on Meech

Lake, and despite the sometimes destructive tone of the debate that has

taken place in recent months in all parts of our land, that love

remains strong. Whatever the difficulties we may have to go through in

the coming days and months, that dedication to building a stronger,

better place for our children and grandchildren remains.

Right

now I believe most British Columbians would agree that we need to set

aside our differences over constitutional matters for just a while, to

allow for time to think, to reflect and to heal the wounds that exist

today. There are economic, environmental and social problems to

address, and we must get down to work on them. These issues are of

daily concern to the people we represent here in this House, and they

are of concern to Canadians from

[ Page

10539 ]

Newfoundland to Vancouver Island, from Baffin Island to southern Ontario.

The

people who have done us the honour of selecting us to serve them expect

us to keep our eye on the ball. They expect us to focus clearly on the

issues that matter to them and to their children. They expect us to

work with them in solving the problems we all face as British

Columbians and as Canadians. They deserve nothing less from us, and

they will get nothing less.

We all have our frustrations

with some people and some circumstances or events. We have already seen

fingers pointed in blame and in anger over the situation we must now

face. I see no use in finger pointing, Mr. Speaker, and I have no

patience for it. We are still all Canadians, and the things we share in

common far outweigh in importance the things over which we may be

divided from time to time.

We are among the most fortunate

and blessed people on earth to live in this land, to share in its

treasures and to benefit from the boundless opportunities it offers. In

the coming months and years we must, as British Columbians and as

Canadians, consider what lessons we should take from our recent

experience.

There's a saying to the effect that the only

constant we can count on in modern times is change. We must consider

what changes we will want to make to the way we govern ourselves in

order to best reflect the values we share together, while allowing room

for the diverse characteristics, aspirations and goals which

distinguish us as parts of Canada and which enrich us all as Canadians

together.

This Canada of ours has undergone many changes

since we came together 123 years ago. That is as it should be and must

be. We must change to respond to change all around us, and we will have

to change some more to reflect the changes we see in the world around

us today. This is not a reason for concern; it is to be welcomed.

The

world around us is changing as never before. Dramatic political changes

are occurring in eastern and western Europe. The changes brought to our

workplaces and our homes by technology are shrinking the world and

providing us with unprecedented challenges and opportunities. The need

to safeguard our very planet from environmental threats requires us to

focus our minds and concert our efforts in new ways.

Canadians we have gone through difficult and challenging times before.

We have not only survived them, we have been strengthened by them. We

are the envy of the world for the wonderful and enduring

accomplishments we have achieved together. There is every reason to

believe that in the future, we will continue to respond to the

challenges we face with the same determination, imagination and

generosity of spirit that has marked our history together.

While we cannot foresee in detail the precise shape of things to come, we do

know that the Canada of ten years from now must differ from the Canada of today.

In this regard, it is my firm intention to work hard to create a Canada in which

the institutional and economic framework has changed so as to better and more

effectively reflect the needs and the interests of the west.

Mr.

Speaker, from time to time there are differences in view across this

aisle as to the best course to follow on particular issues. I believe I

can speak for all members, however, in saying that we stand together

today and we'll stand together tomorrow and in the days to come in our

determination to help us through this period of uncertainty and

confusion.

British Columbians are strong Canadians and will remain so. British Columbia is not giving up on Canada —

quite the opposite. This government, this House and all British

Columbians will rededicate themselves to playing an active and

constructive role in shaping the changes we need and will have to face

in the future.

It should be recognized also that Quebec

will begin bilateral negotiations with respect to jurisdiction and

responsibility. We too should be prepared to similarly approach Ottawa

on issues where such negotiations may be of benefit to British

Columbians.

I am confident that our love of Canada, our

appreciation of what we have here and what we cart do in the world will

lead us to redouble our efforts to meet these challenges and to take

advantage of these opportunities to reassure Canadians and those

millions of others in the world who look to Canada as a beacon of hope

and inspiration.

We as a country and as a people are

strengthened by our diversity, and treasure all the more the history,

culture and geography we are blessed enough in Canada to share in

common. As British Columbians and Canadians, we know that it is by

acting together that we can pursue and realize our common goals and

dreams.

MR. ROSE : We on this side of the House have

never felt that constitutional development was a highly partisan issue.

We would have preferred, however, to have had an opportunity to view

the Premier's statement somewhat in advance of when we were given

notice of it at 1:45 p.m. I think it would have made our responses

perhaps a little bit more complete and perhaps even a little bit more

literary. However, that might be questionable.

I would like

to say, Mr. Speaker, that in view of the events of last weekend, today

is hardly a day for jubilation. It's hardly a day, though, of mourning

necessarily, and it's certainly not a day for finger-pointing.

Despite

the efforts by all the Premiers to enhance Canadian unity and to bring

Quebec to the constitutional table, perhaps Meech was doomed from the

beginning. It didn't seem that way three years ago, but subsequent

events indicated that might happen, and we have to ask ourselves: why

has it happened this way? I think it's too simple to say that it was

for one simple reason alone.

I think a lot of people

dislike and distrust the Prime Minister. I'm sorry to say that, but I

think it's true. They objected to his pressure tactics and his

brinkmanship and manipulation of the Premiers that

[ Page 10540 ]

weekend, summarized by his glib "roll of the dice" statement the following Monday.

Others

objected to the process in which the constitutional future of our

people was decided behind closed doors by 11 men, regardless of how

objective they were and able to keep the nation intact. Anyway, these

views were imposed on 26 million citizens without any real input from

the people to be affected. We all know that now; perhaps we didn't all

know that then.

are still smarting about the French-only sign law, and feel that Quebec

always gets too much and didn't give an inch. On the other hand, Quebec

signed a deal three years ago — a national deal, a federal deal — and

the nationalists in that province wouldn't tolerate any further

Bourassa compromises. The minimal deal, therefore, was what Mr.

Bourassa had to stand upon.

When you add the worries about

women, the questionable supremacy of Quebec's distinct-society clause

over the Charter of Rights, native people, who sense they're being

ignored once again, disappointment by the triple-E Senate reformers,

and millions of others in the multicultural community who were dejected

by the failure of Manitoba's Filmon's proposed Canada clause, it's a

wonder that two weeks ago Meech squeaked by with the grudging approval

it got during the Premiers' meeting.

Mr. Speaker, as I

sense it, the mood is more one of sorrow than of anger or even

vengeance. That has been expressed by the principal players. No threats

have emanated from or been expressed by Premier Bourassa. He has to

consider his position. He's been reasoned and moderate, despite his

obvious disappointment. I think we have to be extremely careful — all of us — because

one careless word from him or others on St-Jean-Baptiste Day could

ignite the tinderbox of emotions and, because of nationalistic

sentiments, cause riots In the streets of Montreal and Quebec City.

Let's hope that doesn't happen.

I think — and I agree with the Premier on this point —

that it's time for calm and reasoned reassessment of a flawed Meech

process, which has excluded major groups in Canada and led to the

failure of Meech. After a breather — perhaps a prolonged one —

it will be time to try again, I think, for Canada, the envy of the rest

of the world. Canada is too great a place to give up on. Whatever

happens, Canada will never be the same again. There's no doubt in my

mind that our future Canada will be one of greater regional, economic

and cultural autonomy for the west and for the Atlantic provinces, and

will be a far less centralized nation than we presently enjoy at the

moment.

In conclusion, other countries have gone through

excessive strains and stresses. The U.S. had a civil war; they were

divided, yet they survived. Revolutions and civil wars are not the

Canadian way, Mr. Speaker, Meech or no Meech. Its failure is evident,

but I would like to leave by saying that the failure of Meech is not a

requiem for the country. But it may be a requiem for the Prime

Minister, and it's certainly a requiem for the process.

[2:30]

Oral Questions

SOVEREIGNTY-ASSOCIATION

MR. GABELMANN :

I want to address a question or two to the Premier on the same topic,

if I may, just briefly. I want to be careful in my questioning, to

choose words carefully and to try as far as possible to offer these

questions in a non-partisan way. We have gone through a very difficult

and traumatic weekend in the history of this country, and we all need

to be careful.

Today in the House and earlier, in

particular on May 29, the Premier's comments have been moderate,

measured and appropriate. On May 29 he said: "Right now, we need

courage, political will and, above all, nation-builders." I must ask

the Premier how he squares those comments and today's ministerial

statement with his comments in the interview with various members of

the media on the weekend in Richmond.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, I said in my statement today — and I heard it from the opposition House Leader, and I think we can all agree — that

we do face a different Canada. As a matter of fact, negotiations may

already be taking place between Quebec and Ottawa on a reassignment of

jurisdictions and responsibilities. It may be that these negotiations

will go on quietly.

In the final analysis, I would expect that we will see — as some people would call it —

sovereignty-association. Quite frankly, I don't really know what the

term "sovereignty-association" means, in that it has different meanings

depending on whom you speak to or where the question is asked. But I

would guess that in the view of Quebec it means assuming more

responsibilities over some of those things that they believe will be of

a particular benefit culturally and economically.

I would suggest — and hopefully the opposition may be of a similar mind — that

if, for example, Quebec decides to quietly negotiate an immigration

agreement whereby they'll have greater input, this could be of benefit

to us as well. We know, for example, that there are particular skills

we need in our province that may not be needed in Ontario, let alone

within 25 or 50 miles of Ottawa. Therefore, we could, by having much

more input, serve the people of the province more effectively.

Likewise,

if there is some agreement reached between Quebec and Ottawa about

federal spending in an area of provincial jurisdiction, I think we

should be ready to see what the meaning of this is, and whether British

Columbians might not be better served with a similar agreement. When it

comes to an agreement whereby Quebec as a province is able to take

greater economic initiatives to benefit their

[ Page

10541 ]

particular region or province especially, we might want similar things.

will be recommending to government that we consider seeking as much

expert advice as possible from constitutional people in the province to

see what the options are and to try, in some respects, to second-guess

what Quebec could or might be doing, so that we could be similarly

prepared. We might be somewhat proactive as opposed to reactive.

