1982 Legislative Session: 4th 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 )

THURSDAY, MAY 27, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

7819 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Use of government aircraft. Mr. Passarell –– 7822

Expenses of Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Mr. Howard –– 7822

Seizure of goods at Prince Rupert. Hon. Mr. Williams replies –– 7823

Mr. Howard

Horse-racing industry study. Mrs. Wallace –– 7823

Coal contract guidelines. Mr. Leggatt –– 7823

Family Relations Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 14). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Williams)

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 7825

Mr. Leggatt –– 7825

Ms. Brown –– 7826

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 7828

Special Appropriation Act (Bill 11). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7829

Mr. Stupich –– 7829

Mrs. Wallace –– 7830

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7830

Division –– 7831

Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund Repeal Act (Bill 47). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Hewitt)

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 7832

Mr. Hall –– 7832

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 7832

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources estimates.

(Hon. Mr. McClelland)

On vote 28: minister's office –– 7833

Mr. Stupich

Mr. D'Arcy

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Passarell

Mr. McDonald

Mr. Skelly

Mr. Lea

Ministerial statement re Quintette Mines project costs

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 7843

Mr. Howard

Seizure of goods at Prince Rupert, minister replies

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 7843

THURSDAY, MAY 27, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I

am very pleased and honoured today to introduce two outstanding

citizens who are in our gallery. They represent so ably the senior

citizen population of our province because they have been an

inspiration and have worked so hard for that group of people. Will the

House please welcome Mr. Chuck Bayley of 411 Senior Centre, and Mrs.

Maureen Molaro, who represents Brock House.

MR. LEA:

I'd ask the members to join me today in welcoming two visitors to the

Legislature from the village of Massett in the Queen Charlotte Islands.

We have the chief councillor for the Haida village of Massett with us,

Mr. Cecil Brown, and an assistant who for a long time was the executive

director of that band, Frank Collison.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

The galleries today are occupied in part by about 18 grade 11 students

from Claremont Senior Secondary School — the school on the hill in the

Cordova Bay

section of the great constituency of Saanich and the

Islands. Would the House make them welcome.

MR. LAUK:

The second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) and I wish to ask

the House to welcome a group of students from Britannia high school —

another group today with their guide and teacher, Mr. Walker. Yes, the

greatest high school in the world.

HON. MR. SMITH:

Educational luminaries in the gallery today include the recently

re-elected president of the B.C. School Trustees, Mr. Gary Begin and

Mr. Henry Justesen, the principal and chief executive officer of PVI,

and the bursar, Mr. Elwood Veitch. I would ask the House to make them

welcome.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to

add my welcome to the Britannia high school students who are here

today. As a former graduate of that school, may I pass this message on

to them: if they don't behave themselves, they may end up in here.

MR. RICHMOND:

In the precincts today — and later in the gallery — is a fine group of

young people from Brocklehurst Junior Secondary School, along with

their teacher Mr. Dodd and Mr. Johnson. I would like all the members to

welcome them.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Would the House please

welcome 80 students from West Heights Elementary School in Mission,

under the direction of their teacher Mr. Plowright.

MR. DAVIDSON:

Later today we will have approximately 60 grade 10 students from

Burnsview Junior Secondary School in Delta. With them is their teacher

and alderman for Delta, Mr. Karl Moser. Mr. Moser is also the NDP

candidate for Delta for the next provincial election. I'd ask the House

to welcome them all.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I have a message from Hansard. They would like the spelling of the last name of the hon. member for Delta. [Laughter.]

MR. STUPICH:

The passing of the former member for Nanaimo seems to have gone

unnoticed in the chamber. Dr. Larry Giovando was the member for Nanaimo

and the Islands. He was elected in 1952 and re-elected in 1953. He

certainly served his constituency very well and was an extremely

popular person in the community and in the House as well. Although he

was a member of the Conservative Party at the time, he was a very

strong proponent of medicare. In that, of course, he was supported by

the party he defeated in the election. I would like the appropriate

sentiments to be passed on to his widow and family.

MR. SPEAKER: Would that be the wish of the House? So ordered.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, we'd very much like to associate ourselves with the

remarks of the hon. member and extend the greatest sympathy to all

members of the family.

MR. SPEAKER: The appropriate message will be sent.

MR. LEGGATT:

I'd like the Legislature to welcome my sister-in-law Anne Marie Ross,

who is visiting from Ferndale with her class of grade 6 students. The

school is located at Custer, Washington.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Earlier today, during committee, I referred to a document, a petition

actually, which was signed by a number of people, including the member

for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), but not the member for

Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy). I would like at this time, the first

opportunity, to table this document.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. SKELLY: I rise on a question of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: Please state the matter briefly.

MR. SKELLY:

This morning the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

(Hon. Mr. McClelland) announced that he had in his possession a

petition that was circulating in the East Kootenay area not too long

ago, which asked that two projects, the Keenleyside Dam and the Murphy

Creek Dam, be pushed ahead in order to create employment in that area.

As we all know, the Keenleyside project is not one that is really

contentious, politically or in terms of the social and environmental

impacts, it is simply a case of putting generators in a dam. It is my

understanding, though, after reading the

preamble of this petition that

the member attributed to a number of NDP Members of Parliament and to

one NDP MLA, that absolutely no mention is made in that petition of the

Murphy Creek project, which does have and does raise some environmental

and social impact concerns in the area. So the Minister of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources was not telling the truth when he

indicated the contents of the petition. He was misleading the House.

[ Page 7820 ]

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. member, we cannot, even in stating a matter of privilege, use

unparliamentary language either in phrase or in word. I would ask the

hon. member to make sure that the language is parliamentary even in

stating the matter of privilege.

MR. LAUK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I am hearing a matter of privilege. Perhaps I could take the point of order following the matter. Would that be in order?

MR. LAUK: No, it has to do with the matter of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: The member wishes to interrupt the member on the floor on a point of order.

MR. LAUK:

I wish to respond to Mr. Speaker's direction to the member who is

raising the question of privilege. If the question of privilege as it

is states, as part of its substance, the question of whether or not a

minister has misled the House, then the member has every right to state

that as part of the question of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, perhaps a more acceptable procedure would be that the

motion that can be anticipated under a matter of privilege could

perhaps be worded in a manner which would ask a committee to ascertain

whether or not someone misled the House.

MR. SKELLY: I'll finish the matter briefly, Mr. Speaker. As you are no doubt aware, the eighteenth edition of May's Parliamentary Practice

states on page 138 that the House may treat a misstatement as a

contempt. I would therefore ask that you consider these documents I

have to present, in order to determine if there is a prima facie case

of contempt. If Mr. Speaker so determines, then I will file the

appropriate motion. Mr. Speaker will be aware that since the document

was only tabled in the House at this point, this is the earliest

opportunity I have had to deal with the matter as a question of

privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: We will consider the matter.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order....

MR. SPEAKER: I have to caution that there is no debate on the matter of privilege.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, I understand that, Mr. Speaker.

seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, because I feel that your deliberation

on this matter could be helped if I had the opportunity to file further

documents which I have in my possession, but to which I have not

referred in the House. Perhaps you could advise me whether that's a

proper procedure, because I have some other documents which refer to

Murphy Creek, the unions in the area and that which I commented on

earlier today.

MR. SPEAKER: If the member has other documents which he wishes to table, the House may grant leave for such tabling.

MR. NICOLSON:

On a point of order, I was engaged in other parliamentary business this

morning in the precincts and was not present when statements were made

during, I believe, debate on the title of the B.C. Hydro bill. I note,

however, that on page 933-2 of the Hansard Blues my name is

mentioned as having been signatory to a petition which has just been

tabled in the House. The statement in the Blues says that that petition

was to push ahead the Keenleyside and Murphy Creek dams. I would hope

that in reviewing the petition that's been filed, which I've just had

the opportunity to recheck at the table, you would consider that page

of the Blues in determining the prima facie case, as it does affect me

as an hon. member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon.

member. This is apparently something which happened in a committee

which was not reported to Mr. Speaker. Of course, as a result, I have

no knowledge of that.

HON. MR. McGEER: On a point of

order, the Minister of Energy has been kind enough to offer to

elaborate on the points in question. Perhaps, if the members opposite

would wish that, the minister might be permitted to carry on.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon. members, the basis upon which we listen to points

of order is to draw to the attention of the Chair that indeed points of

order do exist. As soon as the Chair is alerted to those, the Chair is

of course at liberty to inquire into those points and will bring a

decision — and will certainly bring a decision on the matter of

privilege, which has caused all of this concern this afternoon.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House that the rules be suspended and we move to this matter immediately.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the matter which is for consideration now is the matter of privilege.

MR. BARRETT:

I understand, Mr. Speaker. I make a request that the rules of the House

be suspended and we proceed to this matter immediately here in the

House.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, we have not been able to determine whether or not the request itself is in order.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, I am asking leave of the House that the rules be suspended

and that we proceed to this matter immediately. If the House wishes to,

it can. All the Speaker must do, in my opinion, is ask if leave is

granted.

MR. SPEAKER: There is a difficulty which I

draw to the member's attention, in that it must first be determined

whether or not the matter is a matter of privilege.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, I'm asking leave of the House that the rules be suspended,

that the matter raised by the member be debated now — and that is not

predetermined and I ask for leave.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. There is a severe difficulty in that the member is

asking for a debate of a matter which itself has not been determined to

be in order. But let the House speak for itself. Shall leave be granted?

[ Page 7821 ]

Leave not granted.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will review the matter and bring a decision to the House at the appropriate time.

MR. LAUK:

I rise under standing order 49, Mr. Speaker, which states: "A motion

may be made by unanimous consent of the House without previous

notice...." I move, with the unanimous consent of the House, if given,

the motion of privilege as put by the hon. member for Alberni (Mr.

Skelly).

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, standing order 49

makes provision only when the order of business of motions and

adjourned debate on motions is in progress, so I cannot entertain that

particular motion at this time.

CLERK-ASSISTANT: Introduction of bills.

MR. HOWARD:

On a point of order, after having passed the introduction of bills, we

now are, as my understanding is, under standing order 25, entitled to

deal with motions and adjourned debate on motions. Pursuant to standing

order 49, I request leave of the House to move, seconded by the hon.

member for Shuswap- Revelstoke (Mr. King), that this House is of the

opinion that the failure of the Minister of Health to attend the

federal-provincial Ministers of Health conference was a disservice to

the interests of British Columbians.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. member, according to the order paper, motions and adjourned debate

on motions will come a little later. We are now at that point called

"Oral questions by members."

