1979 Legislative Session: ist 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, JULY 5, 1979

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

531 ]

CONTENTS

Petition

An Act to Amend the Trinity Western College Act.

Mr. Ritchie –– 531

Routine Proceedings

Oral questions.

Health hazard for Provincial Museum employees. Mr. Hanson –– 531

Hospital financing. Mr. Cocke –– 532

Report on Charlene Harder death. Mr. Hall –– 534

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Attorney-General estimates.

On vote 19.

Mr. Hall –– 535

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 535

On vote 24.

Mrs. Dailly –– 536

Hon, Mr. Gardom 536

Mr. Leggatt –– 536

Mr. Hall –– 536

Mr. Stupich –– 537

On vote 32.

Mr. Leggatt –– 538

Mr. Skelly –– 538

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 539

On vote 35.

Mrs. Dailly –– 539

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 539

Mr. Levi –– 540

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 540

Mrs. Wallace –– 541

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 541

On vote 40.

Mr. Levi –– 542

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 542

On vote 41.

Mr. Levi –– 542

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 543

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

On vote 42.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 543

Mr. Levi –– 544

Mrs. Dailly –– 547

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 548

On vote 47.

Mrs. Wallace –– 548

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 549

Mr. Cocke –– 549

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 549

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Economic Development and Ministry of

Tourism and Small Business Development estimates.

On vote 56.

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 549

Mr. Cocke –– 550

Mr. Leggatt –– 550

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 551

Mr. Stupich –– 555

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 555

Mr. Lea –– 556

Hon, Mr. Phillips 557

Mr. Leggatt –– 559

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 560

Tabling Reports

Ministry of Municipal Affairs annual report.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 560

Transit Services Act report.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 560

THURSDAY, JULY 5, 1979

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. KEMPF: With us in the gallery

today are a group of fine business people from that great community of

Fort St. James in my constituency, Mr. and Mrs. Henry Froese and their

children Dale, Shannon, Kenda, Currie and Darcy. I'd like the House to

make them very welcome.

MR. NICOLSON: Today in the

gallery are some friends and neighbours from the Nelson-Creston riding,

Greg and Lucille Ottewell, with their son Chuck; and Jack and Diane

Robertson from Salmo. I hope the members would make them welcome.

MR. HYNDMAN:

It's a popular fallacy that school teachers do not work in the

summertime. School is out, but we have in the members' gallery today

four very hardworking professional educators: Thom Hanson, president of

the Vancouver Secondary Teachers' Association; Allan Crawford,

president of the Vancouver Elementary Teachers' Association; Norma

Mercer, president of the Vancouver Elementary Administrators'

Association; Bill Whyte, president of the Vancouver Secondary

Administrators' Association. These four professional educators

represent more than 3,000 teachers in the city of Vancouver. I ask the

House to make them most welcome.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr.

Speaker, in the gallery today from greater Victoria is Pat Mileno. She

has four children with her, and perhaps this is the first opportunity

they have had to see their own British Columbia Legislature in session.

They are Suzanne and Avon Watkin, and Michael and Robert Brown. I would

like the House to welcome them.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr.

Speaker, also in the gallery today is another professional educator,

Mr. Ray Bower. He is here with his wife. They are very good friends of

mine, and I would like the House to welcome them.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr, Speaker, I would like the House to welcome Betty Backman, Goldic

Maycock and Jill Baxendale, who are here from the constituency of

Vancouver–Little Mountain and who have been very hard-working within

the Mount Pleasant and Riley Park areas. Will you please welcome these

three representatives from our constituency?

Presenting Petitions

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a petition.

Leave granted.

MR. RITCHIE:

The petition is "An Act to Amend the Trinity Western College Act," and

I move that the petition be read and received, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member like to read the prayer that is with the petition?

MR. RITCHIE: The prayer reads as follows:

"Whereas

a petition has been presented for amendment of the Trinity Western

College Act, and it is expedient to grant the prayer of the said

petition.

"Therefore Her Majesty by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the province of British Columbia…."

And the rest is as follows:

"The

petition of Trinity Western College, a society duly incorporated under

the laws of the province of British Columbia, humbly showeth:

"That

your petitioner seeks the enactment of

an Act intituled

an Act to Amend

the Trinity Western College Act. to be introduced and dealt with as a

private bill.

"That the objects in soliciting

the Act are: (

a) to specifically provide for the college to have

degree-granting powers and (

b) to change the name of the Trinity

Western College to the Trinity Western University, in keeping with the

provisions for the offering of a full university education provided for

by the Legislative Assembly in the Trinity Western College Amendment

Act which was given royal assent on October 21, 1977."

Motion approved.

Oral Questions

HEALTH HAZARD FOR

PROVINCIAL MUSEUM EMPLOYEES

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker,

I have a question for the hon. Provincial Secretary. For some time now,

as he is aware, the employees at the Provincial Museum have been

indicating their concern that they have been working with toxic

materials and epoxy resins that they believe are hazardous to their

health. That concern culminated in a half-day work stoppage sometime

over the Easter weekend, when the ventilation system was shut down. The

WCB then conducted an inquiry and issued a compliance order that the

Provincial Museum should re-install proper ventilation equipment in the

areas where these materials are held.

My question is: is the

minister aware that the ministry has not complied with the WCB order,

and is the minister aware that the United States Department of Health.