I think we should also develop a process — which has been lacking, and we all agree on that — by

which we could seek more timely and effective public input into that

whole process, so that when there is an attempt to negotiate a

bilateral agreement, we will know that this is what the people will

support, and that it will be of benefit to them and will be seen as

such. I think that's really what we're talking about here. I think

that's timely, rational and a benefit not just to British Columbians

but to Canada.

MR. GABELMANN : Incidentally, Quebec

has operated under the Cullen-Couture immigration agreement since 1979,

and B.C. is one of only three provinces in this country without an

immigration agreement — for the Premier's information.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier of Quebec has been careful and measured, and he has not — as far as I'm aware — used

the term "sovereignty-association" in these last few days to describe

what he may be thinking about or imagining. He has been very concerned

about impact on investment, very concerned about future negotiations

and very concerned about the possible future of this country, and he

has chosen not to use inflammatory words of that kind. Why has the

Premier chosen to do that?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I think the member for North Island is assuming that I've used that term.

MR. D'ARCY : They've reported it.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I think we'll forgive the member for Rossland-Trail for his naivety.

But certainly the question has been posed as a result of the article,

and frankly....

MR. SIHOTA : You just said it.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

And I'll say again, as I said in those interviews which took place just

before I entered the House, that I don't, quite frankly, know what

exactly may be meant by sovereignty-association — I use the term again —

particularly since oftentimes things get lost in translation when

expressed in Quebec, as opposed to what might be said about it here or

how it gets reported here. That's fair enough. I don't fault anyone by

that.

In answer to your question, I think it's prudent on the part of the government

of British Columbia to do as much work in advance as possible, realizing and

recognizing, as I think we all do, that there will be changes, many changes,

taking place over the next number of months. That's not bad. As a matter

of fact, it could be that in the final analysis much of what takes place over

the next months or year could be of tremendous benefit to the country if we

come at it rationally and with an open mind.

MR. GABELMANN :

The Premier talks of changes. Clearly that's in the cards. The Premier

talked earlier of process. The Premier talked of bringing in experts to

help with this process. The Premier and I, coincidentally, both came to

Canada as immigrants in 1947. Tens of thousands of our citizens in this

province have lived here for at least 10,000 years; many other citizens

of this province have lived here for generations. Has the Premier

decided on the process of public involvement and public consultation

that will be followed in order to arrive at a genuinely supported

public position in British Columbia on our constitutional and other

arrangements with the rest of this country?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : First, before I answer that question — and as a part of the question, perhaps, as well —

let me reiterate that we on this side of the House stand for one

united, strong Canada. Let me add to this that if bilateral

negotiations about change take place between Canada and Quebec, then we

ought to be there on behalf of B.C.

In the subsequent

agreement that was negotiated between June 3 and June 9, there was the

provision for us to develop nationally a process to allow for

appropriate public input. They didn't spell out in that agreement what

it ought to be, because I think we perhaps need some feedback on that

as well. We will be developing a public process. As a matter of fact, I

would invite the opposition to submit to me, preferably in writing, so

we could have it available for consideration — some ideas on

public process that you think to be most effective. I think we could

both work that out, and I would certainly be open to ideas as to what

process might best serve the people of all parts of this province.

ABORIGINAL SELF-GOVERNMENT

MR. GABELMANN :

Mr. Speaker, Canadians of all persuasions were in awe of the

performance of Elijah Harper this last few days. It was a remarkable

performance on behalf of remarkable people. That performance would not

have been necessary had the '83-87 discussions about entrenching

aboriginal rights in the constitution been successful. The Premier was

one of three Premiers who refused to agree to that entrenchment. Does

the Premier now regret having taken that position back then?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Again, Mr. Speaker, I was not there between '83 and '87, except in the

spring of '87, when we had a first ministers' meeting to deal

specifically with self-government. For those who have a transcript of

the meeting, and for those who taped it or have some other record of

all of the things said at the conference, which lasted several days,

there's one thing that all will recognize: no-

[ Page 10542 ]

where, during the whole of that two days, was there anyone who could give us an explanation of what self-government meant.

MR. CLARK : Sort of like sovereignty-association.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Perhaps. The member for Vancouver East says: "Sort of like

sovereignty-association." It was a suggestion or a name put forth or a

proposal made without an explanation of what it meant, and it meant

different things to different people. We tried to get an explanation of

it. We didn't want to buy something, on behalf of British Columbians,

that we didn't know the meaning of. It meant more to British Columbians

than it did to Prince Edward Island, because after all we do have a

much larger native community in this province.

So I don't

apologize for that. I regret it was such. Perhaps a number of people

might have failed in properly preparing for that conference. But better

we deal with it properly than deal with it in some way and find we made

a mistake or went too far or not far enough. I'm not sorry that it went

the way it did, given the little information available. I'm hopeful,

however, that we can get back to it and be better prepared at that time.

[2:45]

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 24.

PRIVATE POST-SECONDARY

EDUCATION ACT

(continued)

MR. BLENCOE :

When we adjourned on Friday, I was reading into the record my

experiences with a Victoria school of business, CompuCollege. I had

said that, like my colleagues, I was most concerned that basically what

we were doing in this legislation was eliminating the public scrutiny

and monitoring of such private institutions, of which there are 450 in

the province. Indeed, most of these institutions, by inference in their

advertising, show prospective students that they have the seal of

approval of the province of British Columbia. But when it really comes

down to it, the supervision and monitoring of such institutions is

minimal. Yet the expectations and the fees are enormous, and many

students are often shortchanged. In the experience I had through

extensive investigation of CompuCollege in Victoria, I found that to be

quite accurate.

For the record, some of the concerns I

turned up about this institution in Victoria are really symptomatic of

the problems we have with this kind of private institution. Students

complained that they were not told that the Society of Management

Accountants of B.C., the Certified General Accountants' Association of

B.C. and the Institute of Chartered Accountants of B.C. do not

recognize CompuCollege diplomas. Yet business students were given that

impression and pay up to $3,500 for a diploma in such an area.

CompuCollege

claimed: "The courses are recognized programs in accounting, and

graduates will be equipped for a career in accounting." That was a

statement by the person formerly in charge of admissions. In the course

outlines they also noted that "qualified and experienced chartered

accountants will be teaching," and it's quite evident that no such

thing was happening at CompuCollege in Victoria. I have also put on the

record that the admissions department of the Institute of Chartered

Accountants of B.C. evaluated CompuCollege courses and did not

recognize them.

There is a serious situation happening with

this private institution, and I am not convinced.... Indeed, I think

we're going to have a continuation of the same kinds of problems. Under

the legislation we have before us, where a private commission is

basically going to administer these institutions, such things are going

to continue to happen in British Columbia.

I found a number

of other things that were glaring omissions and problems with this

institution. Students found that they were not being well served;

indeed, they were clearly being taken advantage of. Some students, for

instance, told me that they had been granted diplomas without

completing the required courses. The medical secretary course was cited

as an example of such an allegation. Students claim that they were

often left on their own, due to instructor absence or lack of

instructors, and that the school lacked sufficient equipment and

materials to meet course outlines.

I understand that some

of these things have been corrected today, not because the ministry was

doing the investigation but only because I, my staff and a number of

other people took the time to do the investigation. The college does

not provide students with the hours of training instruction promised on

some equipment such as computer terminals. I don't want to go through

any more of what I discovered with this institution, but I want to

table this information for the minister.

A number of things

have been corrected, but a number of things have been left outstanding.

The issue of fees is still outstanding. There still is no published fee

schedule. Allegations continue that fees for many students were

determined by how much they could obtain in student loans from the

province. Many students that they clearly couldn't accept were accepted

into the college without the prior course work to handle college

courses. I could go on and on.

The evidence was there that

we had an institution that wasn't being monitored or supervised. Yet

many students were paying extreme amounts of money for diplomas that

were virtually worthless. As I say, a number of these things have been

corrected. My major concern is that when we have so many private

institutions like this in British Columbia, rather than ensuring public

accountability and scrutiny, we are moving in the opposite direction.

[ Page

10543 ]

It's very much tied into the fact that there's greater pressure on

the public institutions. Many students cannot gain access or get the

courses they want, so they turn to the private colleges. But without

making sure those private colleges are monitored and supervised

properly and that students are getting what they're told they are

getting when they enrol, I think we are doing great disservice to the

young people of the province.

Like my colleagues, I think

this bill is moving in the wrong direction. I think we need greater

accountability by the public sector in this area, and I, like my

colleagues, intend to vote against this legislation.

MR. SPEAKER : Pursuant to standing orders, the House is advised that the minister terminates debate.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

I found it curious through this whole second reading debate that

members continually brought examples of abuses in the private

post-secondary system, yet still say they are going to vote against

this legislation. The reason I find it curious is because if the

members would read this legislation, they would understand it's this

bill that's going to stop those abuses.

The member for

Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr Sihota) discussed at length the Easy Way

Training School. I'd like to briefly go over that example of how things

can go wrong and then deal with the remedies that are in this bill to

stop that from happening again

The Easy Way Training School

was operating briefly as an unregistered private training institution

in Esquimalt. The operator of this institution had never contacted the

private institutions office of this ministry regarding the registration

requirements under the Apprenticeship Act. A few weeks ago our staff

and the private training institutions received word from a registered

private training institution that an institution known as the Easy Way

Training School was operating in Esquimalt. The manager of private

training institutions then communicated with the alleged owner of Easy

Way, who denied operating a private training institution.

a precaution, staff from the ministry sent the alleged owner an

information package on the registration requirements and procedures for

private training institutions. The manager of the private training

institutions also telephoned the licensing branch of the municipality

of Esquimalt, who informed him that no business licence had been

granted the Easy Way Training School to operate as a school. Apparently

the alleged owner of Easy Way Training School had applied for a licence

under the name of City Business Consulting to operate a rsum-writing

service, but the cheque for his licence was found to be NSF. The

private training institutions office received no communication from

dissatisfied students or the Better Business Bureau regarding this

matter.

During the second reading of this bill, opposition members raised this example

to question the efficiency of our legislation, and I want to point out now that

this legislation will stop those and many other abuses.