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker,

with respect, the House on April 5 or on the end of the.... It said

that items should be dealt with in a certain priority, the budget

debate taking precedence over all other matters except introduction of

bills. Once "Introduction of bills" was called, we were then able to

return to motions and adjourned debate on motions, which is routine

business under standing order 25. It was under that that I rose. We are

now, I submit, on routine business, and I ask leave.... As I did, if

the House desires to give leave, then I think Your Honour should put

it. I ask leave under standing order 49 to move the particular motion

that I read to you, following Your Honour's own advice some time ago

that it was attendant upon the individual seeking to move a motion to

identify what the motion was so that the House would be apprised of its

content and thus be in a position to give leave or not to give leave. I

ask that leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon.

member. There is a misunderstanding in the member's mind about the

orders of the day as they appear before us. We know that we have a

precedence motion which was moved on opening day. That motion gives

precedence to Committee of Supply, and should have precedence over all

other things except the introduction of bills. That is the reason why,

from the table, we have the call "Introduction of bills." Following

that, the other precedents come into effect. One of those precedents is

given to oral questions by members. Hon. member, that's where we are at

this juncture.

MR. HOWARD: Still? The Leader of the Opposition just dealt with a subject that was under Your Honour's authority, and

Your Honour put that to the House as to whether leave should be granted

to move a particular motion. I am just asking for similar treatment. I

ask leave under standing order 49 to move the motion that this House is

of the opinion that the failure of the Minister of Health to attend the

federal-provincial Ministers of Health conference was a disservice to

the interests of British Columbians. I would ask leave to do that, Mr.

Speaker, and suggest that it might be in the interests of all concerned

if Your Honour would take the course of asking if leave is available.

MR. SPEAKER:

The reason for the possibility of leave even being asked for was that

under a matter of privilege.... A matter of privilege can be raised,

according to the standing orders, at any time. Therefore, that matter

of privilege having been identified, it was possible to ask leave.

However, what the member is now asking is for leave on a matter which

does not fall under the regular orders of the day, but is pre-empted by

precedence motions on which this House has already spoken. I'm sure

that at the appropriate time the hon. member would be able to raise his

question.

MR. HOWARD: To me, the appropriate time

seems to be under routine business. Originally, with respect to the

question of privilege, Your Honour was not disposed to test the House,

and eventually, upon persistent requests, Your Honour did say yes,

you'd test the House, even though it was contrary to Your Honour's own

opinion that you should not test the House. I'm just asking for a

similar sort of treatment.

The Premier just nodded in my direction, indicating it's okay with him.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon. member, the reason why the standing orders are

printed in explicit form is that situations such as we are experiencing

now can be avoided. A further complication is brought up by the fact

that the member cannot even gain the floor under standing order 49. He

gains the floor under a point of order, and therefore he does not even

have possession of the floor during which he could move a motion — the

motion which he intends to move. So, hon. member, I commend to you the

standing orders of the House, which indeed you have placed in my hands,

and I commend to you adherence to those standing orders. Perhaps at the

appropriate time the member can gain the floor and be heard.

MR. HOWARD: I now have two reasons to challenge your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I so do.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. please. The ruling of the Chair has been challenged, and we must deal with that first.

The question is: shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained?

Mr. Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Davidson

Mussallem

Hyndman

Brummet

[ Page 7822 ]

NAYS — 25

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

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

HON. MR. McGEER:

On a point of order, it is conceivable that a question like this,

should the members be able to obtain the floor legitimately, might be

put, without preparation, to members on this side. Just as a point of

advice from the opposite side with respect to what should be a

substantive motion criticizing the Minister of Health, I didn't hear

from the members opposite who the NDP pair would have been for the

member. So it was difficult for me to tell, if we were going to debate

it, whether this was an honest move on the part of the opposition or an

attempt to trap the government. There were no golfers....

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. The question of pairing does not fall under the responsibility of the Chair.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

Oral Questions

USE OF GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT

MR. PASSARELL:

I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Yesterday the

Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) was concerned

that the surveys and mapping branch has had its photographic aircraft

confiscated for executive use. What alternative arrangements has the

minister made to complete the vital mapping work for this year?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

I don't believe that "confiscation" is the correct word, and the

program is not just vital for this year; it is for a 15-year period. At

this time no alternative arrangements have been made.

MR. PASSARELL: No alternative arrangements? All right.

have another question. Can the minister give his assurance that the

air-mapping program will not suffer this year on account of the

decision to divert government photography aircraft to ferrying Socred

politicians and their staff between Victoria and Vancouver?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

I think I can give the member assurance that the program has been

accelerated over past years. It is now in better condition than it was

some three years ago, before cabinet decided to accelerate our base

mapping program.

MR. PASSARELL: The minister knows

that the alternatives to using the Beechcraft 200 will cost taxpayers

more. Can the minister confirm that some of the contracts already

signed with private companies to do the work of the surveys and mapping

branch are for up to four times the cost of doing the work in-house?

HON. MR. ROGERS: The

preamble was incorrect, and what he's asking me to affirm to the House is also incorrect.

EXPENSES OF MINISTER OF

CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS

MR. HOWARD: To the

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs: did the minister, on the

evening of February 20, 1981, host a dinner party at Umberto's for six

persons, at a cost to the taxpayers of $375?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

As I indicated yesterday to another member opposite, my comments, which

are clearly on public record on that matter, have been that following

the release of the report to the public by the auditor-general into

that matter, I should be happy to provide comment.

MR. HOWARD:

Could I ask the minister a further question and inquire if the cost of

that particular dinner party included a bar bill of $184.08, part of

which was for four bottles of Pouilly-Fuisse imported French wine at

$37.50 a bottle.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Again, I would

take the question as notice and refer members opposite to my previous

answer today and to my answer yesterday on the same topic.

MR. HOWARD:

I have another question then. I would ask the minister if included

among the guests at that evening dinner party were Mr. and Mrs. P. Lind

of Ontario, friends of the minister.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Again, I'm happy to comment on that question following release of the report of the auditor-general.

MR. HOWARD:

Could I ask a further question, the subject matter of which I gather is

not involved in the auditor-general's examination. I ask the minister

whether Mr. and Mrs. Lind were personal house guests of the minister at

the time of that dinner party.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: As I

said yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I do not presume to prejudge what will be

in the report of the auditor-general. I should be happy to deal with

that question following release of that report.

[ Page 7823 ]

SEIZURE OF GOODS AT PRINCE RUPERT

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to respond to a question posed yesterday by the

member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). The question dealt with the matter of

liquor that was seized at Prince Rupert. I would advise the member that

the inquiry discloses that the liquor had as its destination an Indian

reserve, the members of which had by referendum declared that the

reserve would be dry. Liquor is not permitted to be landed at such

reserves.

MR. HOWARD . I have a supplementary question. Can the minister confirm

that that in fact was the case with all those seizures? There was more than

one village involved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, the information I have just given to the House came from

the RCMP superintendent who had responsibility for this matter.

HORSE-RACING INDUSTRY STUDY

MRS. WALLACE:

My question is to the Attorney-General. In April of this year the

Attorney-General stated he would not release the study on the

horse-racing industry in British Columbia because more work was needed

on the study and there were more legislative changes in the works. Can

the Attorney-General advise us who is conducting the work to complete

the study and the nature of the work underway?

MR. SPEAKER: The portion concerning the work is in order; the portion concerning legislation would not be in order.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

The member's statement is incomplete regarding the reasons for the

non-release of the report; what she stated is part of the reason. The

work being done with respect to that aspect of the report is still

under consideration. It is being done by members of the ministry who

are concerned with Criminal Code enforcement.

MRS. WALLACE:

Given that the legislation concerning the horse-racing industry has

already been passed during the course of this study, has the

Attorney-General decided to table it in this Legislature?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, I think the member should reconsider the question. The

answer to that is no, because of the reasons I've previously stated on

this occasion.

COAL CONTRACT GUIDELINES

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry and

Small Business Development. The stage two Quintette submissions to the

coal guideline steering committee, which dealt with hiring and

purchasing policy, set out that preference would be given to "domestic

suppliers, taking into account they are competitive." That's a direct

quote from the stage two submission. Could the minister advise the

House why there is no provision between B.C. and Quintette Mines

requiring the company to give contracts and equipment orders to B.C. or

Canadian businesses able and willing to do the job? In other words, why

was there no right of first refusal put in the agreements with the coal

companies?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, in

answer to the member's question, I'll certainly check into the

situation, but as usual he's probably wrong, as he was when he stated

that Quintette Coal had let a contract to a French firm for $45

million. The contract had not been let, and if it is let to the French

firm, only about $4 million of that $45 million will go to the French

for expertise and engineering. The other $40 million will remain in

British Columbia for other goods and services.

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Speaker, not only was I right, but the major part of that contract

for technical engineering is going abroad, and that's exactly the point

we're making in this House. Those contracts should go here, not to

France.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Debate in question period is out of order.

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Speaker, my question is this. In the stage two submissions of

Quintette, which the minister is familiar with — if he's not, he can

look at page 68 — it shows that a billion dollars will be spent outside

of Canada and a further $2.25 billion are going to be spent in Canada

but outside of British Columbia. That's a third of the project cost

that's going outside of B.C. Did the representatives of Denison

threaten to withdraw unless they had this privilege of contracting

abroad, and why didn't the minister provide some guarantees to B.C.

workers and B.C. business to get a fair share of that coal deal?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Mr. Speaker, sometimes I have to listen in amazement to that member,

because he's gone around maliciously and ill-advisedly trying to

mislead the people of this province...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...as has the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett)...

MR. SPEAKER: Order. please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...saying

that there had been billions and billions of dollars of contracts let

outside of the province of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

inform him....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon.

member. If the member has suggested that the hon. member for

Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) has misled, then I would ask the hon.

member to....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'll....

MR. SPEAKER: The member withdraws.

The answer to the question is...?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like to state that of the $440

million worth of contracts that have been let on northeast coal so far,

approximately 85 percent have been let in British Columbia, providing

jobs for British Columbians. I'd like to further inform the member that

there are some goods and services on a project of this size that are

unavailable in the province of British Columbia, the same as on any

other major

[ Page 7824 ]

project

that's ever proceeded in this province. We don't have all of the

expertise in the world. Those goods and services — 90 or 100 percent of

them that are going to be provided to that project — are unavailable,

or will be unavailable, in the province of British Columbia.

also want to say that I'm not, nor are we in British Columbia, against

providing jobs for other Canadians. There will be some materials and

some supplies that will have to be let outside the province. I want to

inform the House that 50 percent of the jobs in British Columbia depend

on exports. Indeed, if we want to export our goods and services from

the province of British Columbia so that people can be gainfully

employed, time and time again we will have to buy something from

outside countries, just as numerous people in British Columbia buy

television sets or automobiles because that's their preference. In this

case, it is simply because they are not available in the province of

British Columbia.

MR. LEGGATT: That might be logical

if it weren't that the taxpayers and business people are subsidizing

that project and should be guaranteed those jobs.

