1981 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 32nd 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 15, 1981

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

6175 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Information programs. Mrs. Dailly –– 6175

Mr. Leggatt

Mr. Hall

Mr. Barrett

Provincial Debt Repayment Act (Bill 14). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 6177

Mr. Stupich –– 6178

Mr. Cocke –– 6179

Mr. Mussallem –– 6179

An Act Respecting Montreal Trust Company and Montreal Trust Company of Canada (Bill PR401). Committee stage.

Third reading –– 6180

West Kootenay Power and Light Company, Limited, Act, 1897, Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill PR402). Committee stage.

Third reading –– 6180

Mineral Land Tax Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 5). Committee stage.

Third reading –– 6181

Petroleum and Natural Gas Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 21). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. McClelland)

section 17 –– 6181

Mr. D'Arcy

Third reading –– 6181

Power Engineers and Boiler and Pressure Vessel Safety Act (Bill 17). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Heinrich)

section 5 –– 6182

Ms. Sanford

section 20 –– 6182

Ms. Sanford

Mr. King

On the amendment to

section 21 –– 6184

Ms. Sanford

Mr. King

section 23 –– 6185

Ms. Sanford

On the amendment to

section 23 –– 6185

Ms. Sanford

section 35 –– 6185

Ms. Sanford

Report –– 6186

Electrical Energy Inspection Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 18). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Heinrich)

section 12 –– 6186

Ms. Sanford

section 16 –– 6186

Ms. Sanford

Third reading –– 6186

Gas Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 19). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Heinrich)

section 2 –– 6186

Ms. Sanford

section 5 –– 6187

Ms. Sanford

section 6 6189

Ms. Sanford

section 8 –– 6189

Ms. Sanford

Mr. King

section 10 –– 6190

Ms. Sanford

Ms. Brown

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Health estimates. (Hon. Mr. Nielsen)

On vote 106: minister's office –– 6190

Ms. Brown

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Barber

Tabling Documents

First Citizens' Fund administration annual report, 1980.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 6198

Appendix –– 6198

MONDAY, JUNE 15, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The saying of

prayers in this Legislature is of special significance to each of us in

our own way. However, the prayers are special today because they were

said by Jim Robertson of the Oaklands Gospel Chapel. Jim and his wife

are celebrating their sixtieth wedding anniversary. Those who have seen

Jim would guess that either he was a child bridegroom or that they

should give great credit to Mrs. Robertson because of his extremely

youthful appearance and his vitality. I thank him for sharing his

special day with the members of this Legislature.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, on my behalf and that of the opposition, may I add my

words to Jim Robertson, who is a friend to all of us. His example and

his words are not only publicly expressed in this chamber but are also

expressed privately to all of us. We deeply appreciate that. We wish to

tell him, as in an old Hebraic saying, that he's only halfway there;

it's 120 years that he has to fulfil.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

In the gallery today are three people, two of whom are from the state

of California. They are visiting our House for the first time. They

have been brought to our Legislature by a British Columbian, Mr.

Maxted. Will the House please make them feel welcome.

Oral Questions

INFORMATION PROGRAMS

MRS. DAILLY:

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Provincial Secretary. Would the

minister advise why his high-profile communications deputy, Douglas

Heal, has issued a memorandum saying that he reports to the Premier

rather than to the Provincial Secretary, when we know that his

statutory responsibility is to the Provincial Secretary?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Speaker, the member did not identify the communication she is

referring to, but I think she is referring to the objectives of the

program of the Deputy Minister of Information Programs. It is no secret

that this activity, as was the case with the person who previously held

that office, is an effort to coordinate the public information programs

of all of government, whether it is the Premier's office or that of any

minister. I think it is incumbent on him to respond and coordinate, for

the benefit of the people receiving the information, all of the

information programs going out of government. I think it is quite

obvious that he wouldn't be performing his duties as information

director of all of government if he wasn't also relating to the

Premier's office.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, that

really is not a satisfactory answer. The question is: why is your

communications deputy reporting to the Premier instead of to you?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I thought I said that the function of this office is

to coordinate all public information from all offices. I think it is to his

credit that he would want to be well informed on the programs, announcements

or plans emanating from the Premier's office. Mr. Speaker, you could expect

that this gentleman would be consulting with any ministry providing advice for

assimilation or coordination of information going out. I don't see why the

member would take exception to the fact that he has access to or communication

with the Premier. Is that objectionable?

MRS. DAILLY:

Mr. Speaker, perhaps we can try to find out if the Provincial

Secretary's deputy has any relationship to his minister, and whether

the minister, who is supposed to be in charge of communications for the

government.... Under his ministry he has been given the deputy in

charge of communications. My next question to the minister is: if you

are supposed to be in charge of communications, can you tell us why you

are not a member of the communications planning committee?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

I think I would suggest an answer to that question by way of a further

question. Is the member suggesting that this office should not have

access to the Premier's office along with any other minister's office?

Interjections.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes or no.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MRS. DAILLY:

Can the minister tell us if calls coming through to his deputy to do

with the area of communications are relayed to the Premier's office or

to his office?

MR. LEGGATT: I'd also like to direct a

question to the Provincial Secretary. At the present time your deputy,

Mr. Heal, has spent some $15,000 of the taxpayers' money for a

repackaged TV news service. Could the minister advise the House whether

he's seen fit to obtain a legal opinion? I'm not asking for a legal

opinion, but has he obtained a legal opinion as to whether he and his

deputy are now in violation of the Canadian copyright laws?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

I think the member is referring to news reports dealing with a

video-tape service — or whatever name is applied to this — on news

information. The newspaper articles alluded to the question of legality

of this service. I think that is a question to be determined by the

supplier of that service, whether he's supplying government or a

multitude of other clients. I'm informed that he has many clients. The

whole question of attempting to monitor television newscasts is a

matter which is being questioned by the media right across North

America. The question of the legality of it is certainly a matter of

concern to the supplier of that service. I might say that as far as my

ministry is concerned, the only service being supplied is essentially a

news-clipping service. In effect, it supplies the government with a log

of the programs which this service has been able to monitor. It's

impossible for anyone, whether an opposition or a government member, to

monitor all television news. It's the same as a news-monitoring service

for the printed media, radio and so on. All that is being supplied is a

log of the services being monitored. If a minister needs to know more

about a particular news item, he can obtain information and respond

properly to what is being said from time to time.

[ Page 6176 ]

MR. LEGGATT:

No doubt the minister knows that he's now the consumer of a service. As

the consumer of a service which appears in violation of Canadian

copyright law he has a duty to uphold the law of Canada and not to

conspire with a supplier in violation of Canadian copyright law.

Did

the minister himself order this video news service or whatever they

call it, or was it someone else? Was it the Minister of Human Resources

(Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) or the Premier who, in fact, ordered Mr. Heal to

obtain this particular service?

Would the Provincial

Secretary tell the House — bring us into his confidence — why he is

doing this? What is the purpose of the news service? Why do you need

this kind of little clipping, censor or whatever kind of thing you'd

call it? What's the purpose of the thing, if it isn't to doctor the

news?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'd just like to ask the member

how on earth one doctors the news. Has he some experience in doctoring

the news? What the member seems to be questioning is the access to news

and to what is said in the news for members of the government and this

House. I see no reason, with the impossibility for members of this

House to have access to the news.... News is a very brief and fleeting

thing on any given day. It's impossible for any member to see the news.

To suggest that members of this House should not have access to what is

being said on the news so they can respond properly and understand what

has been said is, I think, a ridiculous assumption.

MR. HALL:

I'd like to ask the Provincial Secretary if he talks to Mr. Heal before

he comes in here to answer questions in question period.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I consider that a facetious question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, question period has limited time.

MR. HALL:

I'd like to ask the minister another question. When did the minister

instruct his public relations deputy, Mr. Heal, to assume supervisory

duties in the Knowledge Network?

HON. MR. WOLFE: The

entire mandate of the deputy minister for public information programs

was a decision of all government, including what his entire area of

responsibility would be, primarily in the coordination of public

information and updating the quality of it in terms of what people want

to see. I think we should all agree that there's a great need for this

in this province. Many people have been saying to government that we

must improve the message that goes out in terms of public information.

The decision in terms of his mandate was a decision of all government.

MR. HALL:

I'd like to know whether the minister has now decided to use censored

or edited news clips that he's ordered from the various media services

of the province on the satellite network in the north, for example.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

If I understand the question, the answer is clearly no. This service

only provides access to a verbatim tape of what might have been said in

the newscast. It isn't an edited or revised version.

MR. BARRETT:

We have now had an announcement from the minister that there has been a

change in policy. This House and the people of British Columbia were

told that the Knowledge Network would be a purely educational program.

When the minister says that it was a government decision to have Mr.

Heal take over the Knowledge Network, I want to know when that decision

was made and why it wasn't announced to the people of British Columbia

that they were setting up a propaganda department.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Speaker, this ministry, insofar as it is represented in that

service through the deputy minister for public information programs, is

offering a service to various ministries. Insofar as the service it

might offer to the Knowledge Network is concerned, I think the question

would be more appropriately directed to the Minister of Universities,

Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer).

MR. BARRETT:

I put the question to the former boss of Mr. Heal — not to the Minister

of Universities, Science and Communications, but to the person who

accounts in this House for the taxpayers' money expended in this job.

That's the minister; it's in his vote. The question to this minister

is: are you under total and complete control of your deputy or not?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Speaker, as I've said before, the gentleman in question and his

office are responsible to all of government. My ministry services his

office. If you're asking specifically about the Knowledge Network and

his expertise in that regard, I think your question should be directed

to the minister responsible for the Knowledge Network.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that ministers do not service the

offices of employees, but that employees service the offices of

ministers. If the minister is not prepared to tell this House that he

is or is not the boss of Mr. Heal, then let the government be honest

enough to tell us exactly under whose daily orders Mr. Heal is. I say

that the minister is giving up his responsibility and the Premier is

calling the shots on Mr. Heal.

I want an assurance that no taxpayers' money is being used for propaganda purposes under that minister's office.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. member, the guidelines for questions clearly say that question

period is not an opportunity for a questioner to make a speech,

regardless of how short that speech might be.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

As I've said before in this House, what the leader of the opposition

just said is so typical of the NDP. Mr. Speaker, the jackboot,

strong-fist approach to who is boss of whom in the government —

continually the same approach — just doesn't happen to be the way these

ministers approach their job and their responsibility in association

with people who work for them.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

[ Page 6177 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call second reading of Bill 14, Mr. Speaker.