The

evidence given by the second member for Victoria with respect to

CompuCollege is also interesting. If he reads the bill closely and does

as much investigation with respect to this legislation as he did

supposedly with CompuCollege, he would know that the checks, balances

and controls are clearly in this legislation,

I would like

to point out the essence of this bill and what it really does. This act

is designed to regulate an industry which contributes much to the

education system in British Columbia, and as the member for New

Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) pointed out in her comments, there are some

very good private training institutions in the province. I thank the

member for those comments, because generally the industry has a very

good reputation.

But like any other industry and any other

situation, there are always some apples in the basket that aren't

totally fresh, and it does attract some unscrupulous individuals whose

actions have a deleterious effect on the whole industry. It is equally

unfortunate that the Legislature cannot legislate against breaking the

law, because there will always be corrupt individuals who will find

ways to circumvent the law.

The Private Post-Secondary

Education Act, however, contains many deterrents to would-be

lawbreakers. The executive director may suspend, revoke or refuse to

register an institution which is in breach of the act, the regulations

or a directive of the commission. This means that an institution whose

registration has been refused or revoked could be prevented from

operating in British Columbia.

Secondly, institutions which

contravene critical sections of the act such as the requirement to

register and post a bond are liable to fines of up to $25,000. The

commission may apply to the Supreme Court for an injunction restraining

a person or institution from contravening this act. For example, if an

institution operates or continues to operate without being registered,

then an injunction can be sought.

Section 28 of the new

legislation empowers students who paid money to an unregistered

institution to demand and receive a refund of total fees paid with no

questions asked. These refunds are recoverable as a simple contract

debt.

There is not much more I want to say at this point.

We have had an awful lot of not relevant debate from members opposite

on second reading of this bill. It's clear to me, in all the argument

I've heard over the weeks now on Bill 24, that the members clearly have

not read the bill. Nor do they understand what it says. We can probably

make more of those specific points about the legislation— the strength of the legislation — as we move to the committee stage.

But

let me just summarize, in closing this debate, by saying that under

this new act a greater range of private post-secondary institutions

will be required to register. Each registered institution will post a

bond to protect students against financial failure; thus Alpha College

situations will be avoided. Consumers will receive greater protection

in other ways

[ Page 10544 ]

under

the new legislation. For example, restrictions are placed on

advertising. Regulations are being developed to ensure that potential

students are fully informed about an institution's programs or courses.

And although accreditation may be voluntary for some institutions, for

a significant number of institutions accreditation will be compulsory.

Accreditation

will be required in areas especially vulnerable to the unscrupulous

practices of a few institutions; foreign-language students would be a

good example of that. Reputable institutions in the same area who

desire recognition of their excellence will receive it. Institutions

seeking designation to participate in government program purchasing,

nonrepayable students' assistance and enrolment of visa students will

be required to be accredited. With this new bill our government is

advancing its constitutional responsibilities for post-secondary

education. The checks and balances built into the new system will

ensure that accountability continues for the public.

There's

one more concern that has been expressed by some of the excellent

private institutions in our province. The second member for Langley

(Mr. Peterson) has presented a concern to me with respect to Trinity

Western and how they're going to be accommodated in this legislation.

When we get to committee stage, Mr. Speaker, the member will be

proposing an amendment, which I'm sure we will adopt. It will reflect

the concerns of Trinity Western and other schools that are in the same

category: that is, they are accredited under the Association of

Universities and Colleges of Canada and therefore will be exempt. So I

thank the second member for Langley for his contribution to forming

this bill, and we will be seeing amendments coming to the bill in

committee stage With that said, I move second reading of Bill 24, Mr

Speaker.

Motion approved.

Bill 24, Private

Post-Secondary Education Act, read a second time and referred to a

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

the House after today.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 27, Engineers Amendment Act, 1990.

ENGINEERS AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

In speaking to and in moving second reading of this legislation, I'll

point out to the House that the main purpose of this amendment is to

incorporate geoscientists under the Engineers Act. This amendment has

come forward at the request of the Association of Professional

Engineers and is supported by geoscientists in the province, the

Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and the

superintendent of brokers and the Vancouver Stock Exchange.

[3:00]

The

incorporation of geoscientists in the Engineers Act is critical for the

recognition of a significant professional group of approximately 1 200

geoscientists in the province. They contribute greatly through their

expertise to the economic development of our province.

Membership

in the Association of Professional Engineers is necessary for

geoscientists to gain the professional status required for the signing

of qualifying documents, prospectuses and other documents. This

amendment of the Engineers Act is well supported and appears to be a

logical solution.

Members will note that a number of

miscellaneous housekeeping amendments are included in this legislative

package. We can discuss those housekeeping items when we get into

committee stage, because they are specific to sections and specific to

some housekeeping items of the Engineers Act.

So with that said, Mr. Speaker, I'll move second reading and take my place and listen to whatever response there might be.

MR. D'ARCY :

I would agree with the minister. It essentially is a housekeeping bill

that does indeed incorporate changes that both groups have asked for,

as well as other elements. In many respects it gives the engineers the

ability to take advantage of some of the things the geoscientists could

do, and the geoscientists at the same time are incorporated and receive

some of the abilities to act as engineers.

So we have no objections to the bill and will be supporting it at this time.

MR. JONES :

I just want to second what my colleague from Rossland-Trail has

indicated is our position with respect to the amendment to the

Engineers Act. We have met with the engineers regularly, and this is

one of the amendments that they have long called for.

guess the only criticism they would have, and we would have on their

behalf, is that this process has been a very slow one for this group.

It's been well over a year now that they have been seeking these kinds

of amendments.

It makes sense because no organization in

B.C. licenses these geoscientists, comprised of geologists,

geophysicists and geochemists. Many practise in our province in areas

that are common to geological engineers, so it follows and is

appropriate that they be licensed by the professional engineers'

association.

This happens in other provinces. There would

certainly be no negative impact in the province of British Columbia. To

my knowledge, all the affected groups that would be concerned by this

legislation have been contacted and are supportive of this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I will certainly add our agreement to support this bill and give it speedy passage.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I thank both members of the opposition for their comments. Their points are well taken. I'm sure that if there is any further

[ Page

10545 ]

detailed discussion, we can do it during committee stage. With that said, I'll move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill

27, Engineers Amendment Act, 1990, read a second time and referred to a

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

the House after today.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 42.

ACCOUNTANTS (CERTIFIED GENERAL)

AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Mr. Speaker, the Accountants (Certified General) Amendment Act, 1990,

is essentially a bill that brings the CGAs into practice compliance,

discipline compliance or similarity with the chartered accountants.

They had been seeking these amendments.

The amendments are

specific in detail. They are modern in the sense that they allow for

some modem appeal purposes and the ability to discipline their members.

With that said, I welcome further debate, either in second reading or

in committee stage.

MR. JONES : Mr. Speaker, we also

wish to support this particular amendment act. We understand as well

that this has been a request of the CGAs. Their desire to have greater

powers to establish and enforce professional standards for CGAs is

laudable and commendable. We want to encourage them in that process.

That process will produce a more responsive professional body. As such,

consumers of their services will be better protected. We wholeheartedly

support that.

We have some minor reservations that we could

deal with in committee stage, but in terms of the principle of the bill

and the motives and goals of the certified general accountants, we

support their desire to improve their ability to regulate their

profession.

With that, we add our support to this bill and look forward to some discussion in committee stage on it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Once again I'll thank the member for Burnaby North for his comments and

his input into this debate, as brief as it was both from his point of

view and from mine.

Perhaps before I take my place in second reading, I'll point out that certified

general accountants are a significant group in British Columbia. I think their

membership now is 7,000 people. They practise throughout the length and breadth

of our province They have a very good practice. They function very well in terms

of assisting the community and assisting society in terms of their accounting

practice. I didn't want to take my place at second reading without mentioning

the fact that they are a significant association in our province, bringing us

many good people doing many good things. I'm sure all of us in this House

are pleased to quickly and expediently pass these amendments.

With that said, I'll move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill

42, Accountants (Certified General) Amendment Act, 1990, read a second

time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration

at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 18 in the name of the

Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology, and I will now

begin to speak to it.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FUND ACT

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Members will know that this was a feature of our budget. I can assure

the House that it was met with some considerable enthusiasm by the

science and technology community. It raised the amount of funding from

the provincial government considerably.

I have so many bills here — I'm awash in paper. Well, when you're from Prince George, it's a good sign to have a lot of paper around. We like to see that.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. ROSE : What's that got to do with the bill?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Lots. It's written on paper.

Through

this fund the provincial government is committed to increased spending

of $420 million on science and technology over the next five years.

This is an increase of $300 million over the 1989-90 spending level.

The science and technology fund will consolidate all Ministry of

Advanced Education, Training and Technology science and technology

programs under one umbrella and provide funding for new provincial

science and technology activities. The annual allocation to the fund

will increase by $122.6 million by the fifth year of the fund.

Essentially

the act states that the fund will provide financial assistance for

scientific and technological research and development; promote public

awareness of science and technology; ensure the availability of trained

personnel and facilities that are necessary to provide an

infrastructure conducive to the conduct of scientific and technological

research; provide funding for programs to encourage the growth of

advanced technology in British Columbia; and provide funding for major

projects leading to greater economic diversification and increased

industrial competitiveness in British Columbia.

This fund

has been recognized now as being able to contribute a commitment of $20

million to the centres of excellence; that was a commitment I made last

week at the University of Victoria. That's what the centres of

excellence required for their program, and we were able to commit from

this fund that

[ Page 10546 ]

spending for our three excellent universities and the work they're going to be doing.

I'd

also like to point out one more comment in second reading. I had the

good fortune about three weeks ago to attend in Edmonton the National

Forum of Science and Technology Advisory Councils from across the

province. All of the councils were there, 11 in total, the ten

provinces and of course the National Advisory Board on Science and

Technology. It was a very pleasant position to be in, because all the

scientists and members of advisory committees from across Canada had by

this time heard of our legislation. They were pleased that we had this

money committed and that we were committing to a longterm funding

arrangement, one that just wouldn't die on the next budget but in fact

was a solid commitment from the government, in statute form, that there

would be funding of a specified amount and term. British Columbia's

commitment to science and technology was seen as very positive by

scientists, government officials and administrators from across Canada.

really do see the fund benefiting all British Columbians. We know it

will assist in provincial economic diversification. We know that we can

enhance industrial competitiveness in new technologies in traditional

industries. We know we can assist in the creation of new export

industries. We know that this funding will emphasize technologies that

promote a clean environment and quality of life.