MR. SPEAKER: No debate.

MR. LEGGATT:

My question, Mr. Speaker, is this. Page 68 of the stage 2 report, the

Quintette report, uses these words: "Best efforts will be used in

hiring native people." No mention is made with regard to any

affirmative action program for native people. There are no percentages

or numbers referred to for hiring native people. No mention whatsoever

is made with regard to hiring women for this project. How many native

people are now employed? How many women have been employed? How many

local people are now employed? And why are there no guarantees provided

in a stage 2 proposal — for that matter in the master agreement —

guaranteeing an affirmative employment program for local people, for

native people and for women?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: If

the union bosses that that party happens to be in bed with would change

their policies and open local hiring halls in the Peace River area,

where the project is being undertaken, maybe some of the local people

up there would be able to get jobs. I would like to inform the member

that at the present time about 85 percent of the people employed in

non-union jobs up there are local people. I would also like to inform

the member that through the northeast coal office we even bent the

rules to ensure that native people would be getting a job. There is one

native contractor up there who has received jobs on the B.C. Hydro line

and on the British Columbia Railway line and is doing very well, thank

you.

I want to tell you that this job is being done as a

cooperative venture, and we are not going to tell the coal companies

how to run their businesses. As soon as we do that, if there are cost

overruns, they will come back to us and tell us, as a government, that

we have forced these cost overruns, and they will look for concessions.

This deal has been put together on a businesslike basis. It is not only

good for Canada; it is good for the workers of British Columbia. Some

of the union bosses and some of the NDP who are continually harping at

a project that is going to employ 10 percent of the construction force

in British Columbia this year had better take heed that their harping,

negative criticism is not being accepted by the people of British

Columbia, who understand that this project is good not only for the

short-term but also for the long-term economy of British Columbia.

would like to inform all the members opposite and all the people of

British Columbia that that member over there and his boss, the leader

of the opposition party, continually go around this province saying

that the taxpayers of British Columbia are subsidizing northeast coal,

when there is an independent report, put out by Price Waterhouse, which

contradicts that and says that the taxpayers of British Columbia, over

the life of these first two contracts, will receive benefits in excess

of $5.5 billion. I want to tell you that I just hope that that Negative

Nelly group over there continues to do its negative criticism of

northeast coal, because the people and the workers of British Columbia

are not buying it.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order,

I understand it is a ruling of previous Speakers that documents

referred to by a minister are thereupon required to be tabled by that

minister. I've asked the minister to follow through with the

requirement, when referring to a document, to table such documents in

the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The rule on tabling has been referred to on many occasions in this House.

MRS. WALLACE:

I rise under the provisions of standing order 35 to seek leave to move

adjournment of the House to debate a matter of urgent public importance.

MR. SPEAKER: Please state the matter briefly.

MRS. WALLACE:

It is of utmost concern to my constituency and my colleagues that this

government has imposed a deterrent fee against people attempting to

appeal permits for the spraying of pesticides and herbicides. Companies

seeking to spray these chemicals apply for several permits, each

covering a relatively small area. Anyone who fears the use of

pesticides or herbicides is forced to appeal each permit separately,

paying a $25 fee for each permit. This means that many people will

simply not be able to afford to exercise their right to appeal the use

of chemical spray.

This is an urgent matter, as many

citizens oppose the use of questionable chemicals for weed control when

safer methods could be used without creating a hazard to residents who

live and take their water adjacent to the spraying area. The fact is

that now citizens will effectively be deprived of their means to halt

this practice because of the cost involved. The companies requesting

permission to spray these chemicals are not charged any fee for their

permit application.

The present policy not only makes it

costly to appeal, but also is inequitable. In view of this fact, and

that the spraying season is now upon us, it is a matter of immediate

concern. I have a motion to make which would enable us to debate that

particular matter of urgent public importance.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. If we can determine whether or not a prima facie case does exist, then that motion would be called for.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. HOWARD: Did I understand the minister to ask leave to do something?

[ Page 7825 ]

MR. SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 14, Mr. Speaker.

FAMILY RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, rising to move second reading of this bill, I'd like to

advise you and members of the House that the bill contains, in effect,

three elements of some considerable significance in the matter of

family law in this province.

The first element to which I

direct the members' attention is the provision of the legislation which

implements The Hague Convention on civil aspects of international child

abduction. By way of background, I should indicate that this convention

was adopted on October 25, 1980, at a conference in The Hague. The

adoption of the convention was a result of two years of negotiations at

the international level. I would like to pay specific tribute to the

Attorney-General of Ontario and his then Deputy Attorney-General, Allan

Leal, who on behalf of Canada and the provinces of Canada took a

leading role in those negotiations.

The signatories to the

convention during the conference expressed their conviction that the

interests of children are of paramount importance in matters relating

to their custody. The principle is reflected in the convention. It is

also consistent with the principles which underly the extraprovincial

custody and access provisions of British Columbia's Family Relations

Act.

In order to ensure the prompt return of children who

have wrongfully been removed from one contracting state to another, and

to ensure that rights of custody and access are effectively respected

in the other contracting state, the convention recommended that the

contracting states designate a central authority responsible for the

discharging of duties imposed by that convention. The legislation in

British Columbia, as in Ontario, designates the Attorney-General as the

central authority responsible for those duties. The duties include the

responsibility to determine the whereabouts of a child who has been

wrongfully removed or detained in a contracting state and, if

necessary, to ensure that no harm befalls that child and that the child

is not removed from that jurisdiction.

There is also the

responsibility to secure, by amicable resolution if possible, the

voluntary return of the child and, where necessary, to facilitate

through judicial or administrative proceedings the resolution of issues

where voluntary resolution is not possible. There is also the

responsibility to provide all administrative arrangements required to

ensure the safe return of the child in accordance with the order

dealing with the matter of custody, and throughout the course of the

discharge of such responsibility to keep the central authorities and

other contracting states informed.

The convention will apply

in respect of a child who, immediately before a breach of a custody or

access order, was habitually resident in a contracting state. The

convention was signed by 40 countries. As of this moment no country has

yet ratified the convention. Canada is obliged to ratify the convention

at the request of any province. It is a necessary prerequisite to

the form of the convention be passed. I am advised that this month the

province of Ontario will pass its legislation. British Columbia, being

the second of the provinces to introduce legislation of this kind, will

be joining the province of Ontario in requesting the government of

Canada to ratify the convention. We will then be in a position to deal

with matters of custody and access in the international sphere arising

in this province with respect to children who are habitually resident

in other contracting states. Likewise, if any child, in respect of whom

a custody or access order has been made in this province, has been

abducted to another contracting state, it will ensure that we will be

able to have that child properly, returned and dealt with in accordance

with the rules of our court.

The number of cases which might

be involved is difficult at this moment to estimate. The Department of

External Affairs of the federal government advise us that their records

indicate that some 130 cases have presently come to their attention in

Canada. Whether the scope will be larger than that we cannot tell, but

we think it is absolutely essential that British Columbia be in a

position to discharge its responsibility in this field.

I am

advised that other provinces are in the process of drafting necessary

legislation and will be following, in short order, with legislation

which will ensure that all of Canada will be abiding by the rules of

the international convention.

The second element in the bill

deals with reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders between

provinces in Canada. In this province we already have a system for

reciprocal enforcement of the procedural requirements which are set out

in regulations made pursuant to this legislation. A recent decision in

the Provincial Court of British Columbia has ruled that those

regulations are not an effective way of dealing with reciprocal

problems, but that they should be spelled out in the statute. This is a

challengeable decision of the provincial court, but we have decided,

rather than take the time and suffer the delays necessary in proceeding

with an appeal, to deal with the matter directly by incorporating the

provisions which are now set out in the regulations in the statute

itself. There are no substantive changes in those regulations, but with

the passage of this bill we will have the adequacy of the statutory

basis which the courts found wanting in our legislation.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: A court; a decision of a judge of the provincial court.

The

third element deals with the nature of information which must be

disclosed during maintenance order enforcement proceedings. There is an

amendment which will require financial disclosure of spouses and

parents of children in the course of enforcement proceedings for

maintenance orders. Financial disclosure is currently required with

respect to the making of the maintenance order or in application for

the variation of a maintenance order. We deem it to be an omission from

the legislation not to ensure that financial disclosure is also

available with respect to enforcement matters. In our view this will

save much time and make the maintenance order enforcement process in

this province much more effective and efficient than has been the case

in the past.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of this bill.

MR. LEGGATT: I might say, Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney-General that we welcome this legislation. It's most

[ Page 7826 ]

useful

that the convention is moving forward. I don't know whether he'll

request ratification from Canada, but I'm assuming from his remarks

that he intends to immediately request the Canadian government to

ratify the convention after the passage of this bill. In doing so I

hope that he will put a burr under External Affairs at the same time

and get them working to get other countries to ratify the convention.

The key problem won't be here in Canada; the key problem will be in

countries that do not ratify the convention and leave us in the same

helpless position that we have been in with regard to this awesome

problem of the kidnapping of children across international borders.

It's a severe problem; it's an international problem; it affects

families and children in a disastrous way. I'm pleased to see the

Attorney-General is bringing the legislation forward, and certainly we

on this side of the House do not intend to delay its passage.

also welcome the improvement to the disclosure — provision with regard

to enforcement. There's a good deal of mythology out there about why

people don't pay their maintenance orders. For a long time we have

tried not to put people into jail for failing to pay their bills. It is

hard to collect money, whether it's for maintenance or any other debt.

Most lawyers will tell you that their experience is that if a person

deliberately tries to duck their obligations, they can quite often be

successful. It's extremely difficult to pin them down in terms of

whether they have the capacity to pay. The only jail provision is that

there has to be a contempt of the order. This at least will strengthen

the hand of the sitting judge with regard to enforcement. There is now

mandatory requirement for disclosure so the judge can see whether the

person who has the obligation to pay maintenance is in contempt of the

order.

I hope and trust that the Attorney-General will move quickly to obtain Canadian ratification and also ratification abroad.

MS. BROWN:

I too am very pleased about the decision to endorse the Hague

Convention. I only wish that we had strong legislation to deal with the

kidnapping of children across borders inside of Canada. We certainly

need to do something for the large number of families who are fighting

over their kids on this business of kidnapping. It goes unchecked

between Alberta, Ontario, British Columbia and other provinces,

especially since the Attorney-General's ministry has recently

introduced, through his infamous memorandum of April 23, the decision

not to permit legal counsel to families involved in those instances. If

he's looking for the particular section, it's the April 23 memorandum,

Mr. Speaker, which referred to representation of applicants in custody,

access, maintenance and related matters. It used to be without

limitations; it has now been changed, as in column 2, to representation

of only those applicants who have de facto custody of their children,

and where physical violence is involved in the families. Certainly the

decision to curtail the legal services to families, not taking into

account either the kidnapping of children across borders within Canada

or emotional abuse, was a serious one.