PROVINCIAL DEBT REPAYMENT ACT

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of the Provincial Debt Repayment

Act, it is necessary to point out precisely how this aspect of

government in the 1970s, and now with the bill into the 1980s, came

about. The purpose of Bill 14 in this year's legislative program is to

provide for the annual instalment of the repayment of the provincial

government operating debt — or dead-weight debt — brought about by the

deficit in this province's budget culminating in the fiscal year

1975-76. It is important that we cast our minds back to that particular

time in British Columbia history to remind ourselves that the overall

deficit in the provincial accounts in the fiscal year 1975-76 was

$405,186,243. After applying the unappropriated balance in the revenue

surplus account, which amounted at that time to only $143,738,453, a

deficit of $261,447,790 remained for the fiscal year ending March 31,

This deficit was financed by way of a debt instrument

which was restructured in 1978 to a ten-year instrument, with an annual

repayment of $26.1 million for the first to ninth year, to ensure

ultimate retirement of this debt. While it is a very short bill — in

committee stage we will see one section, a

preamble and title — it

speaks volumes about the circumstances which this province found itself

in and which this newly elected government found itself in at the end

of 1975 and into 1976.

I repeat that the original amount of

the debt was $261,447,000. The effect of the payment which is before us

today in Bill 14 is to reduce the amount outstanding to $183,147,790,

retroactive to May 1, 1981. The semi-annual interest payments on this

provincial debt in the fiscal year 1981-82 are provided for in the

Ministry of Finance main estimates, which were dealt with in Committee

of Supply just a few days ago.

Soon after being appointed to

the position of Minister of Finance for the province of British

Columbia, I set about determining if it was possible for the province

to secure the highly coveted triple-A credit rating. It would not have

been possible for us to do that were it not for the work undertaken by

my immediate predecessor, now the Provincial Secretary and Minister of

Government Services (Hon. Mr. Wolfe). It would not have been possible

for us to secure the credit rating without the efforts of the Premier

and all ministers who have served since December 1976. I use the phrase

"highly coveted," which might seem a little trite. The fact is, when I

was able to announce the first triple-A credit rating — there are two

credit-rating agencies housed in New York who examine all international

credits — it was obvious that that had been sought for many years in

the province of British Columbia by the former Premier, the late W.A.C.

Bennett. I'm sure it would have arrived had he remained in office after

1972. Clearly it was sought also by the socialist administration in the

years 1972-75, at the time when the now Leader of the Opposition served

in a dual position that he indicated he would never take — Premier and

Minister of Finance,

Much has been said about the triple-A

rating. I think it is important that we reflect on it for just a few

minutes, because while those who would wish it had happened at some

other time — i.e. 1972-75 — tend to say that we speak of it too much,

it is one of the most significant financial developments in the history

of British Columbia. It's the first time we've secured the highest

credit rating on international markets, through the firms of Moody's

Investors Services and Standard and Poor, both of New York.

the time our presentation was made to these two firms and at the time

when senior representatives of both firms came to British Columbia,

they conducted a most exhaustive review which lasted, in both

instances, for a good number of days. There was an exhaustive review of

such widely diverse things as pension funds which are under the control

of the province, superannuation matters and the status of the

provincial economy and the provincial government's accounts. They met

with the auditor-general, with senior staff not only in the Ministry of

Finance but in the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources,

with other ministries and with the ministers responsible for such Crown

corporations as British Columbia Hydro and British Columbia Rail; I

mention only two, but it was a good review of a number of Crown

corporations. In other words, when the senior representatives of these

two internationally recognized rating firms — Moody's and Standard and

Poor — returned to New York in early 1980, on the basis of the

information we had taken in a comprehensive document and the answers

received to questions they posed while they were in British Columbia

meeting with government and Crown corporations officials they had the

most complete picture of the financial prosperity and the health —

underline "the health" — of the province of British Columbia.

would not suggest today that there are not some jurisdictions, states

or provinces which enter into a deficit operating situation from time

to time and therefore would not qualify for a triple-A. In other words,

Mr. Speaker, it is not entirely correct to suggest that a triple-A

rating would be granted by one of these two firms only in the event of

balanced budget. On the other hand, it is clear that that is a very

important consideration on the part of these two organizations when

they are analyzing whether a credit — in this case the credit of the

province of British Columbia and its principal Crown corporation,

British Columbia Hydro — is to be raised from a double-A, as it was, to

the extremely important triple-A. We will never know. Nonetheless, I

submit that on the basis of the spend, spend, spend attitude of the

socialist administration between 1972 and 1975 a request for a triple-A

rating would not have been granted. I cannot prove it, but all I have

learned about the intense detailed review which is conducted by these

firms suggests to me that an effort to obtain a triple-A rating during

those approximately three and a half years would not have succeeded.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I invite the member to take his place in the debate if he has anything to say.

have here another payment to retire the debt accumulated by that party

when it was in power from 1972 to 1975. On the basis of what we've been

able to learn since, and what I'm sure my predecessor in this portfolio

learned, we find that there was generally an uncoordinated approach to

the spending programs of individual ministries. That was one of the

fatal aspects of the NDP administration: turning a very healthy surplus

into a very worrisome deficit on operating accounts. It is essential

that ministries be required to communicate with each other and that

ministries, through central agencies such as Treasury Board, be very

carefully monitored.

[ Page 6178 ]

my predecessor said, never again in British Columbia can we have a debt

on the annual operating account. I have said that you move into deficit

spending gradually and very easily. It would be easy for Treasury Board

to ignore certain requests, to grant all requests which come through

and to permit ministers to spend without reporting on the amount they

are spending or to exceed their estimates. The movement into deficit

spending in any jurisdiction, province or state is easily started, and

it's a very slippery slide down with very little opportunity to return.

Let it never happen again in British Columbia, and let us continue to

balance our budget, as we must and as this government will through

difficult times and easier times.

I move second reading of

Bill 14, Provincial Debt Repayment Act, the 1981 repayment of a debt

incurred by that party when it was in power from 1972 to 1975.

MR. STUPICH:

It has been said that figures don't lie but liars have been known to

figure. I'm not suggesting that the Minister of Finance is lying, but I

am saying he is applying very selective memory in his recitation of the

history of the debt and very selective information with respect to the

achievement of the triple-A rating, of which we were all proud. I'm

sure the Minister of Finance, if he were speaking in any forum other

than this or a political meeting, would not pretend for one moment that

a triple-A rating is won in a period of a few months, or even two or

three years. It's a measure of the financial standing of the province

of British Columbia, something that goes back not one or two years but

one, two and three decades. It takes that long to achieve a triple-A

rating. It's a history of three administrations at least, and perhaps

even further back than that.

The spend, spend, spend

attitude of the NDP administration.... Mr. Speaker, I thought even you

should have smiled at that. This is the administration that this year

introduced a budget that is a 20 percent increase over last year's

budget — a far greater rate of increase than anything ever achieved by

the NDP administration. What is it going to? What are the figures that

we're not told about? How much is in that budget? There's the hidden

figure for northeast coal development, for example, that the minister

has been something less than candid about. There's the money that is

going into all these monuments to the Social Credit administration. You

talk about our spend, spend, spend attitude. Nobody has been able to

come anywhere near approaching the spend, spend, spend attitude of this

administration since the 1979 election when they came perilously close

to losing, and they're now determined they're going to build so many

monuments in the hope that the people will forget the mess that they

made of running the province.

Never again a debt on an

annual operating account. They talk about debt. This is the

administration that sits in office in a year when the contingent

liability — the debts guaranteed by the people of this province on

behalf of the Crown-owned Crown corporations — will reach the figure of

$10 billion. And they say never again. Ten billion dollars. Not only

that, but to make sure that they didn't run into so-called debt on

their so-called annual operating accounts, they have created a number

of new Crown corporations, each one of them with borrowing power and

each one of which has borrowed. Accounts which were previously in what

the minister calls annual operating accounts are now taken out of

annual operating accounts — budgetary expenditures — and are shown as

expenditures of several Crown corporations.

Among them are:

the Transit Authority, which is now borrowing in its own name; B.C.

Buildings Corporation, which is now borrowing in its own name; B.C.

Systems Corporation, which is now borrowing in its own name; B.C. Ferry

Corporation, which is now borrowing in its own name and selling its

ferries to eastern financial interests; and the universities financing

authority, which borrows money to build universities and secondary

educational institutions.

All of these amounts were

previously in what the minister called the annual operating accounts.

By taking them out of the annual operating accounts it's so much easier

not to have a debt. You let somebody else do the borrowing, you

guarantee it, and you say: "That's not our debt. That's my brother's,

my father's, my mother's — it's somebody else's debt. It's not mine; I

don't owe it. I'll guarantee it, and each year I'll collect taxes from

people to make sure that those Crown corporations have enough money to

pay it, but I don't owe it. It's not my debt."

The minister

uses very selective memory in talking about the debt accumulated under

the NDP administration. He might have referred to the Clarkson, Gordon

report — the first compilation of that debt. Even that report, which

the Premier told us was going to be a full audit of all of the

operating accounts of government and all of the Crown corporations....

As a businessman he knows full well that a full audit of such a complex

system of accounts could not be done in a six-week period. He knew

that. He knew when he presented the Clarkson, Gordon report that it was

not an audit, that it was nothing more than what the report itself

said: an adding together of all of the information that was supplied by

the Minister of Finance, the various ministers and the heads of the

Crown corporations. That's all it was. They added all those figures up,

and by adding the figures that were given to them by government they

came out with a total that was $540 million not $405 million, as I

recall it. I didn't realize this bill was coming up soon enough to look

up the research, but I believe the figure was $540 million. Even by

instructing the ministers in those three and a half months under this

Social Credit administration after the election of December 11, 1975,

even when the ministers were told: "Get rid of all the money you can

before March 31...." Hospital grants were paid and hospitals were

writing or phoning in and asking: "How come we got this money before

March 31? We weren't expecting it until August. Why are you sending it

now?" The farmers were asking: "How come we're getting farm income

assurance money in March that we didn't expect until April, May or

June?" The government ministers were obviously instructed to pay out as

much money as they knew they were going to have to pay out and to get

rid of it before March 31 in order to make the deficit as large as it

possibly could be in that three and a half months they had to cook the

books. That was the advice.

Even with that, they were unable

to get it up as high as the Clarkson, Gordon people reported it would

be completely on the basis of the information that the ministers fed to

them. That's what Clarkson, Gordon said. With respect to the various

figures that were used by the government in creating that deficit — the

various figures that Clarkson, Gordon people were told to put into the

report to add up and come up with that deficit figure — Clarkson,

Gordon also had the honesty.... They had to be completely candid.

They're in a bit of a different position than the Minister of Finance.

He needn't be completely candid. But Clarkson, Gordon had to be in

putting their name to that kind of report. In all honesty

[ Page 6179 ]

they

had to say that the decision as to whether any of these amounts should

be paid out by March 31 was a political decision. It was purely and

completely a political decision as to when these amounts should be paid

out: whether they should be paid out on March 31 and thereby made an

expenditure against the year ending March 31, or whether they should be

made on April 1 or later and thereby made an expenditure for the

following year. That was one question.