This fund

represents an exciting departure in provincial funding strategies. It

is a recognition of the unique needs of the science and technology

community. The purpose of the bill and the purpose of what we're doing

as a ministry is to establish a framework of principles and processes

by which the fund will be managed and observed. Our aim is to ensure

that the fund will serve the objectives and purposes laid out in the

act and in the British Columbia science and technology policy.

That

is the essence of what I wanted to say during second reading. I know

there will be some response from members opposite, but I do commend

this bill to the Legislative Assembly. It's positive. It certainly

gives the science and technology community a knowledge of where they're

going. They have a clear blueprint of the term and of the funding

that's going to be made available to them.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 18.

MR. CLARK :

This is one of those political bills. Far be it from me to discuss

politics in this chamber; we don't want to have that rear its ugly head

in here. But this is one of those particularly political bills: you

know, those try-to-get-elected bills. We saw special accounts for

different.... Special account for education. We've got that Freedom to

Move account — the highways one.

[3:15]

Interjection.

MR. CLARK :

The Premier says: "What's wrong with freedom to move?" Nothing wrong

with it, but we thought it was meant for commuters. Now we know it's

just Social Credit cabinet ministers who have the freedom to move

around British Columbia. We didn't realize that. We thought the

government was talking about how to commute — the problems of

congestion in communities like Maple Ridge, Mr. Speaker; I know it is a

real problem in your constituency. But we didn't know it was really for

cabinet ministers to commute back and forth.

Now this is a

bill like that bill. This is the Science and Technology Fund Act, which

sets up a separate account. I have several concerns about this. No one

is opposed to science and technology. No one is opposed to research and

development. Everybody knows that we are not doing enough in British

Columbia. In some ways that's a criticism of corporations, and in some

ways it's a criticism of the government. The government comes along

with a separate bill to try to remedy that problem. No one can be

opposed to that. No one can be opposed to more funding for science and

technology — or long-term funding.

However, I'm a bit

concerned about several things. One is the whole question of

accountability in our parliamentary system. This bill says we're going

to dedicate a certain amount of money for this fund and if it's not

spent this year, it can be spent next year. The problem with that,

first of all, is that no government can bind any future government. We

saw under Social Credit previously a huge commitment to reforestation

which was never kept. In fairness, it wasn't kept because we went into

a very deep recession and the government of the day decided to use the

money for other things. That's what governments are elected to do: to

decide where taxes are raised and where money is spent.

is folly to suggest to people that this money necessarily will continue

on year in and year out. If it did continue on year in and year out,

the problem with that, again, is this whole question of accountability

in this chamber. What we do on this side of the House is debate the

spending and priorities of the government on certain issues. If we

debate a certain amount of money this year for science and technology,

and the House agrees on it, then next year we go through that exercise

again. To say that that money can carry forward is really against the

parliamentary tradition. It has to be debated every year in any event.

understand the politics of saying that there is long-term funding. I

understand the politics of having a bill specifically for a science and

technology fund. But it's simply not true to say that this money will

continue over next year if it's not spent, because it still has to come

before the House and it still has to be debated. And so it should; if

that's not the case, then I really have concerns about it. But I'm sure

that if there's money next year that hasn't been spent in this fund and

they want to spend it in the next fiscal year, then that will have to

come before the House for debate. It maybe gives some greater degree of

certainty to those who are concerned about long-term funding — and we support that — but it does not, by

[ Page

10547 ]

its nature, actually give more money to science and

technology next year and the year after. That's a decision to be made

in this House at that time.

The other thing I'm concerned

about is the potential for pork-barrelling, the potential for spending

the money willy-nilly. We've seen in science and technology some

interesting things with Social Credit. We saw Moli Energy. Do you

remember that firm? It might even be in your constituency, Mr. Speaker.

We know they have very good technology, but we also know that the

government of the day, Social Credit, and this administration spent

something like $40 million gambling with public money on that private

venture. It has subsequently failed and been picked up for peanuts by

offshore interests for the technology — there might be something of that yet; I won't be too critical of an interesting and innovative advance.

it the role of government to give that kind of money to the private

sector? Maybe it is, but if we're to give money in science and

technology, we have to be careful. There are lots of exciting high-tech

firms operating today in British Columbia; indeed, there are hundreds

of them. It's very exciting. Yet many of them — the vast majority of them —

do not have any government money, and then one company can pick up $30

or $40 million. Is that the best use of the taxpayers' dollars? It

clearly wasn't in this case, because we've lost it all. That's easy to

say in hindsight, I suppose.

There has to be a process so

that all high-tech companies, all science and technology companies, are

dealt with equally, and so there are some criteria some rational

decision-making. If there is government money to be handed out in this

very risky venture in order to promote diversification, then it should

be done in such a way that everybody can compete equally, not just one

company getting a huge amount of government money.

understand that this bill may in fact have some review process for the

awarding of money, but when you look at it, it says: "the written

authorization of the minister." So the minister of the day has

discretion over millions of dollars to give away to high-tech

companies, and that concerns me. It should concern all members of the

House, in terms of the accountability that we like to see and that

should be in place for the spending of all tax dollars. Never again

should one company, as in the case of Moli Energy, receive that kind of

money without peer review, without good scientific review, without the

processes in place that ensure that that is the best way, the biggest

bang we can get for public money.

I suspect that if you look around the province and see the kinds of exciting

high-tech developments we have, there were other maybe more worthy — or at least

as worthy — ventures which could have tremendous spinoffs for British Columbia.

Take the minister's riding of Prince George. There is clearly the potential

there, especially with the university, to so some exciting things in terms of

forestry technology We have in British Columbia — in Salmon Arm, of all places,

for example — Newnes Machine, which develops the top-quality lumber sorters

in British Columbia — some of the best in the world, right in Salmon Arm. It's

an exciting and excellent unionized company, I might say, Mr. Speaker.

That's the kind of company which, with some research —

even though they do lots of that now.... There may be a case for the

government to look at that company, which clearly is a winner, and

build on that strength, to take Prince George and make it a forestry

technology capital of British Columbia and maybe even of the world, and

to build on the natural strengths we have and to move them in a

high-tech direction.

Clearly that makes a lot of sense. But

rather, in British Columbia, we've seen grants given to some companies

without any apparent strategy. Again, $30 million or $40 million to

Moli Energy for a battery which may or may not have been worth.... It

has failed, so clearly we've lost a lot of money in that venture. But

batteries— is that the area where we should be competing?

Hopefully

we can compete in a range of areas, but clearly we have a comparative

advantage in our natural resource sector. We are importing 50 to 75

percent of our logging and sawmill equipment and 75 percent of our

mining equipment in British Columbia. That's not good enough. If we

want to diversify British Columbia and if we want to build on our

strengths, we should use this kind of money to build on those strengths.

Nothing

prevents that in this bill, and I acknowledge that. But what I would

like to see is a little tighter rein on this government's ability to

dole out that kind of money; rational, thoughtful analysis on where

we're going in British Columbia; and some checks and balances built in

to this legislation so that we can proceed in a rational way to build

up our high technology sector and build in our comparative advantages

in the natural resource sector. That's not really in this bill.

This

bill is a political bill, as I started out saying. It's a bill to try

to show that the government is interested in certain areas— to flag it for electoral purposes. It's open to pork-barrel abuse and that concerns me greatly.

Having

said that, we have no problem supporting the bill because we can see

some exciting possibilities in this sector for British Columbia. If we

had that kind of planning, if we had the peer review and if we had a

strategy for developing British Columbia in this sector, particularly

as it relates to our forest, natural resource or environmental

sector — which is an exciting area of new development in British Columbia — it would be much more useful and we could support it even more strongly than we are today.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Hon. members are advised, pursuant to standing order 42, that the minister closes debate.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I don't share the member's pessimistic view of this legislation or its intent.

[ Page 10548 ]

I'll

admit Moli wasn't the cheeriest note in British Columbia's scientific

history, but I will advise the House that we have in place now a body

that we will be using with respect to this bill, the Premier's Advisory

Council on Science and Technology. That's a blue-ribbon board of

members chaired by Bob Alexander, formerly of Microtel, who is now

doing the major telecommunications for the Commonwealth Games.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I know, but I'm responding. You made your comments so I'm going to respond with mine just to get it on the record.

It's

an excellent body, and we have, by legislation, another body called the

Science Council of British Columbia. So we do peer review. As a matter

of fact, the first item that I mentioned receiving funding was the

British Columbia network of centres of excellence. They were

established by an international body that looked at 14 major

networks — actually, it came out to be 15; one was added a little later — and

centres of excellence throughout Canada. British Columbia did very well

in that review. As a matter of fact, on a per capita basis, we clearly

have the best university system In Canada with respect to that type of

science work that's being done.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

In the free world. On a per capita basis we came up well ahead of

Ontario and any other province in that centres of excellence

international peer review.

I accept what the member is

saying, and I accept his concern. I don't agree with him, but I want to

put on the record that we have established an account, the size and

term of that account, and we clearly want to deliver this in the best

fashion we can and be as open and accountable as we can.

I said in my first comment, the scientists from across Canada that I

met in Edmonton three weeks ago applauded this bill. They said: "This

is exactly what we need in our province." They said British Columbia is

really leading the field in terms of R and D. There's excellent R and D

being done. The second member for Vancouver East pointed out Newnes

Machine in Salmon Arm — a first-class outfit. They used to be in Prince George, as a matter of fact — or they had an operation there — and they still sell a lot of sawmill material in Prince George.

One of the best R and D companies in British Columbia — not too many people realize this — is

MacMillan Bloedel. They do first-class research. Their Parallam product

is an example of the type of research they do. There's a lot of good in

industry, doing some very good R and D. I should point out — you speak of Prince George — that PAPRICAN is in Prince George, and B.C. Chemicals, which is doing some excellent R and D.