There is a second

thing I want to talk about with regard to this legislation. I'm really

quite puzzled. Legislation like this is coming down, and it is good,

strong legislation. At the same time the minister, through Mr. John

Morton, the director of the family law

section in his department,

issued something like five memoranda and two additional pieces of

information to lawyers who deal with people on limited income and serve

as advocates in the courts information to do with the Family Relations

Act, curtailing the amount and quality of time that can be spent with

them.

Speaking to the principle of the bill, the United Way

did a study in April 1981, and found that single-parent families

primarily headed by females were the ones with the most problems in

terms of having maintenance payments made on time. Their other

horrendous statistic is that something like 20,000 such families are

presently in receipt of social assistance, which means that if

maintenance were enforced, we could eliminate almost half of the

families presently on income assistance. The statistics for income

assistance show that the largest component of people on income

assistance comprises children of single parents and the single parents

themselves, so if maintenance were enforced, we could wipe out half of

the income assistance roll.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN:

Right, except that on April 23 the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Williams), through Mr. Morton, issued this absolute bevy of memoranda.

As I mentioned earlier, the things it says, in changing the

representation of applicants in the courts, is that the applicant has

to have de facto custody of the children and there has to be violence

within the family. In

section 3 it says that even if an applicant is

eligible under the above conditions, legal services are not to be given

for enforcement, variation, ratification or rectification of an

original order. So even when the single parent has de facto custody of

the child, and even when there is violence within the family, which

means she is therefore eligible for legal representation through the

Attorney-General's department, it doesn't apply. According to

section 3

of one of the five memoranda and seven pieces of paper issued by the

Attorney-General's ministry on April 23, it doesn't apply.

I am quite confused about precisely how this bill is going to be

implemented. How is it going to be enforced once it becomes law if the

A-G's ministry is cutting back? It states quite clearly here that this

is based on financial decisions to stay within the budget. To use the

exact wording, they would like to provide service within the funding

levels established. In order to do that, he is very clearly wiping out

that

section of the service delivered to people on income assistance

which would make it possible for the maintenance to be enforced and for

these 20,000 families — the number is probably higher than that now,

because this study was done in April 1981 — to get off income

assistance.

The other thing this study pointed out, and I

don't know whether or not the minister took it into account, is that

the majority of maintenance orders were for sums of $200 or less. There

isn't any point in having the Attorney-General say that these families

can hire themselves a lawyer to deal with the enforcement of

maintenance. If you're dealing with arrears of, say, three months

involving something in the nature of $600, it's not possible to go out

and hire yourself a lawyer; it's just not worth it. The majority of the

people using the legal representation supplied through the

Attorney-General's ministry were people with these orders of $200 a

month or less and are people who, as a result of the maintenance

falling into arrears or not being paid at all, end up on the income

assistance rolls — the 20,000 families that the United Way told us

about and their children.

[ Page 7827 ]

Mr.

Speaker, the report brought down some very good recommendations which I

had hoped the legislation would have dealt with. But I will go on to

the recommendations afterwards. Maybe the Attorney-General can explain

how it is going to be possible for a number of these single parents to

deal with the complexities of the court system without benefit of legal

counsel. How are they supposed to do it? Because legal aid doesn't deal

with that; they do not have this service under the legal aid system.

Now that it's been withdrawn as a result of this memo — to take effect,

I gather, on June 1 — how are these single parents, most of whom have

no legal training or no experience in the courts, going to deal with

the complexities of the court system?

The other thing in

this legislation is that

section 16 of the GAIN act, which deals with

the enforcement.... Incidentally, it's been in the act since 1979, but

it has never been proclaimed.

AN HON. MEMBER: A good section.

MS. BROWN:

A good section, but it has never been proclaimed. That

section is now

repealed and reappears under the Family Relations Act. How is it going

to be enforced? How is Human Resources going to use the courts if the

Attorney-General's ministry is curtailing legal counsel to these

people? How are they going to benefit? Why did the Attorney-General

insist on taking this away from Human Resources, or why did Human

Resources give this up to the Attorney-General's ministry, knowing full

well that the Attorney-General's ministry is in a period of cutting the

services which they are giving to people?

The other question

has to do with the Child Paternity and Support Act, which is being

amended. Mr. Speaker, maybe the Attorney-General can explain to me

where it says, "...striking out '70' and substituting '69'..." because

I have the act in front of me and

section 12(2) reads, "The provisions

of the Family Relations Act for the enforcement of maintenance orders

apply to the enforcement of maintenance provisions in an affiliation

order," and there is nothing in there about

section 70 or

section 69.

So I'm asking this, because I would like a clarification; it's not a

contentious question.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know how

the Ministry of Human Resources is going to be able to deal with the

enforcement of this

section now that the lawyers under contract to the

Attorney-General, who are supposed to act to apply orders and to

enforce, are being withdrawn. That's been restricted, and as a matter

of fact a number of them are not having their contracts renegotiated,

but have been given three months' notice of it. Are these people

supposed to depend on the family court counsellors? The family court

counsellors are not legally trained. They are very useful, I think, in

the counselling that they do. But if one is looking at the quality of

justice, which is supposed to be available to all people regardless of

their economic status, one would have to question whether it is going

to be possible, now that this

section is taken out of the GAIN act, is

being repealed and placed under the Family Relations Act. How is it

going to be possible now that the memorandum has come out and made

clear that enforcement of maintenance is not one of the things for

which legal counsel is going to be available?

One of

the other memoranda — and as I said before, there are about seven in

all — which deals with services to children is withholding legal

counsel for children over the age of 12. Well, a number of these

maintenance orders are on behalf of children, and until this date

family advocates did act on behalf of children through the courts. Now

this service is going to be eliminated once the child is over the age

of 12. Maybe the Attorney-General can explain to me how that is going

to be possible with this curtailment. I want to be absolutely clear

that the minister knows what particular sections I'm dealing with.

a memo dated April 23 to the family advocate services,

section 10(

a) says that no appointments will be made in matters respecting the

interests and welfare of a child 12 years of age or over. Surely

maintenance affects the interests and welfare of a child. I'm still

curious about where that decision to cut off at the age of 12 came

from. What studies or research went into the decision that a

12-year-old no longer needs the protection of an advocate in the

courts. As I pointed out at another time — it has nothing to do with

this bill — we know that most of the children over the age of 12 who

end up in court using an advocate are victims of sexual abuse. But I'm

not discussing that under this bill, Mr. Speaker. That's another matter

altogether. I'm discussing the welfare of the children under the bill.

They too, as a result of this memo, are going to find that they're not

going to have access to an advocate.

The memo which I

mentioned earlier, also dated April 23, dealing specifically with the

Family Relations Act, makes it absolutely clear that,

whereas in the

past representation of applicants in custody, access, maintenance and

related matters, and for injunctive relief in the supreme court, were

all without limitation as to the extent of service and the nature of

the case in provincial court, that has now been changed. The first

criterion for eligibility is that the applicant has to have de facto

custody of the child. In other words, in an instance where a child has

been kidnapped and taken to another province by one of the parents, the

spouse will not have representation made available through the

ministry, because the spouse does not have de facto custody of the

child. The second criterion is that, as well as de facto custody of the

children, there has to be the presence of physical violence or the

apprehension of imminent physical violence — there has to be a threat —

in order for this person to be eligible. Even when both of these

criteria have been met — when there is either de facto custody or

physical violence or the threat of violence — it very clearly says: "If

an applicant is eligible under the above conditions, then counsel may

represent the applicant until a settlement is made. However, legal

services are not to be given for enforcement...." That is what we're

talking about. We're talking about enforcing the maintenance orders. At

this point, a single parent — of which we've been told by the United

Way study there are at least 20,000 in receipt of income assistance, to

say nothing of the ones who are not in receipt of income assistance —

with de facto custody of a child, where there is violence or the threat

of violence, is not going to have legal counsel in terms of going

before a provincial court to have the maintenance order enforced.

Why

bring in the legislation if this service is going to be cut off? It

doesn't make any sense. It's one step forward and five steps back. When

the legislation was introduced, everyone thought that meant the welfare

rolls were going to be absolutely diminished — cut in half — because as

soon as there was a maintenance order, the Ministry of the

Attorney-General was going to see to it, through the Family Relations

Act, that the maintenance was paid through garnisheeing the

[ Page 7828 ]

wages

of the spouse who was reneging or whatever. They thought everything was

going to be taken care of. At exactly the same time, a sheaf of memos

went out to all counsel who customarily act on the instructions of the

family law and social services

section in matters referred to it under

the Family Relations Act. That's the very same act. All the counsel

were told that they cannot act in cases of enforcement of maintenance.

That doesn't make any sense to me at all.

In closing, I just want to deal with some of the recommendations which were brought....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN:

I do not understand why that is such a wonderful thing. It seems to me

that you should have been as concerned about this as anyone else. If we

want people to get off the welfare rolls.... We know that one of the

reasons they are on the welfare rolls is because men are not paying

their maintenance. That is why the taxpayer has to pick up the tab for

it.

MR. KEMPF: Sit down and let us pass the bill!

MS. BROWN:

It is not going to happen, because the Attorney-General said in one of

his memos that those women are not going to have legal counsel. You

should be standing up and fighting for that yourself.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We will be assisted if the member continues to address the Chair. Let's not have interruptions, please.

MS. BROWN:

The United Way, in this study which I hope the Attorney-General has

read, made a number of recommendations. One of the recommendations was

that, first of all, all support orders should be made automatically

payable through the courts and that there should be automatic

monitoring as far as the enforcement is concerned. I just wonder if the

Attorney-General took that recommendation into account. I don't think

it's too late. It is still possible for that to be done. I know the

bill says that once it's been signed over that can be done, but why not

amend the legislation so as to make maintenance orders, child support

orders — all orders — payable through the courts and have the automatic

monitoring as far as the enforcement is concerned?

One of

the problems the study found that we have with arrears is that even

when the spouse who has not been paying the maintenance is brought

before the courts, usually there is a settlement for a very small

portion of what is owed. In other words, if a person is in arrears for

$600, usually there is a settlement of about $200. It is never the

entire amount that is paid up, because sometimes there is a valid

reason why the person is in arrears. There are a number of reasons. The

person has gone on to start a new family and has new responsibilities

and so is not able to maintain the responsibilities to the old family,

or has lost a job or whatever. There are a number of reasons given.

Because there is no monitoring of the enforcement, they are allowed to

fall so far behind that by the time they do get to court there is a

negotiated settlement which is usually a very small proportion of what

the order should be.