The second question

that was purely political was whether or not these Crown corporations

would borrow the money on their own, raise it through their own levies

or be given a grant by government, or whether the politicians would

decide that a grant in the amount of $175 million would be given to

ICBC, for example, on March 31. It was a purely political decision as

to whether that should be done by grant — the money coming from the

taxpayers as opposed to coming out of the pockets of the people who are

paying premiums. Clarkson, Gordon said that. The Minister of Finance

forgot about that — selective memory. He made no reference at all to

the fact that the whole of the $267 million or $271 million — whatever

it was — could be accounted for by grants that were purely political as

to the timing and as to whether they should be grants out of

consolidated revenue or whether they should be moneys raised by the

Crown corporations themselves.

This whole exercise is a

political battle. We've discussed this to quite an extent in estimates,

and I have no particular desire to get into it again in detail today. I

would not have, except that the minister started a purely political

discussion on what is a purely political bill. I'm pleased that he is

reminding us how devious this particular party can be in trying to

present figures and in trying to cook the books — how desperate they

are to try to persuade people that they are doing a better job than

appears to be the case and how desperate they are in trying to remind

people that some six or seven years ago the government in office at

that time was not doing a good job for them. They're afraid the people

may have forgotten some of the things that they didn't like. They're

now bringing this whole thing up year after year to try to persuade

people that in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, they actually

are doing a good job for the people of British Columbia. In spite of

all the evidence to the contrary, they're still trying to persuade the

taxpayers of British Columbia that they're worth re-electing. Mr.

Speaker, you and I know that they're not. You know what the attitude of

the people will be in the next election when they get an opportunity to

say to this bunch: "You've been there too long for the people of

British Columbia; it's time to go. Go!"

MR. COCKE: I

would like us to view Bill 14 in the context of what it really is: a

piece of political propaganda that comes up year after year. If the

government was serious and if the government was not trying to do a

deceitful thing, it would have been brought up as a bill in the first

place; one bill which would have given the people of B.C. the

opportunity of paying off this so-called debt. But no. How is it

brought up? It's brought up in the same bill and the same amount each

year to give the government an opportunity to do what a man by the name

of Goebbels did years and years ago. His theory was tell it often

enough and it becomes the truth in peoples minds. We don't accept this

abysmal piece of legislation as truth. We accept this piece of

political propaganda for exactly what it is — just that. Why the time

of the House should be wasted, year after year, as we are doing now, is

beyond my comprehension and the comprehension of any thinking person in

this province.

They talk about debt. This year in this

self-same budget, it is announced that we will be going $1.59 billion

further into debt under Social Credit. As the member for Nanaimo (Mr.

Stupich) said, much of this new debt is going to be a brand-new Crown

corporation. A lot of it is going to be in B.C. Hydro, to be sure. A

lot of it is going to be in the B.C. Railway, you can be assured. But

there are brand-new Crown corporations that this government set up in

order to hide behind a Crown corporation rather than face up to fiscal

responsibility. I think that if the people in our province are as naive

as our Finance minister thinks, then it's a very sad state of affairs.

We have a huge budget this year. All through the budget debate, this

side of the House has been pointing out areas such as advertising,

enormous amounts; areas such as building occupancy, enormous amounts;

areas such as computer services, enormous amounts that could have been

cut. It's over $60 million to date. I think that for the government to

continue on with this line, year after year, even after having an

intervening election, is beyond my ken.

When are they going

to get serious? When are they going to try to sit down and say the

province has been governed by Social Credit from 1952 until now —

that's more than 29 years — except for 3 years and 4 months. That era

of light, when the people finally had access to government, was a fine

hour, and not the kind of hour that this minister is trying to draw us

into and trying to make us feel badly about. We don't. We look out at

those services — province-wide ambulance, old-age incomes, Pharmacare,

very fine programs that were introduced by a government who thought far

more of people than they did of monuments.... What a contrast! Today

we're spending billions of dollars, and much of it is not even known to

date because the decisions are made behind closed doors.

Mr.

Speaker, how can we be asked to take this bill seriously? All I can

suggest — and it annoys me no end — is that this propaganda machine,

about which we heard today in question period — where one person has

become the czar of government information.... Now we have the same kind

of news, and part of that news service will be delivering this line

across the province. But that new government "news service" will not be

giving the answers that the member for Nanaimo gave very clearly and

simply. It's another shocking day in the history of our province.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

I echo the words of the hon. Minister of Finance when he said: "Never

again will this government go into an operating debt. Never again will

we spend the people's money to pay interest. Never again will we saddle

the young and the future of this province." That's our clarion call. I

will remind them of the day we came to government in 1975. The programs

we saw in effect would be impossible to carry on with the input that

was coming in. We saw the ferry system in a state of disrepair and $54

million in debt. We saw ICBC debt-ridden and practically at a solid

stop. The only transport to the north was through trucks on the Fraser

Canyon highway. That highway was in disrepair; it was almost impassable

in places. Never again will this government go into debt for operating

cash, because it saddles the future with expense.

When will

they finally understand that contingent liability is not debt to the

province of British Columbia? That's a very weak and pointless

observation. Let's just take Hydro as

[ Page 6180 ]

example. Never mind school financing, which gives the schools of the

province a triple-A rating. Never mind that which is vital. Never mind

the Municipal Finance Authority that gives the municipality a triple-A

rating. It gives them a rating, because otherwise they may not even

have a single-A rating. Never mind all that, and take that interest

debt off the shoulders of the people of the province of British

Columbia. Let us simply talk about Hydro. They call Hydro a debt.

want to explain a little, if they will just listen. If this government

said that it came to the conclusion to get out of Hydro and sell it,

people from all over the world would line up to buy Hydro at ten times

the debt of Hydro. We could operate the government for the next ten

years, but the rates would go up. Is that what they want? Do they want

Hydro to be privately operated? No, because this is a public

institution that's operating well. That's what they're asking for.

Hydro is not a debt. I'm only speaking of Hydro now. As I said, I'm not

speaking of the municipal board of authority; I'm not speaking of any

of that. I'm saying that Hydro is not a debt on the public in the

province of British Columbia.

We have to watch that we do

not arrive at the debt syndrome. Quebec has it, with a debt already of

$17 billion. This budget they have today has a debt of $17 billion and

an additional $3 billion deficit, totalling $20 billion in all. That's

acceptable to the people of Quebec. That's the debt syndrome. The great

province of Ontario has it already, with a horrendous debt of $1

billion more than the last budget, and the government was returned to

power. In this country we are arriving at the debt syndrome. That is

the fuel of inflation. That is our problem. We must not fuel inflation.

That minister will run this province's operating responsibility without

the future of debt. It is a sad day when we try and mislead the people

of British Columbia and try to tell them that the Crown corporations of

British Columbia are debts for their children. They are the greatest

asset this government has at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill PR401, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT RESPECTING

MONTREAL TRUST COMPANY AND

MONTREAL TRUST COMPANY OF CANADA

The House in committee on Bill PR401; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 to 7 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

MR. REE: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the Chair.

Bill

PR401,

An Act Respecting Montreal Trust Company and Montreal Trust

Company of Canada, reported complete without amendment, read a third

time and passed.

HON MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill PR402, Mr. Speaker.

WEST KOOTENAY POWER AND

LIGHT COMPANY, LIMITED, ACT, 1897,

AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

The House in committee on Bill PR402; Mr. Mussallem in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Sections 6 to 8 inclusive approved.

MR. REE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I believe the Chair may have omitted

section 5 in the recital of the sections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's exactly what the hon. Clerk is telling me at this time.

Section 5 approved.

MR. BARBER:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, it is the rule in this House that if

a Chairman inadvertently omits a

section and has to go back to it, he

must either obtain leave from the House in order to do so, or it is a

dropped order and has to be returned in the whole at the next sitting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I haven't yet declared the bill passed. I'm still on the bill at this time.

MR. BARBER: Nonetheless, Mr. Chairman, you require leave in order to return to

section 5, so that we may or may not grant assent to it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: What rule or regulation are you speaking of? What standing order?

MR. BARBER:

This has occurred a couple of times before, and in each case, when the

Chairman has inadvertently omitted a section, he has requested leave of

the committee or the House to return to the otherwise dropped section.

MR. HALL:

I think that if you read the bill carefully you'll find there are only

two sections; we've been out of order since you've been in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think you're right. I'm looking at the bill; it's right in front of me.

MR. HALL: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I wish you'd consult with the Clerks, because I think I'm right.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, would you kindly not interrupt the Chair. Order, please.

[ Page 6181 ]

Hon. members, the Chair wishes to make this correction: there are only two

sections to the bill. To excuse the Chair, there are an awful lot of numbers

here that I hadn't seen before. In the meantime, we have passed the bill

in beautiful order.

MR. KING:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we passed a bill under your firm,

authoritarian leadership which contains seven sections, a

preamble and

a title. What we have before us is a bill containing two sections, no

preamble and a title. That's a matter of record.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: There is a

preamble.

MR. KING: All right. There are two sections, in any event.

Mr.

Chairman, I would think the only remedy would be to ask leave to

reconsider the bill, because clearly it does not contain more than two

sections. To be precise for legislative records, I don't know how we

can pass this bill under the guise of it containing seven sections. For

the Clerks' assistance in giving you valuable legal advice, the main

problem I see in terms of obtaining leave to reconsider the bill is the

fact that the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot)

has instructed me never to give leave in the Legislature.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, if you'll bear with the Chairman again, with my full

apology to the House, we've passed sections 1 and 2 — and we passed the

others superfluously; we didn't need to pass them. It makes no

difference. It doesn't alter anything. We passed the

preamble; we

passed the title. The Chair rules that the bill has passed.

MR. REE:

Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete

without amendment — the two sections, the

preamble and the title.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill

PR402, West Kootenay Power and Light Company, Limited, Act, 1897,

Amendment Act, 1981, reported complete without amendment, read a third

time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 5, Mr. Speaker.

MINERAL LAND TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

The House in committee on Bill 5; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move that the bill be reported complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 5. Mineral Land Tax Amendment Act, 1981, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call committee on Bill 21.

PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

The House in committee on Bill 21; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 to 16 inclusive approved.

section 17.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, we see this bill has a number of what

are described as consequential amendments. I can remember some bills like that,

where the minister involved claimed they were consequential amendments and they

certainly weren't. However, I would agree that in this one they are.

section 17 we see once again substantial power given to the minister

and the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. I would ask the minister if he

could give the committee a fairly quick explanation as to why all these

powers are necessary and why greater detail cannot be spelled out as to

how the

section of the bill would operate.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Rather than giving the minister powers under this section, it gives the

officials of the branch the power to make regulations that they deem

necessary. I might just say that that power has been with them, or at

least been exercised by them, over many years, at least as long as I

can remember. The problem here is that the legislative counsel and

officials in the Ministry of the Attorney-General's branch have said to

us that many of the things that the officials have been doing in the

branch over the years may have been ultra vires because the power

wasn't contained in the act. In this instance, we are putting into the

act the opportunity for them to make and vary some of the provisions in

regulations that they have been doing for many years. I can assure the

member that this

section doesn't give the minister any more power at

all through the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

Sections 17 to 28 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 21 be reported complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 21, Petroleum and Natural Gas Amendment Act, 1981, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 17, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 6182 ]

POWER ENGINEERS AND BOILER

AND PRESSURE VESSEL SAFETY ACT

The House in committee on Bill 17; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

I would ask that

section 2(3)(

d) be deleted and the following

substituted. That amendment has been placed with you on the order

paper. I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 2 as amended approved.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On

section 5, the member for Comox.

MS. SANFORD:

Actually, it's

section 3, Mr. Chairman. There was some question raised

the other day by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) with

respect to trains. The minister promised to bring that information

back. I believe that the

section went by before he could bring the

information back.

MR. CHAIRMAN: As members know, it's

impossible in committee to give leave. However, with assent of the

committee, we can allow a certain latitude on the question on

section 5.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

There were a number of questions asked when the bill was debated during

first reading. I have answers to a number of those questions. With

respect to the question raised by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke,

the short answer is that it covers only stationary plants and does not

cover the engines, as I suspect the member may have known. May I take

the liberty of reading the answer which I secured — not having a

railroad ticket, unlike the member.

"The

proposed legislation covers stationary power plants on railway

premises. For rolling stock safety services are the responsibility of

the Ministry of Transportation and Highways under the Railway Act.

Wherever pressure vessels are involved on railway premises, the

Ministry of Labour inspecting power engineers ensure the design is

correct to the standard and certify the manufactured product. The

Ministry of Labour inspecting power engineers also deal with the

stationary equipment on provincial railway properties and provide a

similar service to the railways under federal jurisdiction where

requested by them and where the feds do not have qualified personnel."

The

legislative editors did not feel that there was any need to include in

this legislation specific clauses pertaining to railways as an

exclusion, as it was self-evident by the scope of the relative acts. It

was referring, of course, to the Railway Act. I hope that answers the

question.

Sections 5 to 16 inclusive approved.

section 17.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Section 17 is amended by deleting "type of certificate" and

substituting "class of certificate." I move the amendment standing

under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 17 as amended approved.

Sections 18 and 19 approved.

section 20.

MS. SANFORD:

I have a motion on the order paper which would delete

section 20. I

would like to explain that before the House gets an opportunity to vote

on it.

Section 20 gives the possibility for strike-breaking.

If you read the

section carefully, you will find that the chief

engineer of a plant or the owner of a plant may permit a person who is

not qualified under this act and the regulations temporarily to operate

any equipment that is in the plant and to which this act applies. It

seems to me that you're going to give the owner of a plant authority to

permit any unqualified person in that plant to operate that equipment.

That certainly leaves the option for strike-breaking if in fact there

has been a dispute at the plant and the regular people who are

qualified are out on the picket line. I would like to have the minister

comment on that before we vote on it.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, after reviewing the Orders of the Day

I took the member's proposal, and all I saw was: delete

section 20. I

did manage to secure some notes on that. I don't think that particular

question with respect to strike-breaking is really a consideration one

way or the other.

I might mention that

section 20(

a) of the

new bill is essentially the same as

section 23(3) of the existing act.

Both the new and old sections recognize that there are extenuating

circumstances — emergencies such as illnesses or other unavoidable

causes — where it becomes necessary in the interests of public safety

for plants to operate or continue to operate without the attendance of

a power engineer for temporary periods where certain predetermined

precautions have been established. I think that is eminently

reasonable. The new clause actually tightens up the provisions by

involving the director and the advisory committee, as well as the owner

and chief engineer, in setting out the conditions where for short

periods the exception to the rule can be applied. I'd like to repeat

that that is now in the present legislation.

This concern

was raised, I might tell you, by only one segment of the power

engineers during the committee deliberations. After being thoroughly

aired, a motion to delete or change that

section was defeated by a

large majority.

For the benefit of members in the House, I'd

like to cast back to some of the comments during an earlier reading.

There is a committee and has been a committee consisting of 33 members

representing all unions which were involved and management, as well as

a number of associations. To be very candid, I think those people are

the ones who know and understand the working of boilers and pressure

vessels. As I believe I mentioned earlier in the House, when this

particular

[ Page 6183 ]

issue

was presented to them it was passed 29 to 4. Really, who are we, when

we're looking at consensus between the parties on legislation which has

now been worked on for five years, to turn around and propose an

amendment deleting a

section which they themselves have thoroughly

aired and wish incorporated within the bill?

I'd like to

give an example. I don't think you can attribute any intention to the

government for the purposes of strike-breaking. What's at issue here is

the matter of safety. For example, in the interests of the welfare of

the public, a hospital power plant in an isolated location is permitted

to remain in service, with certain predetermined safeguards, when the

shift engineer becomes ill or is involved in an accident. So I think

that there has to be some flexibility. I would respectfully suggest

that the real safeguard in here involves the chief engineer and the

advisory committee itself, which has supported this proposal for a

considerable period of time.

MS. SANFORD: Mr.

Chairman, the minister relies very heavily on the wording of the safety

committee that was advising him, and keeps referring to the fact that

this is a safety bill has nothing to do with anything else. But when

there is a dispute at a plant, this

section could be invoked under the

guise of safety — which is what this bill is supposedly all about — and

the owner can bring in unqualified people, which in effect is

strike-breaking. The committee may have been very concerned about

safety, but I don't think that they adequately considered the dangers

involved in wording of this type in legislation. The minister just

glossed over it and said: "It's really not strike-breaking one way or

the other; that's not a factor, because we're talking about safety."

But the point is that the wording does allow strike-breaking to take

place under certain conditions, and that's what worries me. That's why

I've brought in this amendment to delete this section.

MR. KING:

I appreciate the comments of the minister and my colleague. I also am

quite prepared to accept the minister's assurance that the government

has not introduced this

section with any improper motive in terms of

strike-breaking. But I think the concern of my colleague the member for

Comox (Ms. Sanford) is that there is a loophole here that would not act

as a safety measure but could be used as a strike-breaking device, and

to that extent be inconsistent with the intent of the entire bill,

which is to bring one standard of safety. Her amendment is a good one.

The alternative would be for the minister to stipulate precisely what

is meant by "temporary."

We on this side of the House

certainly appreciate that there could be an illness or some unforeseen

emergency that would require that that boiler be kept operating for a

short period of time by someone who was not a qualified

certificate-holder, but surely that could be nailed down to four hours

or one shift until a replacement could be found. Even in the isolated

areas where a boiler is in operation around the clock, there is always

a pool of qualified people to operate that boiler, as well as relief

staff. I can't see the kind of emergency that would require an

unqualified person to operate it more than four hours or one shift at

the most. If it were restricted to one shift, then any concern about

the strike-breaking aspect would be removed. I submit there would still

be adequate flexibility for those isolated emergencies which the

minister has explained.

I would suggest very strongly to the

minister that he consider that. It may not be his motive to provide the

loophole, but employers caught in the heat of a labour dispute will

often use statutes to serve their best interests in ways not

contemplated by the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon.

members, before proceeding I think the Chair should advise that the

amendment to delete a

section as is written here, "delete

section 20,"

would be out of order, because the same result is achieved by voting

against the section. The following amendment, to add

section 20(a),

does not fall into that category.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: In view of the ruling I still feel entitled to make two comments with respect to those items raised by both members.

With

respect to management using legislation in its favour in difficult

circumstances, I would respectfully suggest that that works both ways.

I'm concerned about what the member raises, and I would take that under

advisement to see whether or not something could be looked at. It won't

be in this particular bill, but I will, because there's certainly no

intention whatsoever. It would seem to me that if someone were in

effect exploiting a particular provision in a statute to do this, the

objections would be well-founded. I will take your comments. That's

about all I can do, in view of the fact that the motion has been ruled

out of order.

MR. KING: I could offer the minister

another amendment, or he could move one of his own volition. Be that as

it may, I just wanted to comment very briefly on the minister's

gratuitous comment that trade unions may violate or use a statute to

their own advantage. Anyone may, but the point is that the minister

didn't really need to offer that gratuitous comment, because this

statute deals with a provision which would offer an improper advantage

— one not conceived in the legislation — in this case to the employer.

If we were debating a matter before us that through sloppy legislative

drafting offered an improper power to a trade union, then the

opposition would identify that for the minister too. It's a matter of

some common sense in legislative draftsmen. All I'm suggesting is that

the minister perhaps nail down what would be temporary emergency

conditions where an unqualified person could operate this boiler. From

the point of view of industrial relations and of safety it would seem

to me a prudent step to nail it down to a prescribed period time —

probably not more than one shift. That doesn't threaten anybody.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

One comment I would pass is simply this: when I look at the number of

people who were involved in the advisory committee responsible for

putting forth this legislation, I would be very surprised if the issue

which is being addressed by both members opposite was not raised. I

would be astounded if it wasn't, particularly in view of the number of

unions involved.

MR. KING: Too bad they're not here to debate the bill.

MR. LEA: What do you think?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Never mind what I think, Mr. Member. I think this is a good bill.

[ Page 6184 ]

Section 20 approved.

MS. SANFORD:

Section 20 has now been passed. We opposed it.

stand to move an amendment adding

section 20(

a) standing under my name

on the order paper, I have already explained the reason for adding this

particular

section to the House, at length.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, prior to moving the motion, I think we should first dispose of

section 20.

MS. SANFORD: I was worried that you were going to go on to

section 21.

section 21.

MR. CHAIRMAN: At this point, I will say "so ordered" on

section 20 and recognize the member for Comox on the amendment of the order paper.

On the amendment.

MS. SANFORD:

I now move the amendment of

section 20(

a) standing in my name on the

order paper, which adds the whole list of classifications of engineers.

outlined the reason for this very clearly the other day. It's the

tendency of this government to do everything by regulation, including

this whole classification which goes on for a couple of pages outlining

the classifications of engineers. These regulations, as you know, Mr.

Chairman, are drawn up behind the closed doors of cabinet. There's no

discussion in here. There's no one to hear the discussion about why

they're adding this or withdrawing that. It's government by regulation.

We object to it very much. I'm putting the list of classifications that

appeared in the previous legislation back in this bill.

there's a need to add more classifications, then certainly the minister

can go ahead and do it. We are here for at least six months of the

year, it seems to me these days. So surely, if there is the need to add

further classifications, a six-month period is not too long to wait in

order to make the necessary changes. Before, they were always made once

a year. Years ago we sat in this House for only six weeks at a time.

Any changes that had to be made were made in that period of time. Then

the people had to wait until the following session. If we're here six

months of the year, it's not too long to wait to add further

classifications if that is necessary. We object to all this legislation

by regulation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment pass? The noes have it.