AN HON. MEMBER : PAPRICAN?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Yes, they've got four scientists there. I think the only people located

outside of Montreal in that organization are in Prince George.

B.C.

Chemicals at Prince George has developed some very interesting chemical

re-refining processes from the pulping process and are into a

world-class market now with some of the chemicals they can produce.

We're

seeing an awful lot of good science being done. We're seeing good

science being done by the universities, by small researchers and by

large companies. In this bill we want to indicate to Canada and to the

international science community that British Columbia is a province

that strongly supports the industry we have here. We want to see it

grow and flourish, and that is the reason for this bill. With that

said, I move second reading of Bill 18.

Motion approved.

Bill

18, Science and Technology Fund Act, read a second time and referred to

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

the House after today.

[3:30]

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. De Jong in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

On vote 12: minister's office, $267,471 (continued).

MR. SIHOTA :

Mr. Chairman, we get into the debate around the Attorney-General's

ministry and the estimates of that ministry, although I kind of get the

feeling that we're filler. Just the other day we went on for about two

hours, and I take it that today we're going on, and who knows what's

going to happen tomorrow in terms of the ministry.

Where we

left off last time, I guess, events have transpired with respect to the

abortion legislation, although I want to ask some questions later on of

the minister around that legislation.

I just want to start

by asking the minister a general question. Could he tell the House what

conflict-of-interest rules govern employees within his ministry?

HON. MR. SMITH : The rules that govern all civil servants, from government personnel services; there is a big manual of rules.

MR. SIHOTA :

Could the Attorney-General confirm that there is a provision in those

rules that requires those engaged in his ministry to disclose all of

their financial interests? Is that the way it works?

HON. MR. SMITH : If the member wants, I'll get the manual down. I don't think that's required, but I'll get it down.

[ Page

10549 ]

MR. SIHOTA : Does the minister know to what extent, then, if

it's not all? Is there a percentage in terms of, let's say, a

shareholder interest in a corporation? Is there a minimal percentage

that's required?

HON. MR. SMITH : Mr. Chairman, I'll have someone bring the manual down so I can read the specifics out of it to save him time.

MR. SIHOTA :

We'll come back to that line of questioning when the minister has had

an opportunity to acquire the information that he has asked for. I'll

defer to my colleague for Vancouver East.

MR. CLARK :

Maybe we could just talk for a bit about a subject which I guess the

minister knows a lot more about now. I gather he just came back from a

conference on youth gangs. I wonder if the minister could take the

opportunity to brief us a little bit on what transpired at that

conference. As he knows, every year I've raised this question—- I hope sensitively and not in any alarming way —

in the House. I would like to ask maybe a few questions on that, but I

don't want to pre-empt what comments the minister may have.

Perhaps

if he wants a specific question he could give us a sense of whether

there is some move in a national way to coordinate policies with

respect to other attorneys-general, or perhaps I am ill-advised as to

the nature of the minister's recent conference. I was under the

impression that it was on youth gangs or related matters.

HON. MR. SMITH :

Mr. Chairman, I have not been at a conference on youth gangs. You may

be referring to the annual meeting of attorneys-general last week or

the week before in St. Catherines that dealt with the Young Offenders

Act. Canada had been asked at the Charlottetown conference to make

certain changes which we talked about here last year. Canada reported

back on where they were with those legislative changes.

MR. CLARK :

My apologies then. My information was that it was a conference

specifically to deal with youth-related problems. Maybe I made an

incorrect assumption.

Perhaps the minister could give us

some indication.... He knows about the range of initiatives on this

question, which are very important to people particularly in Vancouver

and elsewhere. They cross ministerial boundaries. We have policing

questions which are very important, and I'll quite properly address

those to the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr Fraser). We have problems with

probably the principal problem with respect to the kinds of youth gangs

we're getting in Vancouver. I know that's not in the minister's purview.

However, I know that the minister's purview is the question of prosecution.

Perhaps he could give us a bit of an update on the functioning and effectiveness

of the special prosecutor who I think his predecessor started in order to deal

specifically with youth gangs and youth-related criminal problems in Vancouver.

HON. MR SMITH :

There are a number of initiatives relative to youth gangs and to

criminal gangs generally. There is a crossover, unfortunately, between

youth gangs and organized criminal activity.

First of all, youth gangs themselves are, by definition, organized criminal activity. But I think there's also a crossover — between that and youth gangs — to some of the more traditional notions of organized criminal activity.

can refer you to a number of initiatives that are underway. With regard

to the prosecution process, we have a system of hierarchical

prosecution for young offenders — for youth gang offenders particularly —

which relates to having those prosecutors appointed in a way that they

keep conduct of the matter early on, in some instances at the

investigation stage. Once there is a charge, then they have the matter

through to completion.

So the gang prosecution unit

monitors and undertakes those activities. There are some ten

prosecutors now located throughout the regions of Vancouver, West

Vancouver, Richmond, Sechelt, Squamish, Burnaby and Surrey. They are

trained and familiar with involving themselves in those kinds of cases.

I think they've had a pretty good record of success, if you measure

success to the extent of successfully prosecuting matters that are

brought before the courts.

In addition to that, the CLEU organization — of which we are a participant, at least in the policy end of it — is heavily into issues related to gang activity. We also have a substantial amount of education going on.

number of initiatives, not only interministerially but

interjurisdictionally, involve the Ministries of Education, Social

Services, Solicitor-General and Attorney-General, the Vancouver School

Board, the Vancouver city police, the RCMP and others.

We've

developed a number of programs intended to impart information in the

schools, as well as in the community at large. We've done things as

novel -and I think as useful - as having a summer program of youth

camps for new Canadians, particularly law camps.

I've

attended two of their graduation ceremonies, and I've found them to be

really very useful. The young people who go through those law camps in

that way develop a different perspective. They come from different

backgrounds and even have a different juridical system. They develop a

different perspective. But most importantly, our follow-up has shown

that they tend to become role models inside the schools themselves.

It's nice to know that those going through the law camps have in their

heads some ideas about our system of law in this country and then

become role models in the school, rather than the other way around, as

has sometimes been the case.

Those are the kinds of initiatives that we're doing.

[ Page 10550 ]

MR. CLARK :

All those initiatives, of course, are worthwhile, and I certainly

support the government's efforts in that regard. It's easy for me to

say that it's not enough, and the minister would probably agree with me

that this is a difficult problem.

It seems to me as a

citizen in east Vancouver and with the kinds of calls and the like that

I get, one of the things that would be interesting is the relative

effectiveness. In other words, there seems to be.... Probably a great

deal of blame for this goes to the media, because these crimes tend to

be sensationalized by the press. Nevertheless there's a great deal of

apprehension right now in east Vancouver and in southeast Vancouver in

particular. Much of it is unwarranted, frankly, again overstated by the

press, but nevertheless a serious problem. The minister agrees.

Perhaps he could give us some sense of the incidence of gang-related crime — whether

it's declining over time or rising. One certainly gets the sense that

it's still on the increase in spite of the very good efforts that the

minister alluded to a minute ago. In spite of those efforts, one gets

the sense it's still rising, and therefore the apprehension of the

citizenry in my community and particularly south of my community is

rising as well, which is not a healthy situation, I'm sure, and I know

all members agree. While I know we all agree that more can be done, I

think it heightens the awareness that more needs to be done, given that

sense of tension. That's maybe too strong, but I think there's a

growing concern which leads to all kinds of other potential

problems — racially motivated problems and the like — that I have some real concern about. That's why I try to raise it in the House with other ministers at every opportunity.

think that your ministry has done more than most of the other

ministries, if I can say that, and I don't want to single you out for

treatment. I'll be much more aggressive dealing with some other

ministers who I think haven't done enough. But perhaps you could give

us some statistical information about the incidence — whether it

has declined or is still rising, as it would appear, and any projection

as to how the ministry feels it is handling this question.

HON. MR. SMITH :

I don't know that the statistical information I have at my fingertips

is as useful in answering your question as what you would get from the

police reports through the Solicitor-General, because that tends to

show you how many incidents are taking place. Our stuff shows you what

is into the system and is going on to court.

I should point

out that there is indeed an interministerial committee working on this

issue as well as some of the other things I referred to. While that may

seem interesting, the fact is that the interministerial committee is

working at the minister and deputy level, but most importantly is also

working at the working level on an ongoing basis.

[3:45]

The issue I'm most concerned about is twofold.

First,

there are a lot of resources in the community to bring to bear on the

problem. The question, in my view, is to focus them in a way that they

come to bear on the problem and don't get diffused through all sorts of

activity that relates more to turf than to solving the problem.

The other thing I'm concerned about —

and every chance I can get to do it.... I appreciate what you said

earlier. There is a tendency, in the way some of this stuff is

reported, to categorize people by place of origin. That's not correct,

first of all and most importantly. But also I think it does a certain

amount of damage because it masks the issue that youth gangs are more

pervasive than simply matters relating to immigration or source of

immigration. In fact I know they are, and they are for very complex

social reasons, some relating to all the traditional issues that arise

with people who are new to an area not being able to get into the

mainstream of activity quickly enough and looking to role models who

take advantage of that. Others, quite frankly, have to do with the

increased use of drugs in this society. Where there is an increase in

utilization of illicit drugs, there is also an increase in this being a

transportation and entry point and an increase in the laundering that's

going on in Vancouver. That means that there is also, in my view, an

increase in the adult-organized activity finding it convenient to start

to draw in some of the youth as their underlings. That has a whole

different dimension to it.

But in terms of the convictions,

we have had success, quite frankly, in knocking over a couple of fairly

sizable gang interests. Right now it's kind of at a plateau in terms of

arrests through to conviction and incarceration. I wouldn't want anyone

to draw from that the conclusion that there's a diminution of gang

activity. Neither would I want to be alarmist about it. It is growing

as the population is growing. It is also growing to the extent that

there is more organized and sophisticated criminal activity going on

all across North America, and we're not immune to it.