I would like to suggest to the

Attorney-General that maybe, if it is possible to amend the

legislation, that would be one thing that should be done. The other

thing is the standardization of information dossiers and orders in

terms of reciprocal jurisdictions. I think this is a good one that

should be incorporated in the legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: The Attorney-General closes the debate.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

The member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) is no longer in the

chamber, but I would like to respond to a very worthwhile point that he

made. It is the question of ratification of the Hague Convention in the

other contracting states. That certainly is essential if the concepts

which are contained in the convention are to be workable. That is the

reason that we are so anxious to proceed with this legislation, so that

we can — with the province of Ontario — make a direct request to the

be possible with legislation in place in two jurisdictions in the

country. Canada having ratified the convention we can then insist that

Canada deal with the other contracting states, asking them to follow

and do likewise. That will be a step taken immediately when this bill

is enacted and receives royal assent.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

The

member for Burnaby-Edmonds raised a number of matters, some of them

within the principle of this bill, some of them not. May I say with

regard to the matter of abduction within Canada that the provisions of

sections 37 through 42 of our Family Relations Act already deal with

that aspect.

She has raised the question of the repeal of

section 16 of the GAIN act, that

section never having been proclaimed,

and the transfer of it to the Family Relations Act. The reason that was

done is that the

section in the GAIN act was found to be inadequate for

its purpose. That was the reason it wasn't proclaimed. We have

rectified that and have put it into the Family Relations Act so that it

will be effective.

The matter of maintenance enforcement is,

as the member has pointed out, a very serious problem. It always seems

as if the answers are simple until you begin to approach the

practicalities which are associated with enforcement. One of our

difficulties in this regard stems from the fact that in the years 1972

to 1975, when the NDP was government, they wiped out all process for

the enforcement of maintenance orders. As a consequence, the system

both within the province and between provinces was so completely

confused and muddled that we're having some difficulties now in dealing

with the matter of maintenance enforcement in the courts and the

question of arrears.

She refers to the study done by the

United Way, and the recommendations are good. Some of them have already

been undertaken. We have had three pilot projects with regard to

automatic enforcement procedures in this province, and they prove it is

the way to go. But the numbers which are involved are such that in

order to have effective monitoring of maintenance orders in the

province, we will have to move to a computer system, the cost of which

has now been estimated. We will be proceeding as quickly as we are

financially able to install a system which will identify all arrears of

maintenance orders immediately because the payments will go through the

court, as the member has indicated the recommendations provide.

Therefore enforcement will also be immediate.

[ Page 7829 ]

That

program is now being developed jointly by the Ministry of

Attorney-General and the Ministry of Human Resources. One of the major

groups who would benefit by such a program is, as the member has

pointed out, persons who find themselves on the social welfare rolls.

The

member will note that in this legislation there is a provision whereby

people can assign to the Crown their rights with respect to

maintenance. It is because of reluctance on the part of many persons

who rely upon social assistance to get orders at all. Therefore we find

that of the social assistance recipients who are entitled to orders

against their spouses for maintenance and are not getting them, the

Crown is now going to say to them: "Would you please assign to us your

rights with regard to maintenance? We will get the orders and we will

enforce them and we'll look after the variation." Hopefully, we'll

remove from those persons — almost all women with children,

single-parent families — the hassle that they have to get involved with

when they get into the courts. We will have to assume the

responsibility for costs of that. That's the way the program is

developing. The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and I

hope to announce later this year the commencement of that program. It

doesn't need legislation. At least that is not with the advice that we

have at the moment. It doesn't need legislation to become effective,

and we are as anxious as the member is to provide levels of assistance

in this particular area.

The member has raised questions

with regard to memoranda being sent out by the ministry dealing with

legal costs. That isn't covered by the bill; it's out of order. I will

simply say, as I have said before, that those memoranda are designed to

bring about an element of management and discipline with regard to the

alarming increase in the cost of family law. The results of our

analysis of the costing problems providing lawyers for a number of

areas in family law continues, and those guidelines which have been

issued are always subject to modification based upon experience.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 14.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 14 be referred to a Committee of the

Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 11, Mr. Speaker.

SPECIAL APPROPRIATION ACT

HON. MR. CURTIS:

With respect to Bill 11, in moving second reading I have a few remarks

for the assistance of hon. members. Over the past 15 years the

Legislature has created a number of special purpose funds to finance a

wide variety of government programs and projects. These funds have

generally served their intended purposes very well. Under present world

economic circumstances — and we have spoken of those on a number of

occasions on both sides of the House, as they affect British Columbia —

it appears to the government that these funds would better meet the

overall objectives of financial planning, management and control as

special accounts within the general fund. As a result, Bill 11 proposes

that almost all special purpose funds be dissolved and replaced by

statutory spending authority from the general fund.

Mr.

Speaker, I want to stress that it is not the intention of the policy

introduced by the government in this bill to dilute in any way the

programs now financed by special funds. This bill will provide all such

programs with identical spending authority to that now contained within

the legislation providing for special purpose funds. The change in

policy, however, is consistent with the government's new accounting

policy, which has been undertaken in recent months. It will also

provide greater flexibility in financial management.

Following

the conversion of special purpose funds into special purpose accounts,

it will be possible for the government to draw on the surplus cash

assets of these funds to finance special program initiatives this year.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recall that the budget plan calls for

spending $285.7 million on employment development and on health and

education cost-stabilization programs. These initiatives are to be

financed by cash from the new special accounts — that is, $270.7

million — and by the special bank tax, which is the subject of another

bill, in an amount of about $15 million. Therefore this policy is

fundamental to this year's budget plan.

I also want to

stress, however, that five funds will remain and one new fund will be

created. Actually, Mr. Speaker, there are six funds to be retained as a

result of an amendment which will be dealt with in committee. The funds

that will be retained are as follows: the Habitat Conservation Fund,

the First Citizens Fund, the British Columbia Cultural Fund, the

Physical Fitness and Amateur Sports Fund, the Lottery Fund and the

Revenue Sharing Fund. Therefore they are not the subject of this bill

before the House. These funds are of particular significance to certain

groups outside the government, and for this reason their special status

has been maintained — it is not being altered. One new fund, the

Resource Revenue Stabilization Fund, will be created under another

piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I dealt with this at some

length in the budget address on April 5, and undoubtedly there will be

opportunities to discuss it, not only in second reading, but in another

context as well.

With those few remarks I would move second reading of Bill 11.

MR. STUPICH:

The government has obviously had a great deal of trouble managing its

cash not just in bad times but also in good times. The budget that was

read by the minister on April 5 pointed out that in the year ending

March 31, 1981 the combined cash reserves of the province were reduced

by $313 million. That was a good period, Mr. Speaker. In the year

ending March 31, 1982, which was a mixture of good and bad, the cash

reserves were reduced by $356 million; and it is proposed that they be

reduced by another $279 million in the year ending March 31, 1983. It's

all very well for the minister to say that this bill before us now does

nothing to discharge the government from having the authority to spend

money for the special purposes outlined in the various funds — perhaps

more than twenty of them — and that the government still has these

funds listed in the legislation and the authority to spend money for

these various purposes that were introduced individually in the

Legislature and almost all supported, I would think, unanimously. The

government still has the authority to spend the money, but what the

government is saying now is that, unless they have surplus cash, they

won't spend it for the purposes outlined in the legislation before us.

There are some very specific individual concerns at this point in time. I intend to speak only generally, but as I

[ Page 7830 ]

understand

it, that's the situation. The cash that's available to government by

way of the combined consolidated revenue with the special funds money

is all now lumped into one fund that will be used firstly for serving

the operating needs of the government. If there happens to be anything

left over for any of these special funds, they might stand in line and

hope to get it. It certainly does provide the government with maximum

flexibility in cash management; it relieves the government of having

the responsibility of ensuring that cash will be available to meet the

purposes of these funds that were established by the Legislature in

some 20-odd different pieces of legislation.

The government

still has the authority to spend money for these purposes, but the

government is standing up now and admitting to the people of the

province that they have so mismanaged the financial affairs of the

province in their six years in office that they are no longer able to

maintain the cash on hand to meet the needs of the funds that were

established by the Legislature over the last 30 years. In itself, Mr.

Speaker, that is a shocking admission for a government that boasts so

much about its ability to manage cash in British Columbia. What they're

really doing in this legislation is saying: "Look, we can't handle it;

we need that cash to operate the government services." So they're

taking the cash away from the special funds that up to this point in

time has been held in reserve and they're going to use it for normal

housekeeping, hoping that some day there may be some extra cash coming

in, at which time they will be able to satisfy the needs of the special

funds.

Up to this point in time many of these funds have

been interest-earning. Interest has been credited to the funds, and

this has been added to the amount available for the purposes of those

funds. As I read it now, this will no longer be the case with respect

to the funds dealt with in this legislation. Beyond that, I suppose the

legislation we previously passed would allow the Minister of Finance to

relieve the government of the responsibility of spending money for the

purposes of these various bills to some extent by simply charging them

an administration fee. This will be another way the government will be

relieving itself of the responsibility and, of course, that won't

affect its cash-flow problem.

Mr. Speaker, as I say, it's a

shocking admission on the part of this government that they have so

failed the people of the province that they have not been able to

manage the affairs of the province in good times, let alone in bad

times. We can't support a government that stands up and in effect

admits in this legislation that they have failed the people of the

province and have made a bad job of handling the finances of the

province of B.C.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, certainly

I would reiterate the comments of my colleague for Nanaimo and support

his contentions that these funds were established by the Legislature,

supposedly for all time. It was very strong legislation, stating that

this government was dedicated to carrying out the projects set out in

the legislation for which this special funding was set aside. This

government has now reneged on that commitment, it would appear.

One

of the major concerns that I have, apart from that general concern

about this piece of legislation, is that with the exception of one of

the funds that is mentioned here, they are all made up of government

funds — some is federal money and some is provincial money. The one

fund that is included in here and is recouped is a fund made up from

individual citizens in this province. It is, of course, the Farm Income

Assurance Fund, where the producers of this province pay premiums for

their insurance scheme into government coffers. That private money is

now being recouped by this government and put into general revenue.

That seems very different and much worse than the other funds that are

recouped. That particular fund, the Farm Income Assurance Fund, is made

up of premiums that are paid by the producers and supposedly the

government's share of premiums.

I would be very interested

if the Minister of Finance could tell me when he closes debate what the

balance of that fund was as of March 31 of this year, and how much of

that money was premiums paid by the producers and how much of it was

actually government funds. There is a provision in this bill, Mr.

Speaker, that limits the payments out of that fund to the total amount

that is paid in, including that initial amount.

I think this

is a fund that should be excluded from this bill. In fact I think all

of them should be excluded, because I'm opposed to the whole concept.