MS. SANFORD: The minister was up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair did not see the minister standing. If the minister is speaking to the amendment....

HON. MR. HEINRICH: We listen over here — listen to the group. Maybe that's something you should have remembered a few years ago.

Again,

I refer to those who were responsible for bringing the legislation

forth. It was quite acceptable to put it in by way of regulation. This

question was raised during an earlier reading. I might add something

here. I'm reading from some comments which may demonstrate why change

by regulation when required is the better route to go, particularly

because of the changing technology in industry. That's not in dispute.

That certainly wasn't in dispute by the people who deal with this

problem on a daily basis. It says: "In the matters of certificate

classifications, plant sizes were reviewed to advance and get

inter-provincial uniformity and reciprocity. These activities are

sponsored nationally. They're monitored provincially by the committee

of power engineers and educators" — not by MLAs. The changes were

recommended. One in particular was the third-class certificate, which

had plant size amended as far as our act was concerned. That amendment

was better reflected in regulation. It was accepted by the committee

involved. It would be far better to do it by achieving that consensus

and proceeding administratively through regulation.

The

question really is that, with 50 to 100 pages of regulations, that bill

would be in constant turmoil. As a matter of fact, when the

recommendations come forth, they don't come into cabinet and the

cabinet makes a decision on the size of a boiler. The recommendations

come from those who deal with them on a daily basis.

The

consensus of those who are involved in this is that technology is

changing so rapidly that unless the system is capable of leading with

respect to safety concerns rather than following after the fact,

consumers will be denied access to the latest in safety measures. It

seems to me that those matters can be addressed by regulation. Where

requirements relative to equipment-classification certificates are

entrenched in legislation, the time lag in bringing about change would

be such that the public would be subject to many hazards and

complications before the system could respond.

If I might

make a suggestion, let's look at the act which is now in place. It

contains nineteenth-century material. This government has been in power

— and members opposite were in power once too — and I never saw any

changes occur. Do you recall any? It's the same legislation.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

No. Rapidly changing technology brings with it many new dangers. They

ought to be addressed. There's an alert system and an advisory

committee represented by all people in industry. They will make

suggestions with respect to any regulations to provide a

forward-looking approach to deal with the advent of those changes.

That's not an unreasonable request either.

Before I sit

down, the member made a proposal to include redundant and obsolete

classifications. She just threw out the old bill. We've got a logging

donkey engineer. When did you last see a logging donkey engineer? When

did you see a boiler operator, class A and B, and a class of plant for

third-class power engineers? That is only one example of the value of

having regulations which will be subject to due process and under

continuous review by industry and labour through the advisory committee.

MS. SANFORD:

I explained to the minister that the list that I brought in was the

list that had been contained in this bill for I don't know how many

years. If the advisory committee suggested to me the number of

classifications they wanted in here, I would bring them in and put them

in the bill.

[ Page 6185 ]

don't have that advice. The minister has the advice and knows what all

of these classifications are supposed to be. He knows which ones to

take out and which ones to add. They should be done here in this

Legislature, not in cabinet. He cannot understand that, and I give up.

MR. KING:

I'm not prepared to give up yet. Something the minister said concerns

me a little bit. I just want to try to get across to him that, yes, we

understand; we respect the need for technical advice with respect to

specialized fields, professional acts and so on. But that's different

from this Legislature becoming a rubber stamp for any professional

association or any other group which has a special statute governing

its function. For the minister to suggest, as he seemed to, that "the

technical committee has advised me on this matter, so how dare the

opposition or anyone else question the best advice of those

specialists," is close to being contemptuous of the function of the

Legislature. I don't think the minister intended that. But he should

perceive that there is a responsibility on him — the minister and the

sponsor of the bill — to familiarize himself adequately with the

contents of the bill, technical or not, so that the Legislature is

assured that we are not being asked to rubber-stamp and validate in

some statutory way an abuse of power or some other breach of right by a

professional organization which may be invidious to the public

interest. That's what the Legislature is here for: to scrutinize and

ensure that we don't give blanket endorsation to any group that is not

responsible to this Legislature. For the minister to suggest to my

colleague that, "how dare you question what this professional committee

has deemed in their wisdom to be appropriate," comes close to contempt

of the Legislature. Perhaps the minister hasn't been around too long,

but he'd better understand that he, as the sponsor of that bill, has an

obligation to give answers in here. If you don't understand the bill

well enough, Mr. Minister, then I suggest that you take it back and get

your technocrats to spend some more time with you, until you are

conversant enough to answer for it before the Legislature.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 21 and 22 approved.

section 23.

MS. SANFORD: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper —

section 2(1), line 2, changing the word "may" to "shall."

we are going to have improved safety, then I think it must be an

obligation that these inspections take place, rather than giving the

discretion to whoever. I think it is important that this change be

accepted by the House. It used to be an obligation; it used to be

"shall." It has now become "may." I think that is a step backwards in

terms of protecting the public.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Mr. Chairman, I'm just wondering if there is going to be any particular

advantage in having formal investigations or detailed studies of minor

incidents. I wonder if that is realistic in view of the number of

inspectors that would be available, the number of people. By using the

word "may" it's possible to accept certified reports and data, as

opposed to conducting detailed on-site investigations. Really the

proposed change is that if there is a decision that an accident

requires investigation, then the investigation shall be carried out.

The concern that I would have with it is that you're placing a very

onerous burden on the administration of the legislation, just with

respect to the manpower involved. Surely there is a report coming in on

anything, but the chief inspector may, in view of any major problem....

I think there has got to be a certain degree of discretion; otherwise

there will be bureaucrats running around on a number of items.

MS. SANFORD:

If the minister looks at the wording,

section 23(1) says: "Where in the

opinion of the director it is necessary to investigate an accident...."

If it is his opinion that it is necessary to investigate an accident,

then surely he shall investigate it. But we still have that

discretionary power. It says: "Where in the opinion of the director it

is necessary to investigate an accident, the director...may investigate

the accident." That doesn't make any sense. We certainly are not

recommending that every small incident be investigated, but where it is

the opinion of the director that it is necessary to investigate, then

surely he shall investigate, if we’re going to have any safety.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I'll accept the member's comment on that, particularly after rereading this section. I accept the amendment.

Amendment approved.

Section 23 as amended approved.

Sections 24 to 34 inclusive approved.

section 35.

MS. SANFORD:

I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper, which

deletes the words "power engineers" and "boiler operators" from

section

35(2)(

e) and (f).

This amendment is to ensure they are not

put under regulation. This whole

section deals with regulations, going

all the way from (

a) to (u), because the minister intends to do

everything by regulation behind closed doors. It's not even necessary

for the minister to accept the advice of his committee of 33. You can

have this great advisory group, but he doesn't have to accept their

advice. He can put anything he wants in the regulations. As long as he

can get them through cabinet they're the law, and they never get

discussed in here. I don't think that's a point the minister

understands yet.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 35 to 42 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[ Page 6186 ]

Bill

17, Power Engineers and Boiler and Pressure Vessel Safety Act, reported

complete with amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the

House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 18.

ELECTRICAL ENERGY INSPECTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

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

Sections 1 to 11 inclusive approved.

section 12.

MS. SANFORD:

I am somewhat concerned that we are not going to have a sufficient

number of inspectors in the province. The other day during second

reading the minister said it was a matter of funding; he didn't have

very many funds and he probably would not be able to increase the

number of electrical inspectors. Way back in 1974 it was a major

concern to Dr. Keenleyside, who conducted the study on electrical

inspections in the province. He felt there should be an annual

inspection of facilities such as schools and hospitals. I'm wondering

whether or not any of that is being done: if they just get their

initial inspection and no inspections take place following that, or if

regular inspections of places like schools and hospitals are being

done. Could I have the minister comment on that?

One other

point: can he assure the House that people who do their own wiring are

not going to be affected by the various provisions of this legislation?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

The question the member referred to was of some concern. It was also

raised by another member. I'm advised by the executive director for the

safety engineering services division that.... I conveyed to them the

concern you had expressed about the number of inspectors and the safety

coverage. I think reference was made to schools and hospitals, and I'm

advised that institutions like these have now taken advantage of the

reinspection services provided under annual permit. I understand that

something like 45 school districts, 20 hospitals, two universities and

one college currently hold the annual permits.

I'm not going

to stand here and say this will never be a problem. It is a problem

we've had for 30 years, and I suspect it will be a problem for another

30 through sheer numbers alone. The other question that concerned me,

as I recall, was your concern about the wiring of phones.

MS. SANFORD: Yes, people who do their own wiring.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

It seems to me that there is a great deal of flexibility in that. To

give you a definitive answer on that one, I think I'll have to

undertake to get back to you.

Sections 12 through 15 inclusive approved.

section 16.

MS. SANFORD:

We have to reiterate that this is a

section in which the government is

going to do everything by regulation. We must state our objection to

this section. We are very much opposed to the direction the government

is taking in almost every piece of legislation. They are doing more and

more behind closed doors. We are very much opposed to it, and I don't

think this government really understands the implications of carrying

on so much of what is normally done in a Legislature through

order-in-council.

We will oppose this section, Mr. Chairman.

Sections 16 through 20 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 18, Electrical Energy Inspection Amendment Act, 1981, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 19, Mr. Speaker.

GAS AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

The House in committee on Bill 19; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MS. SANFORD:

During second reading of this bill we indicated that we would not be

saying much during second reading, because we had a number of technical

things we wanted to raise which were better done in committee. So I

have a number of issues that I would like to raise under the various

sections.

Under

section 2, the definition of the word

"alter" includes the word "repair." I have some concern about including

the word "repair" in the word "alter." There's quite a difference

between the words "alter" and "repair." In the previous bill it was

expressly prohibited from including the word "repair," because

repairing leaves open the possibility of people getting a lot of junked

or unsafe gas appliances. I'm concerned about this particular addition.

I would like the minister to explain to the House why they have

included the word "repair" in here. For instance, you can now weld

cracked heat exchangers in some of these appliances, and that's not

always necessarily safe. I think that adding that particular

section is

a step backwards in terms of protection of the public, as far as safety

is concerned.

I would also like to point out that under "gas

installation" in this particular

section the government has completely

removed the

section in the old act which put the onus on the gas-fitter

to ascertain before he installed it that the appliance could be used

safely. Not only have they added the word "repair," they have now

removed the onus on the gas-fitter to

[ Page 6187 ]

ensure the safety of that particular piece of equipment before he installs it.

The

other thing they've lost in this new bill, relating to this section....

An inspector used to have the power to direct that a test be conducted

if there were any question, but the inspector can no longer do that. I

would like to know how the safety of the consumer is protected by

adding that word "repair" — which was prohibited in the previous

legislation. And who will now direct that tests be conducted where

there is a question?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 2 pass?