MR. SIHOTA :

I take it the Attorney-General now has the information with respect to

conflict of interest in his possession. I'm wondering if he could just

tell me, then, what is required of government employees in terms of

disclosure. What are they required to disclose?

HON. MR. SMITH : The conflict of interest guidelines for employees are set out in this document. I'll table it — not

right now because I have to use it; I don't have a second one with me.

The document is "Standards of Conduct" for public service employees.

The last one was published in 1987. With regard to conflicts of

interest, the document says the following:

"The

government recognizes the right of public service employees to be

involved in activities as citizens of the community, but employees must

keep their role as private citizen separate and distinct from their

responsibilities as public service employees and they must avoid

conflict-of-interest situations. Conflicts of interest include

situations: (1) where an

[ Page

10551 ]

employee's private affairs or financial interests are in

conflict with his or her duties, responsibilities and obligations or result

in a public perception that a conflict exists; (2) which could impair" — or appear to impair — "the employee's ability to act in the public

interest; or (3) where an employee's actions would compromise or undermine

the trust which the public places in the public service."

MR. PETERSON :

I'm pleased to take my place in the Attorney-General's debate on his

estimates. I would like to spend a little time talking with the

Attorney-General on the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act and the

success of it. It was

an act that I was very supportive of, because too

often some members of our society tend to shirk their responsibilities,

particularly when it comes to their own children. I've always felt that

if two adults can't reconcile their differences, children shouldn't

suffer at all. The least a parent can do is ensure that the financial

well-being of their children is looked after. Accordingly, I was

extremely pleased to see this government and the Attorney-General bring

in that act and proclaim it.

I'd like to ask the

Attorney-General if he could bring us up to date on the results of that

act. For example, what sort of success story have we had? How many

applications have we had? What has it resulted in? I'd be very

interested in hearing his replies. I think it's most important that as

parents you look after the well-being of your offspring, whether you be

a single parent or whatever. I'd like to hear the minister's comments,

Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR SMITH : The family maintenance

enforcement program has enjoyed much success in the province. It's a

matter we discussed this past weekend at a conference of western

attorneys-general Through the programs of reciprocity that we're

initiating from this jurisdiction, as well as through some of the

administrative procedures that have been developed in other

jurisdictions, we will have the opportunity to expand the ambit of this

program, both for people who move here and for people from here who

move elsewhere and whose families may be split and whose children will

be living in one area or another.

The program began in January 1989. It was up and running, but not quite in

full.... The latest figures I can give you come from June 16, when the program

was monitoring and enforcing 10,306 individual maintenance matters, of which

about 30 percent are on social assistance. The program is in the process of

registering or enrolling some 1,471 further applications. That's as of

June 16 as well. Last year when I stood in this House there were about the opposite:

1,400 or 1,500 enrolled and another 6,000 or 7,000 waiting to be enrolled.

A year later there are over 10,300 enrolled and some 1,400 in the process.

We're getting applications at the rate of about 300 per month. Last year

the program handled just over 100,000 telephone inquiries. It is my expectation

that we'll be collecting, during the next twelve months from where we're

speaking in the House, well in excess of $13 million — I would think even more for

the children and single mothers of this province. Much of it, I might point

out, would not be collected otherwise.

keep track of the complaints, because the complaints that come in are

very important to us, to help us to evaluate and improve the program.

We know we can improve it. We also keep track of the disposition of the

complaints. As of the end of March, for instance, we had 229

complaints, 24 of which were repeats. That would reflect about 2

percent of the filing kits then received. Of those complaints, 127 were

verbal; 102 were written; 62 came through the Attorney-General's office

or by the mail; 28 came through MLAs' offices.

The

complaints range over a number of things, as you might expect.

Enrolment delays accounted for 32 of the complaints; lack of enrolment,

51; lack of communication, 59; inappropriate communication — they didn't like the way they'd been spoken to; inappropriate enforcement, 15 — the

person was complaining about the way the enforcement was taking place;

program error, 16; legislative concerns, one; reciprocal enforcement

matters, or a complaint about another jurisdiction, 11. Of those 229

complaints, 33 were outside the program's mandate. Increasingly that is

a phenomenon that we run into, because the program is a bit of a

lightning-rod for people who have all kinds of concerns about both the

system and their own marital status or their own family status.

sent a letter to all MLAs early this year asking them to provide me

with the written complaints and concerns that people have. I've had

response from three or four MLAs with some complaints that we've been

able to resolve, and some very helpful suggestions that came with them.

I will repeat again, as I have throughout, that if there are specific

concerns, it's important that we get them and get the specifics, and we

will deal with them.

I should also point out that there are

a lot of anecdotal complaints that come up, and it's wonderful

cannon-fodder for a headline or two in the Vancouver Province

or BCTV or whatever one wants to do. It's a nice cheap way to get it.

On each of those occasions in the past year when it came up and we

followed it up, there was an explanation that made the complaint

somewhat redundant. Likewise there are stories of great successes

which, like the anecdotal complaints, are not indicative of the

program. There have been some great successes. People have snapped

$50,000 or $55,000 for people who hadn't had the money for ages. One

success was $50,900, another $28,500. There are all kinds of those

anecdotal success stories which would not be indicative of the

mainstream of the program, which after all is a collection program.

Later

this year we're going to introduce legislation for this House's

consideration that will allow both sides of the story to be presented

when any of that arises, so that in fairness it can be discussed

immediately and openly in public.

[4:00]

[ Page 10552 ]

MR. PETERSON :

I want to thank the Attorney-General very much for his answer. I am

astounded at the numbers that he has given us here this afternoon. It

clearly identifies that there was a real need out there. I'm

exceedingly pleased that this government responded to it. I would also

like at this time to compliment the Attorney-General's staff who are

looking after that program. Being able to bring a program into being

and handle that volume in such a short time shows their dedication. I

would like to go on the record as thanking them very much, Mr.

Chairman. I also thank the Attorney-General once again for his response.

MR. SIHOTA :

We will return to that program a little later in the estimates. We'll

canvass it in detail, and I will certainly want to let the member for

Langley know that and invite him to participate in the debate and offer

his thoughts.

MR. PETERSON : You can count on my being here.

MR. SIHOTA : Good. We can count on him being here.

I'd

like to continue with my line of questions for the Attorney-General. He

has now advised us what the rules are. Could he tell us whether there

is a minimum requirement? Is a civil servant required to disclose a

minimal amount? I know that some jurisdictions say that if you have a 5

percent interest in a particular corporation, you don't have to

disclose it. Are there minimums in the guidelines established for this

ministry?

HON. MR. SMITH : Given the standards of conduct for public service employees — which is for all employees, including this ministry — the answer is no.

MR. SIHOTA :

I see. I take it, then, that full disclosure of any interests is

required. Could the minister tell us what process is in place to allow

for Individuals with possible conflicts of interest to disclose them?

HON. MR. SMITH :

Generally the policy throughout government is that the onus rests with

the employee. They disclose to their immediate supervisor and then up

through the line as the case may be.

MR. SIHOTA : Those are the general provisions. Are there any more specific provisions in this ministry?

HON. MR. SMITH : The requirements for public service employees are government-wide, and this ministry is no different.

MR. SIHOTA : When an employee in the office of the Ministry of Attorney-General

discloses an interest, how is it noted and recorded?

HON. MR. SMITH : Presumably the fact of the disclosure would be placed in the personnel file.

MR. SIHOTA : How would the government generally know — apart from looking at the personnel file — that an employee may have an interest that conflicts with his duties?

HON. MR. SMITH :

As I Indicated earlier, the process in the public service is intended

to deal with the immediate supervisor. You would not expect the civil

servant to rush off and disclose to the government.

MR. SIHOTA : Once a disclosure has been made.... Let me give the minister an example. You have lawyers in your ministry — apart from others — who

are involved in giving advice to all different branches of government.

How would another branch of government be notified of this if it's kept

only on the individual's personnel file?

HON. MR. SMITH :

The supervisor to whom it was disclosed may very well share that

information with another ministry, if appropriate and as he sees fit.

MR. SIHOTA :

Mr. Chairman, the obvious thing for people to do when they find

themselves in a conflict is to absent themselves from a decision in

which they may have a conflict. Is there a process in place for that to

occur, and if not, could the minister explain how it is ensured that

the individual who may have a conflict absents himself from decisions

that are being made?

HON. MR. SMITH : First of all,

one of the things that would obviously occur is that after it was

disclosed, you would absent yourself from decisions involving that

particular property interest. And it is clear and specific that the

onus rests initially with the employee to make the disclosure according

to the guidelines, and then with the immediate supervisor to be

confident that the appropriate action is taken based on the disclosure.

MR. SIHOTA :

For the protection of both the employee and the process, what notation

is made of the fact that the individual has absented himself from the

process?

HON. MR. SMITH : I would have to find out what, if any, notation is made.

Perhaps

the member could get to the specific incidents he's obviously walking

up to in this discovery process and just ask the question. Are you

concerned about a specific individual in the Attorney-General's

ministry? Are you concerned about a particular property? And are you

concerned about another ministry? That might be the easy thing to do,

sir.

MR. SIHOTA : It's for me to ask the questions and for the minister to answer them. Therefore I'll con-

[ Page

10553 ]

tinue to ask the minister the questions. But that

last question sort of begs another question in my mind. You laid out

three possible scenarios there. In the instance of another ministry,

would your ministry have any knowledge or any role in that? I would

assume— and the minister can correct me if I'm wrong in this — that

when you're dealing with another ministry, it would be up to that

ministry to deal with its own employees, but those employees employed

by the Attorney-General's ministry would be governed by his ministry,

even though they may interact with other ministries.

HON. MR. SMITH :

All of those things are possible, but it's really quite fruitless to

try and get at this hypothetically, because obviously each case would

be governed by the circumstances. That seems to me to be axiomatic in

these issues.