But that one in particular should not be in here, because it is a

different kind of a fund. It's a fund where individual citizens of

British Columbia contribute their dollars into an insurance scheme, and

now that money is being taken over by the provincial treasury as

consolidated revenue. You can pay out up to the maximum but you don't

have to pay it all out. As the member for Nanaimo indicated, if you

spend it for something else, you can't spend it for this. That doesn't

seem fair, just or in line with the terms of the Farm Income Insurance

Act. That particular fund seems utterly out of place in this bill.

While I am opposed to the whole bill, the whole concept and the

necessity to go back on commitments made by this Legislature to spend

dollars on certain specific projects around this province, I completely

object to the idea of including this fund — made up not just of

government money but also of private, individual funding — in there.

wish the minister, in closing debate, would tell us just how he

proposes to ensure that the amount of farm income insurance owed by his

government as a result of the Farm Income Insurance Act is able to be

realized if it exceeds the amount set out in this bill. There are very

stringent limitations put on what can be done. If, as I suspect, that

fund stood very low on March 31, without government funds being added

to it — simply the farmers' premiums — we are in a position where the

farmers are going to be financing this government, and I object to that.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I indicated at the outset that it is not the intention of the policy

which is fundamental to Bill 11 to dilute in any way the programs now

financed through special funds. First, with respect to the comments by

the member for Cowichan-Malahat, I would like to assure her that the

Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) and I have had a very

spirited discussion on this topic, as you would expect of a good

Minister of Agriculture and Food.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: That is not being dealt with in this bill, Mr. House Leader.

The

Minister of Agriculture can obviously speak for himself, but I believe

that he is satisfied with the insurance which is in place with respect

to that fund. I do not have the precise figure as of March 31, 1982

readily available for the

[ Page 7831 ]

member. I undertake to have that figure available for committee debate when we hit the appropriate section.

recognize that there are implicit commitments through a number of the

funds which are discussed in this bill. These commitments cannot be

turned away from by the government. Nor would I suggest that we should

turn away from them. However, we will have the ability to access these

as and when appropriate and as and when available.

Comments

can be made on the other side with respect to opposition to the entire

concept of changing these funds into special accounts. I would like to

have heard the member suggest the alternative. Much has been said in

recent days about the province of Quebec. The Premier made a reference

to the province of Quebec this morning in another debate. I would ask

all members to compare our situation with that which exists in other

provinces in Canada today, where early warnings were ignored and

somewhat unpalatable steps were not taken in the initial instance. If

that had been the case in some other provinces, contrary to what the

member for Nanaimo has said.... If we had not taken those steps in

British Columbia, we would indeed be in a serious situation. We are in

a delicate situation in British Columbia in the spring of 1982. There

is no question about it. We are in a delicate situation with respect to

government revenues and government expenditures. I would stray into

another piece of legislation if I were to speak about expenditures at

length.

I think the member for Nanaimo ignores the fact that

these funds have been set aside for the kind of financial environment

in which we now find ourselves. That clearly was one of the purposes

when special funds of this nature were first established. I did not

originate the term, but I've used it a number of times this year:

"rainy-day money." That was the purpose of special purpose funds — to

put money to one side when government revenues were at a higher level

than they are today. Completely to the contrary of the observation made

by the member for Nanaimo, we can now turn to these funds as and when

necessary, notwithstanding the commitments that have been made and the

obligations that exist under the funds or, as they will be known, the

special purpose accounts. I think that says a great deal about the

financial management of the province over the last several years by my

predecessor, now the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government

Services (Hon. Mr. Wolfe); by those who work with me in the Ministry of

Finance; but most importantly, by the members of government who have

assisted in these difficult periods.

I think there will be a

number of comments in committee. I thank the members for their

observations. I don't accept all of them. I will have the figure

requested by the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace). I move

second reading of Bill 11.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

NAYS — 22

Barrett

Howard

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Passarell

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

Bill

11, Special Appropriations Act, read a second time and referred to a

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

the House after today.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members,

prior to recognizing the House Leader, I have been informed that some

of the bells apparently are not working. If those members who are

having difficulty with the bells in their locations would advise the

Chair at the earliest opportunity, we will have the matter looked into.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

On a point of order, I question the reliability of the bells at all

times. They have not worked properly for a year and a half. I do not

think this House can stand on the record of the bells until we have

some way for the Chair to send out the signal and have a response that

the bells did ring. Otherwise, I will never accept it. At certain times

those bells do not function properly. It's unfair to expect members of

this House to be in their place in four minutes — a very elementary

situation — when you depend on bells so archaic that you never know if

they're going to ring. It's out of the question. This House is too

important to stand for a vote on such a matter.

This is the

first time you've raised the question yourself. I want to say now that

I'm thoroughly dissatisfied with the position that this House must be

responsible for those bells and a four-minute call. I believe the time

must come when you have a positive electronic response, or let the Whip

decide when the vote is going to be called.

MR. HOWARD:

On the same point of order, the standing orders are rather clear in

terms of time. I would also point out that the bells worked perfectly

until that point in time when the member who is now the Minister of

Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) started tampering

with them. They only went awry after he said he was going to fix them.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

The point of order raised by the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) is

certainly a valid point of order, and I will undertake to see what

methods can be taken to ensure that members are given sufficient and

proper notice to respond to a vote in this House. I'll report back on

that matter.

MR. MUSSALLEM: In response to the

remarks of the House Leader of the opposition, my point of order is

that it was not this party that brought the question of bells into

disrepute. It was that party on March 23, 1981, that spent 20

[ Page 7832 ]

minutes looking for one of their members. You agreed to it, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

The point of order has been well canvassed. It will be reviewed by the

Chair, and a report will be brought back to the members of the House.

The House Leader has called second reading on Bill 47.

TRAFFIC VICTIMS INDEMNITY FUND REPEAL ACT

HON. MR. HEWITT:

In moving second reading of Bill 47, I'd like to give some history.

This Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund was established by

an act in 1961.

The main object of that fund was to ensure that victims of uninsured

motorists were indemnified to an extent prescribed by the Motor Vehicle

Act. Upon paying an innocent victim, the fund was empowered to

subrogate against the responsible motorist or motorists.

Mr.

Speaker, on March 1, 1974, the purpose of the fund was assumed by the

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia under

section 20 of the

Automobile Insurance Act, which is now

section 19 of the Insurance

(Motor Vehicle) Act. Having that responsibility transferred to ICBC,

the fund in effect has outlived its usefulness. The corporation has

taken over that function, and therefore its continued existence serves

no purpose. The legislative changes in Bill 47 will wind up the fund

and deal with the outstanding assets and liabilities.

might mention, Mr. Speaker, that both the Ministry of Attorney-General

and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways have been consulted

with regard to the repeal of this fund and are in support of it.

With those comments, Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.

MR. HALL:

We take pleasure in supporting this amendment to repeal the Traffic

Victims Indemnity Fund and realize that the corporation has indeed had

the real responsibility of administering that fund for some time now.

As outlined in

section 2, it will now clearly have the duty of looking

after the victims of accidents caused by uninsured motorists. To that

end, we are tidying up our statutes and clearly placing a direct and

simple responsibility and duty on the Insurance Corporation of British

Columbia.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

In another

way, we're also serving notice to insurance companies that ICBC is here

to stay. It may well be that that might cause some members on the

opposite side not to support this piece of legislation. We'll have to

see that when the vote is called — if the minister does call a division

on second reading to find out if he's got this kind of solid support

for the corporation in his own back bench.

It's only been a short time since the administrative leader of that party was calling for the phasing out of the corporation.

Interjection.

MR. HALL: I see my colleague in Surrey is applauding that statement.

Here

we see enshrined in the legislation another duty for the corporation to

perform, so maybe we should call a division at the end of this debate

to see how many government members will stand up and support the

corporation and nail down once and for all how many government members

and how many opposition members want to see this corporation succeed.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Not fair.

MR. HALL: I think we may do that.

Either

in winding up debate or dealing in committee stage, Mr. Speaker, I

wonder if the minister would bring — if he hasn't already got them with

him — details on the assets of the fund at the present time. How many

cases is the fund currently dealing with? In other words, we should

have some idea of the dimensions of the problem. We know the dimensions

of the problem of the normal accident rates, which are escalating at a

pace that is far too alarming for us really to even consider.

The

minister filed the financial statements of ICBC the other day. In his

annual report which he filed on behalf of the corporation, the minister

tabled the statistics about accidents. There were figures about claims

and about the escalating costs of injuries. I think, as we now place

this duty and responsibility fairly and squarely on the Insurance

Corporation via these consequential amendments, we should find out from

the minister either now or possibly in committee — there is no hurry

about it — the kind of numbers involved in victims of uninsured

motorists who are claiming from the fund. Give us some idea of the

dimensions of the problem. I think that would assist the House. With

those few words, we take pleasure in supporting this sensible move from

the old-fashioned way of doing it, which was an inheritor of the old

pooled-risk idea, to really recognizing the facts, as they are, that

the corporation is responsible.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I am

pleased that the opposition has supported this bill. As the second

member for Surrey knows, since 1974 ICBC has basically taken the role

of the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund. He made some comment that ICBC

is here to stay. I want to point out to the second member for Surrey

that since 1976 ICBC has "paid its own way," after the huge deficit

that was left there by the previous administration. The corporation is

not subsidized by the taxpayer and does not run a deficit operation. It

has its premiums calculated on the basis of claims incurred and on

signed actuarial calculations. In short, it is properly managed. That

is not to say that the management and expertise of the corporation

cannot be improved. I can advise the second member for Surrey that, as

minister responsible, I will continue to strive to have that

corporation provide a reasonable cost insurance and the best coverage

possible to the driving public of British Columbia.

believe he asked for the amounts that were still outstanding. There is

approximately $14 million in the fund on paper. I believe last year

there was something less than $100,000 collected on those judgments

against motorists who were responsible for uninsured claims. I would

assure the member that on an ongoing basis ICBC will continue to

attempt to collect against those judgments by people who have been

responsible for the accidents. I believe the member asked about the

numbers of claims against uninsured motorists at

[ Page 7833 ]

the present time. I will have to respond to him in committee on that. I will endeavour to get that information for him.

With those comments, I move the bill now be read a second time.

Motion approved.

Bill

47, Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund Repeal Act, read a second time and

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

next sitting after today.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY,

MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES

(continued)

On vote 28: minister's office, $212,539.

MR. STUPICH:

For some time the Chemainus Indian band, under the leadership of Chief

Ray Harris, has been negotiating with Dome Petroleum on a lease of some

200 acres of reserve land for the construction of a shipbuilding

facility that depends upon the shipment of liquid natural gas. They're

wondering whether or not the provincial government — and I recognize

that the responsibility really lies in the federal area — is trying in

any way at all to persuade the federal government to insist that at

least some portion of the LNG will be shipped in Canadian-built ships.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

We haven't really got to that point at this time. We have three

proposals for development of an LNG facility for shipment offshore.