MS. SANFORD:

No, Mr. Chairman. I know the minister is trying to get the information.

I did notify him during second reading that we'd be asking some

technical questions. He probably needs another minute or so to get the

information that he needs.

Does the minister know why they

added the word "repair" to the word "alter"? Now it also means repair.

That was strictly prohibited in the old legislation. Who is going to

direct that tests be conducted on these appliances which may or may not

be safe once they've been repaired by welding or whatever?

I'm

not sure whether the minister is ready yet, Mr. Chairman. I know it's

rather technical information, but I think it's important. He has

pointed out in various press releases and has proudly announced that

this particular set of bills is going to improve safety in the

province. I would like to know how safety is going to be improved by

the addition of the word "repair," and by removing the

section that

gives power to the inspector to direct that tests be conducted.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD:

Under

section 2: "alter" includes "repair"; and "gas installation"

means the facility or system. I'm asking questions about that.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

I'm trying to secure an adequate answer for the member. I'm in a

difficult position. I've got people in my office right now who are very

familiar with this, but I don't quite know how I'm going to answer. If

there are a number of questions which the member has, I would

appreciate being notified in advance if there's some concern —

itemizing these. I have never heard about this particular item before.

MS. SANFORD: Well, it's in the bill.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

No, no, the concern. You know, there's quite a bit of language in all

the bills. But if you are concerned about some particular items, to

which you made reference earlier that you would be raising some

questions of a technical nature, then I would appreciate being notified

in advance as to your particular concerns, Madam Member, and I would

try to bring some acceptable answers back to the House for you.

think that the thrust of what they were trying to get at with respect

to the word "alter" was to allow some flexibility. If we're going to be

very rigid about it.... It seems to me that if we go into

section 6, as

an example, where the word "alter" is used, where it says, "No person

shall install or alter house piping, appliance or a vent, unless he

meets the prescribed conditions and qualifications," I think that maybe

we ought to know that it's just as important to have a repair covered

by inspection as it is an alteration. I repeat that item: repair

covered by inspection as it is an alteration, depending on what you

define a repair to be. How are you going to establish that?

MS. SANFORD:

Mr. Chairman, I don't really accept that explanation, although I

appreciate that the minister is in a difficult position. I'm hoping

that people will have heard his voice in his office, and will come

rushing down to assist him in giving the answers. Perhaps I can get

some more specific information from the minister on this at a later

time. I am concerned about it, because I don't think that the safety

aspect is improved one bit in this section.

Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

section 5.

MS. SANFORD:

The minister just made reference to this section. What it really does

is again diminish the level of safety, rather than improve it. What's

happening here is that the

section allows the inspector to inspect or

not inspect. It says that installation is to be done according to the

act, the regulations and the code. That's quite clear. But they've also

given the Lieutenant-Governor.... We're discussing

section 5, which

substitutes a new

section called

section 6(1): "No person shall install

or alter house piping, an appliance or a vent, unless he meets the

prescribed conditions and qualifications." But then it also says under

section 6(3) that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-CounciI can exempt anyone

from complying with

section 1.

So no person shall install,

alter, repair or do any of these things, but then any person or class

of persons can be exempted under

section 6(3). In

section 5(a), again

by regulation, anyone can be excluded from needing to comply with

section 1. So what are these new regulations going to do? Are they

going to exclude everybody? What you have here is no permits — they

don't have to issue permits — no records, no inspections and no legal

responsibility for anybody. What kind of increased public safety is

that, if you don't have to have any of these provisions? Can the

minister advise how safety is improved through

section 5, which adds

section 6(1) to the legislation?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Mr. Chairman, the example passed on to me is that there are a number of

times when a homeowner will do repairs to his or her own home. The

question then comes in: for a homeowner to look after his work does he

become a gas-fitter? There are certain rules and regulations to be

complied with. That's really why an exemption has been given. For

clarification I repeat: if you wish to repair your own home, is it

necessary that you have a ticket? I think perhaps that's being rather

hard, so we're suggesting that for the purpose of somebody doing

repairs in his own home an exemption be given. That exemption is given

by way of regulation.

MS. SANFORD: The numbering here

is a little confusing, Mr. Chairman. Does

section 5 include all the way

down to...? Several other sections are really included there. There's a

separate contractor section, if you've noticed. Would that be part of

section 5? I'm assuming that.

[ Page 6188 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is part of

section 5, hon. member.

MS. SANFORD: Then I shall speak on

section 5, if I may, Mr. Chairman.

would like to know what the bonding will be for the contractors. In the

past it's been set at $2,000. That was set in 1954, and it's far too

low. It's going to be set by regulation. Can the minister advise what

level the bonding is going to be set at?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

The bonding is not being changed. It still remains at $2,000. I think

that the member makes a valid point. I will make note of that and pass

on your concerns.

MS. SANFORD: This is another part

section 5. I'm pleased that the minister is going to look at that

bonding, because a lot of inflation has taken place since 1954.

section 5, I'll refer the minister to the new

section 8 that's being

added to

section 5. In the new

section 8 it requires that a contractor

or gas fitter notify an inspector or local inspector. In other words,

there are times in this section, if you look at part (b), Mr. Minister,

that the gas inspection branch will not even know that some of the

installations have been made. It's not clear whether a permit is

required or not for these excluded installations. I'm assuming that

some of these excluded installations, whatever they're going to be,

would be more than just the homeowner making some repairs to his

venting system, or whatever.

Here again I think we're losing

some protection. If the gas inspection branch doesn't know that these

installations are going in, how are they possibly going to ensure that

all the rules and regulations have been met? Can the minister comment

on that?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Perhaps by rereading the

new

section 8 again, the member could place herself in some portion of

a city or some rural area of the province where something has happened

— a concern over a broken line or whatever it may be. Surely anyone is

entitled to have that repaired forthwith and not have to wait for an

inspector. This

section provides that flexibility, allowing whoever

wanted to do the repairs — the homeowner or whoever it may be — to file

with the inspector after the event. I think that would seem to be

reasonable. I think the

section says: "is permitted by the regulations

without notification or authorization of an inspector or local

inspector." That is the situation, I suppose, that the

section is

trying to address.

MS. SANFORD: I'm not sure that it

requires that it be filed with the inspector once the changes have been

made. To me, the

section does not state that. But be that as it is, do

you agree with me?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: If you read further you'll find that a permit is still required, but the permit is also after the event.

MS. SANFORD: I don't think we're communicating on this one, Mr. Chairman.

What

I would do under this same

section is move on to the new

section 9(1),

where it says that the inspector may inspect appliances and gas

installations. Here again, we've gone from "shall" to "may." Under Bill

17, the minister agreed that there is a problem with the inspector

"shall" inspect. He did accept an amendment. I don't have an amendment

written out at this point to change "may" to "shall". I'm hoping that

the minister can quickly write one out and ensure that these

inspections do take place so we can have at least the level of safety

we were used to before.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The

reality of inspections.... I think if we're sufficiently candid with

each other, we'll find that many occur and many do not occur. That is,

I think, a fact. The question really is: are you going to be placing

upon government the mandate to tell the electorate everything shall be

inspected? The fact is that it's not now and it never will be. I think

the legislation reflects a certain degree of honesty as to what

actually is occurring outside.

MS. SANFORD: Mr.

Chairman, I did not like that answer. Because there is sloppiness now

in investigating and carrying out inspections of gas installations

doesn't mean you change the legislation to reflect the sloppiness. If

you're going to improve the safety, then you ensure these inspections

take place. If the minister is saying there are some very small units

that don't need to be inspected, he can state that in his legislation.

You can't have this kind of discretionary legislation where the

inspector may, if he wishes, just because some inspections are not

being carried out now. What we have now is that the inspectors are not

required to inspect, and they're not required to issue any certificates

of inspection; so what are they required to do? I wonder if the

minister would clarify that.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: First

of all, if everything were mandatory we could probably triple our

staff. Secondly, what happens when a contract is submitted, the

contractor's bonded, the job is being done and he has to return to the

site on every conceivable occasion? Tell me, is there not some

responsibility that could be placed upon the contractor? That's what

happens now in any event. I don't see us in government turning around

and putting in sanctions: you shall do this, you shall do that. It'll

never come to pass or be implemented, just through the number of people

required to administer it. Not only that, I wonder about the validity

of repeat inspections on one set of premises every time there's a

change. Certainly there's some responsibility upon the contractor.

They're bonded, whether it be a materials or performance bond. It's

answerable this way, and that's a precaution as well.

MS. SANFORD:

I wonder if the minister has ever considered charging for these

inspections if necessary. He's talking about tripling his staff. I

don't know how many staff members he now has acting as inspectors, but

it reminds me of what Dr. Keenleyside said in his report on electrical

safety: "Making a profit out of providing a poor service in relation to

public safety verges on immorality." I have to agree with that. The

least we can expect in a province as wealthy as this is that we have

safe installations of appliances that relate to something as volatile

as gas.

It's not good enough. If the minister requires

permit fees, or whatever else, in order to increase his staff, that's

what he should be doing. He should not be changing the legislation from

"shall inspect" to "may inspect," as we have seen happen in this

particular section. What are the inspectors

[ Page 6189 ]

required

to do now? I wonder if the minister could clarify that. They're not

required to inspect, and they're not required to issue certificates.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

With respect to fees, fees were increased roughly 40 percent last

Christmas. Secondly, you can increase the fees and the inspections and

you might as well have somebody living on the premises full-time.

There's the state in the bedroom again, and I'm not really prepared to

support something like that.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

MS. SANFORD:

Here we've put in a new

section 11. In this case it seems that the

owner of the premises, not the installer, is the one who's going to be

required to correct or have a deficiency in the gas installation

corrected. I'll refer the minister to the section. I know he wants to

look it over. This is subsection (c): "He may order the occupier of the

premises, if any, and the owner of the house, piping, appliance or vent

to comply with this act and the regulations." So if you get someone to

come in and install some gas equipment and the inspector later on finds

that it's deficient, then it's the owner who has to pay some other gas

contractor in order to ensure that he complies with the inspector's

recommendations. I don't think that's good enough. I don't think the

public should be required to pay for that — the person who owns the

place. I think it should be the person making the installation who

should be held responsible. This

section makes the owner or the

occupier responsible. I think that's a mistake. Could I have the

minister's comments?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I think the

section is driving at what is to happen when the installation has been

completed and then determined not to be safe. Who is going to be

responsible for cutting off the energy supply or shutting it down?

Surely if an inspector finds that it's not safe, it's incumbent upon

him to do something about it. I don't think that's unreasonable.

MS. SANFORD:

He's talking about shutting it off. We're talking about the repair.