MR. SIHOTA : Perhaps the minister seeks

some clarification. Let me just give him an example. I'll pick one in

terms of the Motor Carrier Commission. I don't know whether you have

lawyers that advise the Motor Carrier Commission. But if there were,

let's say the chap had — and I'm not saying this is the case by any stretch of the imagination — an

interest in a trucking company or taxi service or whatever. What would

be the process for counsel provided by the Attorney-General's ministry

to a commission of that nature? I take it the expectation is such an

individual would notify the commission he had a conflict and would then

absent himself in front of that commission from any decisions that may

impact on his interest. Am I to conclude that that is the way it is

expected to work?

HON. MR. SMITH : Well, there again,

it starts with the supervisor, and that might be one of the ways it

would work. It depends on the question being asked of the Motor Carrier

Commission, obviously.

MR. SIHOTA : So in that type

of an example, would he or she inform the Motor Carrier Commission,

inform the Attorney-General's ministry or both?

HON. MR. SMITH :

He or she would have informed the supervisor, who presumably is in the

Attorney-General's ministry. And yes, it's possible that the

alternative suggestion would happen as well.

MR. SIHOTA :

Apart from this process of voluntary compliance, I take it that there

is no other process in place in government for the government to

monitor these or for the ministries themselves to monitor this type of

situation.

HON. MR. SMITH : Well, there is the Financial Disclosure Act, and designated

public employees are required.... But beyond that, the standard of conduct for

public service employees is what governs, and that, as I say, is the program

in place for all civil servants, and has been for a long time.

MR. SIHOTA :

I take it that it's basically deputy ministers that are required under

the Financial Disclosure Act to provide their disclosures.

HON. MR. SMITH : It's anyone designated by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

MR. SIHOTA : Who is then designated in your ministry?

HON. MR. SMITH : I'll have to determine if there is anyone in this ministry other than myself who is designated.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. SIHOTA : To return

to my question, apart from the provisions of the Financial Disclosure

Act and the voluntary compliance that the minister has referred to,

there is no other vehicle through which people should be reporting

these conflicts?

HON. MR. SMITH : We've had a good number of years of experience with this issue, and so far there hasn't been a need to have any other process.

MR. SIHOTA :

Mr. Chairman, does the Attorney-General not think that there ought to

be something more stringent to cover these types of scenarios than the

guidelines he has in his possession?

HON. MR. SMITH :

If the member would like to lay out what types of scenarios he's

referring to, I'd find it somewhat easier to answer the question.

MR. SIHOTA : Fine, we'll get to that in due course. I want to ask the Attorney-General some questions with respect to another area.

The

other day the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) asked

a question of the Attorney-General, which I'm sure he recollects,

dealing with abortion. Here we are talking about it again in these

estimates. She raised the matter of a challenge to the legislation to

determine whether or not the provisions of Bill C43 were

constitutional. As I recollect, the Attorney-General's reply was that

no, the government would not be interested in doing that. Could you

explain why?

HON. MR SMITH : First of all, the legislation is not through Parliament.

MR. SIHOTA : And second of all?

Is that the only reason, Mr. Attorney, that you offer that opinion?

HON. MR. SMITH :

Quite frankly, as I have said to that member so many times in this

House that it causes nausea among most people witnessing it, I do not

intend to get into a hypothetical journey with him. It is not

legislation yet, and therefore anything that will flow from that isn't

worthy of discussion.

[4:15]

[ Page 10554 ]

MR. SIHOTA : I see this is not going to.... Well, I'll stay away from that kind of comment.

take it the province is not entertaining any action in that regard at

this time. Mr. Chairman, let me say that it is unfortunate. I think

there is a sufficient amount of concern about the provisions of the

federal abortion legislation.

This government is well known

for its position on the issue, particularly the view of the Premier

that runs along the lines that this matter is something that.... The

provincial government does not think there ought to be any level of

choice attached to women. In fact, if I recollect what the Premier had

to say some time ago, his argument was that even in the instances of

rape or incest, women were required to bear a child through to term.

With

that type of attitude and with the limitation on access to abortion in

British Columbia, in various communities throughout the province....

Some of them are well known to all of us, as they've been raised in the

House before. Combine that with the new federal legislation, concern

that physicians, as my colleague the member for Vancouver-Point Grey so

aptly noted some time ago.... It causes some concern, and it certainly

has caused some fear within the medical community that they may find

themselves facing prosecution for giving advice with respect to an

abortion. The concern, therefore, from a number of women's groups — and I must confess that I share this concern —

is that physicians are going to become far more hesitant in providing

this advice and unwilling to provide that advice because of the

prospects of facing prosecution. Therefore access to the medical

procedure is going to be denied to women, and hence the choice that

they can make is further impinged upon. It will result in shopping from

one doctor to the other.

I think that the federal

government would have been best advised to stay out of the field and

allow the situation to be what it was after the court made its ruling

some time ago, and not to have interjected through the provision of new

legislation, because I think legislation along the lines of Bill

C43 — the amendments to the Criminal Code — rekindles the rather

emotional debate we've seen in this country around the abortion issue.

More importantly in other quarters, it may well limit the extent to

which women can procure these services.

I know that this

matter has been discussed extensively at a number of meetings and

panels I've been to, and I know it's also been canvassed thoroughly in

our party. We've taken the view — I should put this on the record —

that there ought to be a challenge to the federal legislation. We think

it's important to secure a ruling on the constitutional validity of

that legislation and to resolve whether or not the law can stand. It

causes great frustration and anger in other quarters, of course, but it

particularly causes great frustration in the medical community.

The

Ministry of Health hasn't seen fit to discuss this matter with the B.C.

Medical Association and either provide them with guidance on this issue

or give them some comfort in terms of the government's intentions with

respect to this legislation. Other jurisdictions have done that. Most

notably, we are all familiar with the situation in Alberta and the

posture that the Alberta government has taken with respect to

prosecutions around the abortion issue.

Consequently I am

wondering if the Attorney-General's ministry, knowing that the Ministry

of Health hasn't, has had any discussions with the medical community to

guide them around those provisions. Has that occurred at all, Mr.

Minister?

HON. MR. SMITH : I don't know the

correctness or otherwise of the premise of the question relative to the

Health ministry; I'm sure that will be raised in the Health minister's

estimates. We in this ministry try to deal with reality. When and if

the legislation is passed by Canada, and when and if it is

proclaimed — which is yet another matter — at that time we'll decide what, if any, action we have to take.

know that the member wants a reference on this issue. That's fair

enough; he's entitled to his views. It's interesting to note that he

opposed the reference to the E&N. He was derisive about it, and he

stood and said it was bravado to bring an action to save that historic

right for British Columbians, to protect our constitutional powers and

to protect the agreement we entered into at Confederation.

was very disappointed that the member, representing as he does a place

called Esquimalt, would counsel against taking that action— as we have done —

to save that railroad and to save the integrity of the constitution

arrangements between Canada and British Columbia. It is without

precedent that a person from Esquimalt would want to stand by and

simply let that thing go down the tube, and would not support the

difficult challenge made in the face of everything that Canada could

throw at us to keep that going.

In the CAP reference,

derision came again from that member, who said that we shouldn't do

that. I think it's important that we stand up on behalf of British

Columbia's interests when they're not being properly served or when

there is a moment at which we should and must stand on behalf of the

people of this province against unilateralism by the federal

government. It was an action which I might say was not supported by the

member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew but was supported by the United

Native Nations and every other province in Canada. We were joined by

three others, including one that did not have any direct effects.

We look forward to receiving that member's support when we stand on behalf of British Columbia in the future. I'm hopeful — I'm always hopeful, Mr. Chairman; even, I suppose, where there isn't hope, I'm hopeful — that he will see the wisdom of our ways in these matters and support the sensible view we take of the E&N and CAP.

MR. SIHOTA :

I guess the Attorney-General won't allow the facts to prevent him from

making a good speech. I've noted in the past that he tends to ignore

the facts. But he wants to make a good speech and

[ Page

10555 ]

therefore comes to the conclusion that he'll say

whatever he wants to; he'll construct the story to be consistent with

his misinterpretation of the facts. That is again true with the E&N.

Perhaps

he should take the time to take a look at what I and my other

colleagues in this caucus had to say about the E&N case so that

when he decides to give his next speech, he would be mindful of the

fact that we said: "Fine, if you want to litigate against the federal

government, be our guest; but understand that if you're going to take

that route, you may not get what you're looking for, given the

historical agreement between British Columbia and the federal

government." That was the point that we made. Mr. Attorney, you'd

better go back, take a quick look at the facts and make your speeches

after you've had an opportunity to assess what people had to say.

take it that it was the federal Minister of Justice who said she was

prepared to sit down with the federal government to talk about the

E&N situation. That is the way it should be. I'm of the view that

whether you win or lose the case, we may not be further ahead in terms

of the quality and nature of the service that we have on Vancouver

Island. If you want some advice, I guess it is that you ought to take

advantage of the opportunity that Kim Campbell has now provided you

with and start to negotiate towards a return of that service to the

provincial realm, or negotiate towards a better service on Vancouver

Island.

But given the parameters of what you can achieve in

court, in my view you're not going to end up with anything near what

Vancouver Islanders want in terms of a quality ongoing service. You may

be able to succeed in securing the type of inferior service that we

have on Vancouver Island, where we still run a 1953 or a 1957 train up

and down the island once a day, starting at 8 o'clock in the morning

here and then coming back from Courtenay.

I think I learned a long time ago as counsel — and I would think that the Attorney did as well — that

sometimes the wisest thing is not to fire off a writ immediately, but

to push the other party into a negotiation mode. That can prove to be

far more efficient and economical for your client, and in this case for

the province. It may well have been better to engage in those

negotiations.

If you take a look at the E&N situation,

I think that a compelling case.... I don't have the documents here in

front of me, but I don't think that the case you've filed allows for

the broader

interpretation with respect to the nature of the service.

There are many who have argued that some of the original terms around

that service would have allowed for British Columbia to have that

service not as far as Courtenay but extended to Campbell River, and

others would interpret the agreement to mean as far as Port Hardy.

That, of course, is a matter that is not before the courts, and it's

the kind of matter that should be negotiated.