Applications have been made to the National Energy Board for approval

to export that LNG. We are still in the process of our natural gas

allocation procedure. I would expect that before the end of June a

decision will be made on the process which we will recommend to cabinet

— "we" meaning the ministry — as the proposal which offers the best

overall benefits to British Columbia. We're in the final stages of

those evaluations. The time to make that recommendation to cabinet

would be when we might be making representations to the National Energy

Board.

MR. STUPICH: The question was not about the

process or even who might get contracts. The question was: in the event

that LNG is shipped to Japan, would the provincial government be using

its influence with the federal government to try to ensure that

Canadian-built ships will be used to some extent in this transportation

process? What is the provincial government's attitude? What is the

attitude of this minister? Would he try to use his influence to try to

get support from the provincial government in order to influence the

federal government in favour of insisting that Canadian-built ships be

used?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I can't give a commitment

of that nature at this time. First of all, we have not had a proposal,

for instance, on what kind of subsidies would be necessary for a

shipyard in either British Columbia or Nova Scotia. Dome Petroleum has

made a number of proposals that some ships be built in Nova Scotia and,

perhaps, that some be built in British Columbia. It has been implied,

at least, that there would be some level of subsidy — large, small,

intermediate, we don't know which — necessary from the two levels of

government, provincial and federal, in order to allow those shipyards

to be built. That's part of our study and part of our evaluation. We

have to know, first of all, whether a subsidy is being asked for and,

secondly, how much it would be and where it would come from before the

ministry could recommend to cabinet on the proposal. Shipyards and an

opportunity for developing shipment on Canadian vessels would certainly

be part of that study — and are part of that study.

MR. STUPICH:

I keep trying. I would like to have some indication from the minister

that at least he favours the idea of using Canadian-built ships,

whether the figures add up or something.... But to this point in time

I've heard that there are going to be studies; nothing is conclusive

yet; they don't know the figures. I appreciate that the study is going

on. But I would like to have some indication from the minister that he

would like to see that happen at least. Perhaps he's not prepared to go

beyond that, but maybe he could go that far today.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I'm sure I'd like to see Canadian-built ships. If it means a subsidy of

a couple of billion dollars or a billion dollars or six hundred million

dollars, that's the question I don't yet have the answer to. I think

the member would agree with me that perhaps there comes a time, when

the subsidy required is at a certain level, that it may not be possible

for us to insist on that development to happen. If all the member wants

me to say is that I think it would be nice if we had Canadian ships

carrying LNG, then I can certainly say that.

MR. STUPICH:

We're making some progress. At least we do have the minister's support

for the principle, in the event the subsidy is reasonable. I suppose my

next question might be.... I don't think he can really answer this one.

Although we have not been privy to the agreements, we're hoping that

we're going to see material some day. I understand that the subsidy for

shipping northeast coal is going to run somewhere in the neighbourhood

of $1.4 billion. I wonder whether he would consider that to be a

reasonable or unreasonable amount for shipping LNG in Canadian-built

ships. Mr. Chairman, I don't really expect him to be able to tell me

whether that's a reasonable figure at this point, but I did want to get

that question asked.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, I have

some questions for the minister. Since he has his very able deputy with

him, I'll be repeating some things that have been discussed here before

but not responded to by the minister — at least not responded to in a

satisfactory way as far as the committee is concerned.

Mr.

Chairman, we're wondering if the minister can give us some indication

of what the guidelines may be regarding the terms of reference for the

hearings which the government has been promising for 25 years on the

question of a natural gas pipeline to Vancouver Island. Also, can the

minister advise us whether he and his government still wish to deny

natural gas to industrial customers on Vancouver Island or whether he

simply wants to make sure that industrial customers do not displace

wood waste through the use of natural gas, which is a reasonable

expectation.

[ Page 7834 ]

There

are massive layoffs in the mining industry in B.C. — in excess of 6,000

temporary, medium-term and long-term, as the minister well knows. The

minister has not publicly, to my knowledge, expressed concern about

this, nor has he given any indication that he wishes to propose to his

colleagues in government or to his opposite numbers in the federal

government any sort of assistance to the industry or to these

employees, in the same way that we have seen initiatives taken

regarding the forest industry. I think we all know that when large

numbers of people are without work it not only represents a

considerable hardship to the people involved, but it also represents

considerable expense to the provincial and federal governments. We all,

I think, could agree that at least some good intentions and some

initiatives from government to alleviate unemployment in the industry

would be worthwhile. We don't expect miracles. I think it's reasonable

to expect some good intentions and efforts.

Mr. Chairman,

the minister has been very terse on the issue of the Cominco–West

Kootenay Power utilities act exemption application, as well as on the

various rate requirements and the question of the allocation of those

power-generating sources. The question has been before regulatory

bodies in B.C. since 1975, and it's a question which has cost the

taxpayers a considerable lot of money over the years. It has cost the

utility users money. Government slowness in coming to a decision has

also delayed development plans. It has not only been through Cominco

Ltd., but also, because it has delayed West Kootenay Power's ability to

upgrade their in some ways antiquated plant facilities due to financial

restrictions, it's fair to say that it has delayed and held back

economic development in other industries in the West Kootenay Power

market area as well. I would like the minister to give some indication

as to whether or not he is able to make a decision on these matters

which have been, as I said earlier, before regulatory bodies in British

Columbia for some seven years now.

We asked a week ago if

the minister and his senior administrator, who is with him, were going

to be able to meet some of the concerns of the mining industry

regarding the services whose provision is required by law, and

particularly the services to the junior mining companies, who have been

longest and loudest in their complaints about slowness — not about

shoddy work, but simply slowness in areas covered by the minister's

responsibility. Perhaps the larger companies who don't do, relatively

speaking, as much exploratory work as the juniors can absorb this kind

of tardiness. But particularly in today's economic climate, Mr.

Chairman, it puts a hardship on an industry which is already burdened

by poor international prices.

I would ask the minister again

if he could possibly tell the committee if he even cares about the

effect of the government's water-licence increases on the mining

industry in general, and if he is going to make any attempt to go to

his colleagues on the treasury benches and ask them to at least roll

back the ad valorem, indexed increases which are going to go into

effect over the next few years — as long as that wrecking crew over

there stays in office. I see there are not very many people around over

there to wreck, but they are definitely a wrecking crew as far as the

economy of B.C. is concerned. The increases as they exist are heinous

enough, Mr. Chairman. I would like the minister to at least make some

sort of commitment to show that he cares what those increases have done

to the mining industry, and what they're likely to do to the mining

industry, and to all users of energy in British Columbia, and that he

is going to at least attempt to persuade his colleagues to change their

minds on already scheduled increases.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Chairman, the Vancouver Island pipeline question has been answered

I don't know how many times. We have called for proposals from various

people who are interested in developing Vancouver Island pipeline, and

those proposals must be in by June 15. I'm very hopeful that by that

same time we will have developed the guidelines and they'll be made

public. They'll probably be sent to the Utilities Commission. I've

never said that industrial customers would not have the opportunity to

use natural gas, should natural gas come to Vancouver Island. As the

member has correctly identified, we have expressed our concern about

making sure that the forest industry makes the best use of the energy

source available to it. That's still a policy of the government.

don't know whether I've publicly said that I'm concerned about layoffs

in the mining industry, but certainly I am, as is every member in this

House, I'm sure. I must commend both the unions and the companies for

the manner in which they've handled their problems. On the unions'

side, I think they have been pragmatic enough — perhaps it's because

most of them have been involved in the mining industry for a long time

— to understand the cyclical nature of mining and the problems with

world mineral prices. They understand that their employers are in

serious difficulty right now. On the companies' side, I think they have

done their very best — the ones I've been in contact with, at least —

to ensure that those layoffs and plant closures come as much as

possible during holiday periods in the summer. Hopefully an improvement

in the world situation will allow them to put people back to work.

also know that some of the companies are taking special actions in an

attempt to ease their employees over this period, in terms of extra

benefits that they might be able to provide. There is of course the

problem of protecting unemployment insurance. Some benefits that might

be provided by a company may in fact impact on the benefits the

complexities, but I think the companies are trying to work them out to

the best of their ability.

I have admitted at other times

that we were guilty of some slow action in the ministry in approvals,

in issuance of licences and things like that, during a period when

things were really booming. We were overwhelmed by the nature of the

demand for our services and we simply couldn't keep up. We've

apologized for that and we've attempted to add efficiencies within the

ministry to cope with those difficulties. Now, of course, things have

slowed down considerably, which may offer us an opportunity to regroup

and see whether or not, when we meet the increased demand again, we can

meet it in a more efficient way. The deputy minister and other

officials in the ministry are looking at that now.

The

Cominco–West Kootenay matter is one I know the member is interested in

and it's one I would hope to resolve quickly too. It's a very complex

matter. It's not easy for government, it's not easy for the partners in

the scenario and it's not easy for the Utilities Commission. We have

some recommendations that are being studied now, and I hope we'll be

able to make recommendations to cabinet reasonably quickly.

[ Page 7835 ]

MR. KEMPF I'll take a little of the committee's time this afternoon

to ask the minister a few questions relating to the mining industry in the province

of British Columbia. The items relate firstly to the Mining (Placer) Act and

secondly to the increase in fees charged for the free miner's certificate

in the province of British Columbia. Recently the fee charged for that certificate

was raised from $5, where it has been for many, many years, to $25, a fee increase

of 500 percent.

Mr.

Chairman, the first question I have for the minister is: how much money

is expected to be raised by the increase in that fee in this fiscal

year for the treasury of the province of British Columbia?

second question, Mr. Chairman: whatever that amount might be, in

response to the first question, I would like to ask the minister if

he's aware of the harm that that fee increase will perpetrate on the

ordinary, free enterprise prospector in this province — that raising of

the fee 500 percent.

My third question, is: how many free

miners' certificates were issued in the province of British Columbia in

the fiscal year 1981-82?

My fourth question to the minister

is: do you as the minister of mines not consider the free miner's

certificate a historic document? It is a document that has really been

the foundation of the mining industry in British Columbia: a foundation

built through the entrepreneurial initiative of hundreds of thousands

of prospectors who have climbed the mountains and braved the elements

to find new ore deposits, which has resulted in the mining industry in

this province being second only to forestry.

My fifth

question to the minister is: do you not think that because of its

historical background the free miner's certificate should have been

reduced, not increased, during these times of economic downturn in

order to entice more prospectors into the field, in order to stake more

new mineral claims in the province of British Columbia, so that when

this economic downturn turns around the industry will be ready and able

to start new mines in this province?