There's something wrong with it, and it's got to be fixed. Yet it's the

owner who's left with the bill and the responsibility for repairing it

under this section.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The real

question is if a permit has been issued, I presume that the contractor

would be responsible. I would imagine the law of the land would be most

appropriate in the case law. If you're finding some old premises,

surely there's some responsibility for the buyer. I would suspect

there's some onus on him in buying the premises.

MS. SANFORD:

The wording is very clear. I'll refer the minister to it again: "He may

order the occupier of the premises, if any, and the owner of the house,

piping, appliance or vent to comply with this act and the regulations."

That means spending whatever money is required to bring it up to the

standard required by the inspector. It's the owner of those premises

who must pay that bill, not the installer of the gas appliance. I think

it is the gas installer who should be held responsible. We're getting

him out of the picture entirely, because the act says: "order the

occupier of the premises to live up to the regulations."

MR. KING:

On a point of order, I wonder if the advisers could answer the

questions. The minister seems singularly incapable of answering the

questions even with advice.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order, hon. member.

MR. KING:

I wonder who they are, Mr. Chairman. Do we have proper advisers on

staff in the House, or are they friends of the minister? Would the

minister introduce his staff? We've never seen them before.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

With us today is Elizabeth King, who is a legislative counsel. Also I

have Wilf Lawson, who is the director in charge of safety standards.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

section 8.

MS. SANFORD: I wonder if the minister could advise us who the chief inspector is now for the gas safety branch.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Bill Montgomery.

MS. SANFORD:

I wonder if the minister could then advise us why all of the

correspondence that comes from Mr. Montgomery's office says "director,

gas safety branch." There has never been any reference to him as chief

inspector, and I'm wondering if he's been designated as such.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'm advised he's designated chief inspector under the act.

MS. SANFORD: Who designates him?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: He is the chief inspector under the act, but for the purposes of administration he is referred to as a director.

MR. KING:

I just want to ask the minister what this amendment means to

section

14. Would the minister explain that? Mr. Chairman, this

section says

section 14 is amended by numbering it as

section 14(1) and I wonder

what it means. The minister must know. Surely he wouldn't introduce

something to the Legislature that he wasn't familiar with. I just ask

him for a brief, concise, erudite explanation of what this

section

means.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, it concerns temporary appointments for less than 60 days.

Section 8 approved.

section 9.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

I have an amendment which amends the proposed

section 15(1) "by adding

'or designated' after 'appointed.' " It's standing under my name on the

order paper [See appendix.]

[ Page 6190 ]

Amendment approved.

Section 9 as amended approved.

section 10.

MS. SANFORD:

Mr. Chairman, this is the

section that refers to local inspectors in

particular, and it seems to me that they have done away with most of

the authority of these inspectors. They removed sections 7, 8, 9, 10

and 11, and it states in

section 7 in the old bill that gas fitters

shall obtain a permit and that a gas fitter shall notify an inspector,

and then

section 9 states the duties of a gas fitter. But these are

eliminated, and they're never replaced by anything. So what happens to

a gas fitter under these sections? What qualifications or certification

does he need and where does he get it and that sort of thing, if the

local inspector doesn't have any authority under this particular

section? It's only the provincially appointed inspectors who are going

to have any authority.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Why is that

not all set out here? To hell with it. I'm stopping this thing. I've

had it with this bill. This thing is going out.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

(continued)

On vote 106: minister's office, $205,728.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Chairman, last week — I think it was Thursday afternoon — the

Minister of Health, in responding to some questions raised by me,

confessed: "The program that I particularly covet is the infant

development program." I had hoped that having done that, the minister

was then about to release to this House a report in which this very

fact has been recommended. You may not know about this report, Mr.

Chairman. The minister has had it in his possession for some time, as

have the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) and the Minister of

Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). None of them has seen fit to

release this report or even to table it in the House, so that it would

be possible for all of us to do an in-depth analysis of it and either

support or negate some of the recommendations in it.

I want

to fill the House in, first of all, on this report. In the fall of 1979

the provincial Interministerial Children's Committee decided that one

of its priorities was to initiate a comprehensive provincial review of

services to the severely handicapped child. I would imagine this was in

preparation for this year, which, as we know, is the International Year

of the Disabled.

Four specific concerns were supposed to be

looked at, the first of which was the fragmentation and poor

coordination of services directed to this particular group of children

in our community; secondly, the rapid expansion in the nature and scope

of services provided by the government, voluntary agencies and other

professionals; thirdly, the problem posed by the increasing demand by

parents and others for greater integration of severely handicapped

children into the public school system; and finally, the need for

clarification in the policy concerning provisions of long-term care for

children.

As you can see, it was a pretty in-depth and very

serious study that was about to be embarked upon. It would include very

valuable information for all people working with disabled children, the

parents of disabled children, community groups involved with disabled

children, or, indeed, anybody at all who was interested in the services

to and the plight of disabled children in our community.

was a pretty high-powered team that was put together and began its work

in January 1980. Some of the members were: John Talbot, coordinator,

division of planning and development, Ministry of Health; Phoebe

Brock-Dunbar, Ministry of Human Resources representative; and Stephanie

Stull, special education teacher from Victoria, Ministry of Education

representative. The Ministry of Health also placed Dr. Sam Sheps,

pediatrician, division of population pediatrics at UBC, on this

committee.

In addition to these four members, there was a

steering committee made up of senior ministry representatives who were

supposed to provide assistance to the team. It was a pretty heavy-duty

steering committee. The chairperson was Dr. Gerry Bonham, now on his

way out the revolving door which has come to be part of the history of

the Ministry of Health. While he was still with the Ministry of Health

he was a chairperson. Marilyn Epstein, director of special education,

was a bureaucrat put on by the Ministry of Education. The Ministry of

Human Resources bureaucrat was Hugh Saville, executive director. At

that time, the team was given one year to do its study, to develop its

methodology, to collect and analyze data and to write its report. For

all intents and purposes, the team met that deadline. What we have is a

report of something over 500 pages in length. It's very well

researched. It's obviously not well received, because it's gathering

dust on the shelves of all the three ministries involved — Health,

Education and Human Resources.

It dealt with some pretty basic things. It states:

"The major objectives of this study were to describe the

number of severely handicapped children and adolescents in the province by their

physical, mental and sensory disabilities; to identify the services required

to maintain these children in their own communities; and to recommend the role,

responsibilities and interrelationship of the three ministries, voluntary agencies

and parents in regard to services for these very severely disabled children."

One

of the things the research group did which was of special interest to

everyone was to come up with a very excellent definition of exactly

what "severely handicapped" or "severely disabled" meant. They broke it

down into a number of areas: mobility, self-care, speech and

communication, learning and self-direction — that means the ability for

independent living.

This is the interministerial group who

put this committee together. The only reason I'm going into such detail

about this particular report is because it is an excellent report. It's

[ Page 6191 ]

report

that should have been tabled in the House, should have been made public

and should have been referred to the legislative Select Standing

Committee on Health, Education and Human Resources for study by all the

elected representatives here, with input from government members as

well as opposition members and more input from the public at large. As

I said before, I'm also going into some depth because I'm quite sure

that a number of members have not seen the report and are not even

aware of some of the very excellent recommendations it touches on. I'm

quite sure that none of the members in the back bench have seen the

report. The only regret I have is that since I only have one copy, I

cannot table it with the House. Because it is nearly 500 pages,

including tables, statistics and one thing and another, it would be

prohibitive in cost to try and Xerox it to share it with everybody.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

This very excellent committee worked out some general working objectives for themselves. Some of the general objectives were:

(1) Identify the number of disabled children.

(2) Design a functional classification of disabled children and adolescents.

(3) Identify and describe the basic support services which were required.

(4) Develop an inventory of existing services for these children.

(5) Analyze and review the detection, assessment, surveillance, treatment and follow-up of these children and adolescents.

It was an incredible mandate. It was a job that needed to be done, was being done, and was done very well indeed.

(6) Analyze the range of services provided in our schools, with particular emphasis on reviewing the classroom support services.

(7) Review and make recommendations concerning the present organization,

responsibilities, funding and coordination of services provided or

funded directly or indirectly by the various ministries.

(8) Review and make recommendations on the degree of parental involvement in the planning and provision of services.

Everyone

would have wanted to have participated in the debate on the findings

and recommendations of this report. I'm hoping that in responding to my

question the minister will explain why this report was not tabled in

the House, why this report has not been made public, and why this

report has not been referred to the Standing Committee on Health,

Education and Human Resources for some public input, discussion and

analysis. However, some of the major issues that were identified and

examined in the report were, as I said before, the whole question of

the integration of severely disabled children into the classroom, the

resources that exist for the disabled older adolescent leaving school,

the whole question of residential care of the child in the community,

the whole question of the knowledge and experience of the professionals

who are working with severely disabled children, the question of

family-support services for these children to make it possible for them

to remain at home, and the leadership and direction at the provincial,

regional and local levels in coordinating services for these children.

just want to say that every time the word "handicapped" is used in the

report I am substituting the word "disabled." I don't want the minister

to accuse me of reading from a false document. I am taking liberties

certainly with the word "handicapped," since the disabled people

themselves have indicated that they recognize that they have

disabilities but that these disabilities do not always handicap them,

and that they certainly see a difference there.

Specifically,

as the report deals with the Ministry of Health — and I want the

minister to comment on it — it said that it thought the Ministry of

Health should have as its priority the prevention of handicapping

conditions, and that an evaluation should be conducted to identify the

most effective ways and means of preventing these conditions. Earlier

in this debate, the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) talked

about the fact that the Ministry of Health concentrates so much of its

energy and time on sickness and not enough of its energy and time on

health and the prevention of disease. As it affects health, certainly

the most important finding in this report is its feeling that the

priority of the Ministry of Health should be in the preventive end of

the delivery of service, preventing handicapping conditions. It

certainly sees that as number one.

It then went on to some

specific recommendations about monitoring and surveillance. I'm sure

that when the minister comes to talk about it he will go into great

detail about the use of community-health nursing, and hospital and

community health teams. There is one recommendation in it having to do

with assessment and monitoring of the new-born I want to share with the

minister; it's an experience which I had. Recently when I was

travelling to eastern Canada, on the same plane with me was Dr. Segal,

whom I'm sure the minister knows very well. Dr. Segal is a very

well-respected pediatrician in the community. We started talking about

preventive health and the care of new-born babies. Dr. Segal expressed

his dismay and alarm at the fact that there is a particular device

which hospitals now have for monitoring new-born babies who are in some

kind of stress, and considered to be at risk, that is so sophisticated

that it's possible for the monitoring device to be used at home and

possible to discharge the babies younger to the parents as long as this

particular monitoring device can accompany them home. It's not a very

expensive device.