Nor, really, is it going to be up to the courts at the end of the day to make

an opinion, given the way you've.... Again, I don't have the stuff here,

but I can produce it for you and share with you my concerns on the way you've

drafted it. Nor does it deal with the salient issue, which is the nature of

the service and an order with respect to the frequency of the service.

fairness, I'll commend the government for one thing: the fact that

you've been able, through Mr. Justice Esson's judgment — I could be wrong again on that because I don't have the file here in front of me —

to get an injunction and to maintain the service now, pending the

various appeals. That may mean that we on Vancouver Island will not

know the final disposition of this matter for three, four, five, six or

maybe eight years, as this thing winds its way through the courts — which is a long time to wait to find out what might transpire.

the other side of the coin, given the fact that you have succeeded on

the first round, in my mind it would be preferable if the government

were to now enter into serious negotiations with the federal government

and convince them not only that the service should be provided, but

that it should be a quality service. If they're not prepared to provide

a more frequent service to look after the concerns of Vancouver Island,

then perhaps discussion should commence on the matter of turning over

the service to the province and allowing the province, either through

the private or the public sector, to run the E&N.

I see

the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) is here in the House as

well. It seems that the line has tremendous potential for Vancouver

Island. When one assesses highway improvements and highway upgrading on

Vancouver Island, they ought to also be mindful of the potential that

the E&N railway line has if properly used and properly funded. The

potential for cross-subsidization of the more lucrative freight

service, to offset some of the enormous costs of the passenger service,

should be another item that ought to be looked at both by that ministry

and this.

If you want to talk about the E&N, which I

don't have any great problem talking about, you had better understand,

Mr. Attorney-General, that litigation is certainly one approach. If you

look at the record carefully, you were not criticized for taking the

matter to court, but you have to understand that that approach has

its.... You may laugh, but I'm sure that even you understand that that

approach has its limitations. What you may be able to procure at the

end of the day, in terms of a court order, may not attend to the needs

of people on this island. That's the point, in terms of the objection

that I uttered with respect to the court case; it's just reminding

people that at the end of the day it may not achieve what you want.

[4:30]

1 noted that the Attorney-General some time ago was invited — since we're on the topic —

by the Minister of Justice to discuss the matter of the E&N.

Perhaps he could advise the House just what the status of those

discussions are, and, if he has met with the minister and discussed it,

whether officials have been asked to follow through on the matter.

[ Page 10556 ]

HON. MR. SMITH : I'd be happy to, because for me — I'm interested in transportation geography —

it's kind of a pleasant way to aid the opposition in their obvious

filibuster of my estimates this afternoon and the waste of the

taxpayers' money to some $8,000 per hour in this Legislature. Clearly

you're not ready to do the estimates, so we'll just carry on in this

dulcet sort of way of discussing transportation matters. I'm delighted

to. I studied transportation geography at the University of Victoria,

and once, God forbid, nearly became a town planner. I say that because

I would have ended up doing the same kind of work as the first member

for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams), and it gives me recurring cold

sweats and great nightmares every time that thought crosses my mind.

any event, the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew.... Goodness gracious

me, thankfully he is not charged with the responsibility of protecting

the public interest of this province. He thinks that when you have an

historic agreement about to be tubed by the Crown, Canada, by way of

legislative regulatory enactment, you should sit down then and talk,

instead of doing what is obvious. There's not a whole lot to talk about

once the train has quit running. I can understand that he would have

that difficulty, because as the member for Esquimalt, of course, when

he goes to a caucus meeting in Courtenay, he takes his luxury car up

the congested Island Highway rather than do the obvious, which is to

take the train, which is what we did. Those of us without luxury cars

go with the train instead, and leave our vehicles, our LTDs, to be

operated by our staff and for their use, as is appropriate.

The

matter of the E&N is more than just a simple injunction, as was

inferred by the member. I'm surprised he hasn't read the decision. If

he did, he would find that it has much more import for the province of

British Columbia historically and currently than that, by a long

stretch of the imagination. But rather than go into detail, I will

leave it to him to read.

Since I assumed this office and

became involved with the Council of Ministers, I have been discussing

the E&N with Ottawa, and I must say that the Vancouver Island

mayors have a far better and fluid understanding of the issue than the

member — which keeps surprising me, Mr. Chairman. When someone

represents a place called Esquimalt, you would think he would at least

have a cursory knowledge of what is going on. Nevertheless, the

Vancouver Island mayors well understand that the issue isn't just in

transferring it from one jurisdiction to another and continuing the

subsidy to the CPR. The issue is pretty fundamental. The CPR got

buckets of largess for which they were to run a train up and down the

Island once a day. As far as I am concerned and British Columbia is

concerned, that is what is going to happen. We'll get it resolved by

litigation, by negotiation or whatever way we find to do it. But

resolve it we will on behalf of the people.

It would have

been absolutely mindless, in the face of that order, to shut off the

Via Rail service to the E&N and to say at the point, as the member

suggests: "Oh, well, we'll sit down and talk; we won't litigate." It is

just ludicrous that you would take that view. The public interest would

not have been served; indeed, it would have been squandered.

Where

we are at the moment on it is that Canada is determined to appeal the

decision on a whole host of grounds. For one thing, their justice

department bureaucrats want to justify their federal court system, so

they're going to argue that it should have been heard there. The more

substantive issue they're concerned about is the terms of Confederation

that we entered into. That has very real import for us, because as we

move into other areas, of claims being made about ownership of land and

entitlement to land and rights and interests in lands, those terms of

joining Confederation are going to come right to the fore and be

critical to the development of this province. It's important

litigation, and it's there by reference. It doesn't require a writ, as

was suggested in all that, with the ongoing discoveries that would take

place and so on. It is a process intended to get a simple answer. Once

the answer is derived, then we have some very real ways to deal with

the CPR to provide the service that they will and should provide.

the meantime, through my office and directly, I am also talking to

members of the federal government, not only with the Minister of

Transport and Minister of Justice — who works with me in the Council of Ministers —

but also with the other ministers, to the highest office in Canada,

about the position I put forward, which was to transfer regulatory

jurisdiction to the province. That is not, as the "Times-Communist"

newspaper has said God knows how many times, transfer ownership. It is

transfer regulatory jurisdiction, which would then give us the

authority — as we had in this province in 1905, before it was taken away — to

link together the land grant and the level of service. Once those two

are linked together, I have no doubt that the CPR's mind will be

quickly focused, and the right and proper thing will be done.

MR. SIHOTA :

The Attorney-General shouldn't talk to me about driving luxury cars; I

don't drive one. He drives the LTD. And he shouldn't talk to me about

taking trains, when he flies around this province in jets in such a

cavalier fashion that he has his colleague from Kamloops flying one

hour ahead of him, separate and alone, on a jet. So if you want to talk

about....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA : What do you mean, "finally down there"?

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA : What do you mean I won't listen? The logs are clear. I'm sorry If it hurts you for me to talk about....

[ Page

10557 ]

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA : Listen, I've never seen

you get out of there. Well, you want to talk about gutters? Look, It's

not me, Mr. Chairman, who's flying around in jet airplanes at times

different from my colleague from Kamloops; it's the minister. I know it

hurts him when we talk about the logs.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Not at all.

MR. SIHOTA :

Well, if doesn't hurt, you guys wouldn't be heckling over there. It

hurts. I think you guys should be mindful of the realities in the

peculiar world you live in and the taxi-cab jet service that you dial

up and use for your own purposes.

So, Mr. Chairman, I think

the Attorney-General, when he finds his way back to his seat and starts

listening again, should know that....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA :

I see the member for Yale-Lillooet thinks this is a waste of time of

the House, and I must say that I'm surprised to see him sitting there.

MR. RABBITT :

Mr. Speaker, I think it's terribly unfortunate, and I rise on a point

of privilege. The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew is supposed to be

dealing with the matters of the House, and he keeps making personal

references to me, which is not relevant to this debate. I would ask the

Chair to bring him to order and ask him to be relevant to the subject

at hand.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The hon. member, I am sure,

is well aware that that is not a point of privilege. The debate has

been deteriorating somewhat in the last half-hour, but I wouldn't want

to lay the blame at any one person's doorstep. It's a group activity, I

would suggest. Would the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew continue.

MR. SIHOTA :

Just ten seconds to say that I was surprised to see the member for

Yale-Lillooet sitting in that chair. I see he's been demoted. He's gone

from the front benches of the government to the back benches, he's

sitting next to all of the dissidents that fled from the party, and

he's been replaced in his seat by the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf).

It's amazing that the caucus chairman for the Social Credit Party has

now been demoted to the back benches.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA : I see the dissident for Columbia River (Mr. Crandall) somehow

thinks that it has been a promotion for him to move from where the member from

Surrey is sitting to where he's sitting now, after he slid away from his

caucus and slithered his way back in, and now he finds himself sitting in that

far corner joined by the member for Yale-Lillooet.

I'm

aware that the provincial government has considered, in its application

before the court, the matter of the transfer of regulatory authority,

and I wouldn't want to predict what the court has to say in that

regard, so perhaps we should leave it at that. But I will say that the

matter of the agreement with Canadian Pacific is a relatively

straightforward matter. However, I think the matter of transference of

regulatory authority around transportation matters is a tougher nut for

anybody to deal with, and the court may at the end of the day believe

that British Columbia should have that authority. I guess it would be

in some way ironic to see the province, under the Social Credit

administration, begin to exercise regulatory authority over

transportation matters, given the fact that it made a conscious

decision just a few years back to engage in deregulation of the

transportation industry. Be that as it may, however, if the province

were to secure the full regulatory authority with respect to rail

travel in British Columbia, then it would certainly have the ability to

influence the quality and nature of that service.

[4:45]

Having said that, I think it's fair to say that the threat of

litigation often achieves a result, as opposed to litigation itself. In

this case, of course, we've gone further than that, so there's no point

in me getting into could-haves, would-haves and should-haves in terms

of the kind of position that I think British Columbia should have taken

at the outset on this matter — except to say that I think the

Attorney-General has again got it wrong, if he went back and took a

look at my original comments, in terms of the approach that I think

should have been taken.

However, that's water under the

bridge. But you do now have the advantage of the litigation, and you