My last question has to

do, as I said before, with the Mining (Placer) Act. I want to know

today, from the minister, when the government intends to bring in

amendments to that act which will eliminate the designated-area clause

— the clause that designates where a placer mine can or cannot be

staked in the province of British Columbia — and end once and for all

the situation which dictates that the government and not the prospector

knows best where gold can or cannot be found in our lakes and rivers.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Chairman, on the matter of the Mining (Placer) Act, it isn't

anticipated that there would be amendments during this session of the

Legislature. But that matter's always open for review, and I expect

that it will be the subject of review when we're talking about

legislation for the next session of the Legislature.

I agree

that the free miner's certificate in British Columbia — and everywhere

else, I guess, where there are miners — has been a historic sort of

licence. I suppose that could be said about other things as well. I

might add, however, that those increases have have not yet gone into

effect. There is a bill before the House — Bill 33 — which allows for

regulations to be established, and of course those regulations have

been announced. If my memory serves me correctly, the total amount, not

just from the free miner's certificate but from the increase in other

fees as well, had been anticipated to be around $2 million of

additional revenue for the treasury. It's between $2 million and $3

million. With the downturn in activity that has happened in the last

little while, I expect that that revenue increase may not be met. The

free miner's certificate had not been increased — nor had many of the

other fees — for many years, so it was felt that in attempting to

achieve revenue improvements, that was one area in which it could

happen.

I've already indicated publicly — I have not yet had

the opportunity to bring amendments into the House — that we will be

withdrawing sections of that bill which is before the House. I don't

know how far I can go today in the committee stage, but there will be

withdrawal of the increased work requirements that are included in the

bill, in recognition that the mining industry needs some encouragement

and help. The member has talked to me in the past about perhaps

considering other measures. There is a treasury matter here. It is

under discussion with the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and

others. I guess it will be left to cabinet to decide whether or not

there should be further changes to the bill presently before the House.

I can give the member the commitment that it is under discussion.

don't remember the exact number of free miners' licences. I believe I

provided the member with that information, though, if I'm not mistaken.

I think it was around 3,000 last year, but I'll get the exact

information and make sure it comes to the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Just before recognizing the next speaker, I remind the committee that

during the discussion of estimates of a minister, administrative

actions of the ministry are open for discussion but we cannot discuss

the need for legislation. I am sure all members are aware of that.

MR. KEMPF:

I realize that if I were to talk about Bill 33 I'd be out of order.

That is specifically why I didn't talk about Bill 33. The minister

mentioned the fact that the free miner certificate situation could be

cleared up by amendments to Bill 33 presently before the House. I want

to point out to the House that the question of the free miner's

certificate does not show up in Bill 33. The question of the raising of

the fees of the free miner's licence was done by regulation and not by

legislation. The fact is that it has already been raised. I have had

reports of people out there who have already paid the $25 fee to obtain

their free miners' licences so that they could prospect this coming

summer.

I too am dissatisfied with most of the other fees

mentioned in Bill 33, but I can't talk about those today and certainly

will make my views known during debate on that particular piece of

legislation.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I was low on the

number of free miner's certificates issued in the fiscal year of 1981 —

the most up-to-date figures we have at this present time. There were

around 16,260 and just over 1,000 companies issued. Under the present

legislation the fees are set in the legislation. The bill which is

before this House — I won't go into that any more than I have to to

answer the question — proposes that those fees be set by regulation.

Until that change is made it is not possible for us to set these fees

by regulation.

MR. PASSARELL: I have a few questions

for the minister. The first issue I would like to discuss with him is

in regard to the $24 million to $45 million that has been spent on the

[ Page 7836 ]

feasibility

studies for the Stikine-Iskut proposal. Is it possible for the

Utilities Commission to look into the amount of money that has been

spent on this proposal?

The second question I'd like to

direct to the minister is: what plans does the minister have for

northern power sites in regard to local consumption dams instead of

building massive dams such as the Stikine-Iskut? Are there any plans

the minister is aware of to utilize smaller streams to generate power

for mining developments in the area? I bring reference to the minister

in regard to the Cottonwood Stream just outside of Cassiar and the need

for licensing approval and financial approval to utilize streams such

as the Cottonwood to generate power for mining developments instead of

using massive dams that will take 10 to 15 years to construct.

The

third question I'd like to direct to the minister is regarding the

federal-provincial council on single-industry towns. Judy Erola, the

federal Minister of Mines, has started a committee looking into

single-industry towns. There has been very little publication

concerning this. I think the committee has been in existence for about

six months now. I am just wondering what the minister could state in

regard to the federal-provincial council on single-industry towns. Is

the minister the representative for British Columbia on this committee,

or has somebody been designated by the council? It is of vast interest

to resource towns up north because of the conflicts and problems that

have happened through dealing with the government in Ottawa because of

their not understanding some of our concerns in the north. I was just

wondering if the minister, if he is the delegate for British Columbia,

could tell us what is happening in regard to this.

Another

issue is that I would like to lend my support, too, to the member for

Omineca (Mr. Kempf) in regard to the free miners' licences and strongly

support his recommendation that in times of difficulty, instead of

increasing free miners' licences by 500 percent, we should drop it to

encourage mining throughout this province.

We covered the

issue concerning the Utilities Commission, looking into the

Stikine-Iskut proposal, and since massive amounts of money — $24

million to $44 million — has been spent, exactly what can be done

through the Utilities Commission.

Another issue of local

constituency concern is the O'Donnel River, up in Atlin. This river was

changed from a code green to a code red by Environment, and it has

handicapped approximately 40 placer miners. I wonder what the minister

can tell the House concerning the river. It was changed to a code red

because some southern bureaucrat decided that fish were being killed up

there. Local placer miners have said that in the last five years there

have been maybe three fish in that river, and that it's unnecessary to

change the O'Donnel, which is very rich in gold for placer operations.

It's put a lot of people out of work up in the Atlin area.

Regarding

Amax, this year we've found that since the minister's last estimates a

lot of problems have been solved by the company through to the Nishga

people. I wonder what the minister can state regarding some of the

inquiries that have been held into Amax: the McInerney report, the

appeal on the licensing approval, what suggestions the minister can

make concerning public input on projects such as Amax so local

residents won't be finding themselves in the same ball of wax as what

happened with Amax.

I think there were seven or eight questions that I asked the minister, and I would like to hear his response.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I don't think I have any further information that I could bring the

member about Amax. The ministry hasn't held inquiries; they've

basically been at the request of the federal government and under their

auspices. I think the results are quite well known. If the member is

saying that perhaps we could learn something about the way in which the

Amax proposal and development was handled, perhaps he's correct.

Probably everyone involved would wish to approach things a little

differently, including the company. I hope we've learned from some of

the things that have happened during the development of Amax.

The

information I have from the ministry about the O'Donnel River situation

is that the leases on the river were issued after the code was changed,

and that no one has been disadvantaged by a change of code in the

middle of his lease or something like that. That was one of the major

complaints that I had received from the Atlin area. If I'm getting

incorrect information on that, I'd like to know about it, because while

I think we all recognize that we have to protect the environment, in

terms of these kinds of leases, I would not support any miner's being

disadvantaged by a change of rules in the middle of the game. If that's

happening, I'll find out about it and I will undertake to make sure

that it doesn't continue to happen. If it has happened in the past,

we'll do something about it.

I could advise the member that

I will be going to Atlin in the next week or two — I've forgotten the

exact date — speaking to the local placer mining association at their

regular meeting. It was a commitment I made when I was there on my last

visit, and I'll have that opportunity to get as much information as I

can from those people who are affected.

In the investigation

that I did, the code wasn't changed in the middle of a lease operation.

Maybe we had better review the code itself and see whether or not it is

appropriate, given the evidence that we have from Fisheries. I can ask

my ministry to do some further work on that and let the member know,

either during estimates, if it happens that quickly, or privately later.

The

Task Force on Single Industry Towns was set up as a result of a

federal-provincial meeting that the ministers of mines from the

provinces and the federal minister, Judy Erola, had about six months

ago. As a matter of fact, I just received correspondence from Ms. Erola

today, suggesting that the work done by staff has gone about as far as

it can go. She is requesting that some consultant reports be done and

also that a person be put in place who can lead the task force. She has

requested a sum of money from each of the provinces to help fund that.

I just got it today, so I'll be responding to her on that. I hope that

the task force can do some good work, and it will be a cooperative

effort between our governments.

On the B.C. Utilities

Commission, in answer to one of the other questions from, I think, the

member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) the other day, we talked about whether

or not there would be a systems review of Hydro's operations by the

British Columbia Utilities Commission. I think my response at that time

was that they're pretty busy, that we're considering it, but that there

is a large element of systems review in the two hearings which are

currently taking place — that is, the rate hearing and the Site C

hearing. I would be very surprised if some recommendations don't come

out of those regarding systems planning by B.C. Hydro.

Further on down the line, yes, the BCUC can interest itself in what Hydro is spending in terms of developing future

[ Page 7837 ]

projects

in their studies — they have that opportunity and that responsibility.

As for smaller Hydro developments, the matter at Cassiar particularly

is being very actively reviewed by Hydro, by the management of Cassiar

Asbestos and by another small private company — and I've forgotten

their name now — which has been looking into the area. I think it's the

Cottonwood firm that you mentioned. I can't get into legislation here,

but I did mention the other day, when we were talking about estimates,

that we are contemplating some changes to the Utilities Commission Act

this session of the Legislature, which will make it easier for people

to develop those kinds of alternatives to large power dams and other

more traditional forms of energy.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr.

Chairman, the minister knows what I think about the attempt to take

over Inland Natural Gas — and I think I know what he thinks about it.

But my information, you know, on internal cabinet strife and the

debates that take place in the cabinet room is limited, and so maybe I

just think I know what the minister thinks. Anyway, the government

passed this order-in-council to prevent the transfer on the books of

Inland shares until the Utilities Commission had a chance to look at

it. In the meantime the boys had registered 49 percent before the order

became effective.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It was more like 30 percent.

MR. MACDONALD:

Well, okay, but if you have even 30 and you've got the rest of the 93

percent of the shares and you keep them in your pocket, 30 is a pretty

good majority. It's a better majority than the government has in this

Legislature. So it's really effective control. The Utilities Commission

really is, I'm afraid to say, on an empty exercise at the present time,

and I think the minister understands that, because they can't take

those shares back. They can't force Trans Mountain, Anderson and Ben

Macdonald to divest, and that was the reason the government rushed out

that order-in-council, which was too late. We can debate that another

time, but the question I put to the minister is: is he prepared to do

something about it if this takeover proves not to be in the public

interest? I ask it like that because I'm being very careful to stay in

order in terms of this Chair. I think the minister knows what's

required — and I know what's required. But is he prepared to do

anything about it in the event the Utilities Commission says no, this

is not going to be good for the consumers of B.C.?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Well, Mr. Chairman, I have a little difficulty with this one. I'm not a

lawyer and I can't give a legal opinion in this House. The second

member for Vancouver East, I guess, can; he has his opinions a