However, they have been told that to hold

the line financially, rather than purchase a sufficient number of these

devices to discharge more of these infants, and thus free up acute-care

incubators or cribs or whatever it is that babies in hospital stay in —

I don't think they stay in beds when they're that young — they are

keeping the babies in the hospital longer than necessary because they

can't take the risk of discharging the babies without this particular

device. I'm not a doctor, which is one of the reasons I cannot recall

the exact medical term for this particular monitoring device, but I'm

quite sure that the ministry has a number of people on its staff who

know whereof I speak and are aware of Dr. Segal's concern that fiscal

decisions are overriding in this instance good, sensible economic and

health decisions. In fact it's much better for these babies to be

discharged earlier into the care of their parents than to keep them in

hospital. It's also less expensive. Certainly with the social and

psychological development of the baby and the whole bonding theory that

psychologists tell us about, it makes more sense that the babies should

be discharged at an earlier date. However, as I said before, this is

not possible. In the long run it's costing the

[ Page 6192 ]

ministry more to keep these children in longer than they need to be. Also it's not in the best interests of the child.

One

of the other recommendations made is that the three institutions of the

Ministry of Human Resources should phase out their role of diagnosis

and assessment of the severely disabled child. I can't speak too

strongly in support of that recommendation. As I raised with the

minister earlier, why on earth the Ministry of Human Resources is

practising medicine without a licence I've never been able to

understand. They have absolutely no business performing diagnosis and

assessment functions. That is a responsibility of the Ministry of

Health. By hanging on to it, the Ministry of Human Resources is

accepting a lot of blame for the job not being done as well as it

should be done and also a lot of the expense which would be the

responsibility of the Ministry of Health. Again, I want to repeat that

the priority of the Ministry of Health should be a preventive one,

certainly where these particular children are concerned.

The

other recommendation made — and one which the minister says he covets —

is that the infant development program should be transferred from the

Ministry of Human Resources to the community health branch of the

Ministry of Health. Again, I cannot speak too strongly in support of

this. There are all kinds of historical reasons why it started out with

the Ministry of Human Resources, but there certainly are no reasons and

no justifications that I'm aware of why it should remain there. It's

not being handled to the best of its ability under the Ministry of

Human Resources. I don't know how much clout the Minister of Health

has. I suspect that one of the reasons this report has not been tabled

in the House and has not been released for public scrutiny is the

battle ensuing between the Minister of Health and the Minister of Human

Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) over which programs remain where. I'm

not a betting man myself, but if I were, I wouldn't put my money on the

Minister of Health.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not a betting person.

MS. BROWN: I'm not a betting person either. I never take risks, Mr. Minister.

I can give any assistance to the Minister of Health to wrest control of

the infant development program from the Minister of Human Resources,

please call on me, Mr. Minister. Believe me, I will give you my

undivided attention and all of the assistance which I can muster and

bring to your aid. I believe that the infant development program should

be under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Health. Of course the

recommendations list a number of reasons why that should be the case.

Another

area in which I'd be very happy to help the Minister of Health is in

the recommendation that funds be transferred from the Ministry of Human

Resources special needs day-care program to the special programs branch

of the Ministry of Education, and that school districts should apply

for the funds for individual and group programs. Again, I think that's

an excellent recommendation.

I don't want to create the

impression that I'm leaking this report because I think it's

politically titillating or anything like that. I am discussing this

report because I am concerned that these excellent recommendations are

being fought over behind closed doors without any input from the

community at large or from other members of the Legislature. As I said,

if the report were not so large — nearly 500 pages in length — and so

expensive to Xerox, I would Xerox copies for every member of the

Legislature and call a meeting myself of the Select Standing Committee

on Health, Education and Human Resources so that we could discuss in

some depth the findings of the report and certainly come to the aid of

the Minister of Health, who needs all of the help that he can get at

this particular time.

There is a timetable that goes with

this particular report, and the timetable is that the study and

steering committee should become a permanent subcommittee of the

Interministerial Children's Committee as of spring 1981. My question

is: has that been done?

Question number two: the ministries

were to agree to transfer programs and prepare their budgets

appropriately by spring 1981. Has that been done? Has the transfer

taken place and the House not been alerted to this, and have the

budgets been prepared appropriately?

By summer 1981 staff

were supposed to be assigned to work with the provincial committee to

implement this report. Has that happened? Have staff already been

assigned to this committee to work for the implementation of these

recommendations?

As it affects health the recommendations

are that the infant development program should be transferred to

Health; that the homemaker service for disabled children should be

transferred from Human Resources to Health — that's the day program;

and that long-term care children should come under the Health purview.

Is that happening? Also the prosthetic and orthotic services should be

taken from Human Resources, transferred to Health and be under the

jurisdiction of the regional hospitals. Has that happened? How close is

the timetable to being implemented? It may not appear that way, but

we're halfway through summer 1981. It's hard to believe that. Even your

tan is behind time at this particular date. By the end of summer the

staff were supposed to have been assigned, the ministries and the

provincial IMCC were to agree to change existing models and plans for

deinstitutionalization were supposed to have been implemented. I want

to know how we're going with this proposed timetable before I proceed

to make any further comments on this particular report.

would appreciate it if in answering those questions the minister could

assure us that this report is going to be tabled in the Legislature, is

going to be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Health,

Education and Human Resources and is going to be made public; and if

not, why not.

I really would appreciate a response from the minister on this particular report.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: You'll have one.

MS. BROWN: I will have one. Thank you.

MR. COCKE:

The minister says the member will have one, and I hope he can bear that

in mind. What we're dealing with here is a very significant and serious

proposition. I particularly hope that this interministerial committee

will not be set up in a loose way — judging from what I've seen

transpire to date, a sort of ad hoc interministerial committee on the

different overlaps that occur. I hope there is a secretariat steering

operation within that interministerial committee to develop a program

and put it into shape. One of the big problems I have noted is the fact

that there tends to be a defence mechanism set up in the bureaucracy so

that one group tends to hang on to whatever responsibilities they've

had in the past, and sometimes that means the people involved suffer.

[ Page 6193 ]

I'm

as pleased as punch that the report recognizes there's a need to extend

the whole long-term care program to include severely handicapped

children and adolescents. For too long these children have fallen

between the cracks. There's no doubt in my mind that this will be taken

in to be a very significant part of the whole situation. The long-term

care program children — I'm talking from ages zero to 19, which is what

this particular report was talking about — certainly need the

guarantees. They also need the guarantee of the home support program.

We've seen what's been happening to the home support program. I just

hope that this program, which will be as much a saving in this

particular area as it has been in the other areas of long-term care....

Specifically

what the report calls for is that the infant development program should

be the direct responsibility of the minister. It outlines the different

ages and the different responsibilities that should be taken by the

different departments. As the member says, it's a very large report,

but it certainly bears airing throughout the province. If the minister

feels it's too big a report to distribute in its present form, it

should be condensed and the recommendations should be made public

immediately. The minister should very definitely call upon the

legislative committee to assist, failing their ability to put things

together almost immediately. It is a very important area, and I suggest

that if we ignore it for another week it's a shame. The report has been

in the hands of this minister and the associated ministers for some

time, and now is the time to get cracking on it. The minister indicated

that he is going to talk about it. I gather that he has no definite

plans at this moment, because if he had, he would have jumped up in

response to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown).

I'm

not going to deal with it any more for the moment, because I think the

minister has been asked the significant questions, and we can certainly

develop anything further after his response. But I hope that we get

something very quickly.

I have dealt with a number of areas

which I consider to be of grave concern. I've dealt with the waste that

happened at the university hospital. We've dealt with what we feel are

significant shortcomings of the ministry in the long-term care program,

particularly the home-care program. On the weekend I ran into situation

after situation suggesting that things are not at all good out in the

field. I feel that what we saw there was a mistake of this minister.

There

have been other mistakes. The predecessor minister — the one before the

one who's now hotlining it — made another significant mistake with

respect to the drug and alcohol program. I'm not going to go through

the whole heroin treatment thing again. We've gone over and over that,

and we know it was a waste of money. We know that it was an absolute

job done on the people of B.C. by spending money uselessly when their

own White Paper indicated to them very clearly that there wasn't a big

problem.

Mr. Chairman, the House Leader is getting itchy.

I'd get itchy too if I was a member of a party that was party to

something like what I'm going to tell you about now.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE:

Yes, it's a laugh. It's true. The fact of the matter is that I agree

with those who say it would be almost impossible to put together that

kind of proposition, and who needs it? Right now, we're giving free

methadone. Free methadone is far more physically debilitating than

heroin, so what are you talking about? Don't give us that

pie-in-the-sky, pious stuff. Anyway, this is the shock story I'd like

to tell you now. In New Westminster we have a society which deals with

a program called Pacifica. Pacifica is run by the Fraser Valley

Alcoholism Society.

Pacifica ran their program at the

YM-YWCA in New Westminster. The YM-YWCA had lots of room in there for

that program. They overbuilt their facility, so they had plenty of room

for this particular program. That wasn't good enough. The Minister of

Health of the day and the former head of the Alcohol and Drug

Commission, Mr. Hoskin, came over to New Westminster and met with the

board of directors of the society. They suggested that there was a need

for their own facility, and it would be built and operated for Pacifica

by a private firm. The last that I can remember the Alcohol and Drug

Commission was paying something in the order of$8,000 to $9,000 a month

to keep people in the YM-YWCA with a proper program. For that they had

plenty of room and room for expansion. They had their sheets, maid

service and everything else supplied in a good facility which really

lent itself to the program. There was a certain anonymity to it. When

you go there, people don't know whether you're going for a meeting of

the board of directors of the Y, whether you're going to work out in

the gym or whether you're going to the facility for rehabilitation.

The

member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland) and Mr. Hoskin came to New

Westminster and said: "We're building our own facility." It wasn't

their own. Wolstencroft agencies built that building. Wolstencroft

agencies still own that building, and they rent it to the Alcohol and

Drug Commission for $13,000 a month plus all the added expenses. Don't

forget the $8,000 or $9,000 included everything in terms of rooms, maid

service and this, that and the other. This new facility that we're now

renting for $13,000 a month.... It'll go up; don't you worry about

that. The rentalsman will look after nothing of this sort. It doesn't

even pay for building repairs. If there's a requirement for a repair on

that building, it has to be paid for by the facility. I have talked to

two or three members of the board of Pacifica. You've had a number of

resignations. Now you know why you've had resignations. What

frustration! It strikes me that the whole drug and alcohol situation

was put into such disarray by their confused thinking about where the

problems were.

Just to cheer us all up, this is what they're

giving now at Pacifica. This is a certificate of award: "This certifies

that X has been awarded this certificate for successful completion of a

program at Pacifica Centre, New Westminster. Confirmed this 30th day of

May, 1980." I'm sure that everybody who receives this certificate will

hang it up proudly on their wall and say: "I went through the program."

In terms of what's occurred over the years, I think AA have had the

most successful rehabilitation program in all drug rehabilitation that

I know of. How much advice did we get from them when we got into this?

How much advice are we getting now? I don't know, but it certainly

doesn't sound like it. Here we have a government tha