Education and Welfare has written a bulletin, dated October 12, 1978,

indicating that the substances that are being used in the Provincial

Museum here are carcinogenic and can cause human chromosome damage?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question. I am aware of

concerns which have been expressed. I am also aware of the fact that

there was a partial stoppage over a portion of a day earlier this year,

due to concern which was expressed by employees. We do not want to have

any employee of the provincial government working under circumstances

which could be dangerous to that employee's health. I will take the

balance of the question as notice and report back to the House.

[ Page 532 ]

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, would the minister initiate immediate action to have the employees removed from occupational exposure?

MR. SPEAKER: This inquires into future action.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

It does, Mr. Speaker. I would simply have to restate that the member

has expressed his concern and the stated concern of individuals

employed in the museum, and I shall waste no time in making a full

inquiry into his statements in the House today.

HOSPITAL FINANCING

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. Since there

are charges flying back and forth in the province with respect to

hospital financing, charges as serious as lives being lost, I wonder if

the minister is now in the process of dealing with the shortfall of

budgets in the hospitals of our province.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. COCKE:

In that case, maybe the minister can get rather specific. I notice that

the Royal Columbian Hospital announced today that a further 68 people

were being laid off. First there were 50 from attrition and now a

further loss of 68 people. This is a hospital that announced some time

ago that it could not maintain its programs with the present staff.

Now, I'm sure, the hospital will have to curtail programs. Will he

specifically be looking into that serious situation?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Speaker, the situation's being discussed with all hospitals at the

present time and with the British Columbia Health Association. The

method by which funds will be disbursed will be a subject of discussion

over the next several weeks. Part of it is complicated by the fact that

we do not have at this time the audited statements from the hospitals

of British Columbia. We do not know the situation in which they find

themselves, nor do they at this time, and they won't until those

audited statements are made available.

MR. COCKE: Mr.

Speaker, if that's the case, can the minister explain his gross

incompetence? This has been known for months and months in this

province. Why is he suddenly saying now that he has no basis from which

to work?

MR. SPEAKER: I would refer the member for

New Westminster to

section 171 of Beauchesne, which suggests that it is

improper to make imputation via questions.

MR. BARBER:

Mr. Speaker, my questions are also for the Minister of Health. The

board of Victoria General Hospital, which includes government

appointees, has unanimously refused to allow the government's budgetary

restrictions to endanger patient care. The response of the minister was

to call them irresponsible.

Now Dr. Richard Brownlee, who's

the chief of cardiac surgery at the Royal Jubilee Hospital, said as

recently as yesterday that a long and unnecessary waiting list at that

hospital for open-heart surgery has resulted in two deaths.

My first question to the minister is: does he consider Dr. Brownlee's comments to be irresponsible?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Would you repeat that question?

MR. SPEAKER: A further question? The question is rhetorical, hon. member.

MR. BARBER: Not at all, Mr. Speaker. Let me ask it again, because it appears the minister didn't hear it.

Very

quickly, the board of Victoria General Hospital has refused to go along

with the minister's budgetary restrictions. His reply was to call them

irresponsible. Now the chief of cardiac surgery at Royal Jubilee

Hospital, Dr. Richard Brownlee, as recently as yesterday has said that

a long and unnecessary waiting list for open heart surgery has resulted

in two deaths. My first question to the minister is: does he consider

Dr. Brownlee's statement to be irresponsible?

MR. SPEAKER:

The question hasn't changed at all; it is still rhetorical. It's not a

question of whether the minister wishes to reply; it's whether the

question is admissible.

MR. BARBER: I don't want to

take up the time of the House debating whether it is rhetorical. I

would like an answer, and the minister did appear to agree. You have on

previous occasions....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, it is not for debate whether the question is rhetorical; it's for decision.

MR. BARBER: If the minister chooses to answer, Mr. Speaker, will you allow it?

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. It is within the prerogative of the Chair, as I

understand it, to decide whether the question is rhetorical, admissible

or inadmissible — without debate — as I would remind the hon. member

for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea). Please proceed.

MR. BARBER:

I have a constituent who is 57 years of age. The first of four heart

attacks he has suffered occurred in 1972. He entered hospital in

Victoria on June 25. Angiograms were taken; he was described as having

marked deterioration and is in a very unstable condition. He's not been

allowed to leave the hospital because of his particular heart disease.

Four times he has had surgery scheduled in the open-heart ward at Royal

Jubilee; four times the surgery has been cancelled. I am informed that

it is because of long and unnecessary waiting lists. I am informed that

it is because of inadequate facilities. I want to know what the

minister is prepared to do to guarantee that unnecessary waiting lists

and budgetary restrictions will not deny this particular citizen his

right to medical care now, when he needs it, in this particular ward of

a hospital in British Columbia.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Speaker, I'll be happy to answer that question in this way. First of

all, the provision of medical care to that citizen is the

responsibility of his physician. His physician must make those

decisions as to whether the medical conditions are correct for that

[ Page

533 ]

patient. Neither I nor you should interfere with that relationship between a physician and his patient.

Mr.

Speaker, I want to say that I have never called anybody irresponsible.

What I said on one occasion was that a decision by anyone who is

spending public funds to spend funds which they don't have is

irresponsible. They should first of all make sure of where those funds

are coming from, and that's a decision that they must make. I accept

that, if that's the decision they make, but it's very important in

terms of spending public money that that decision is made.

Quickly,

Mr. Speaker, I want to explain the situation as it relates to

open-heart surgery in this province. From the beginning of the

development of that procedure it's been perceived that it must be the

medical profession which decides the levels and the numbers of

open-heart surgery cases which are to proceed in any facility which

does that procedure. As you'll understand, only a few very specialized

facilities in British Columbia do that very technical, specialized and

somewhat controversial procedure within the medical profession. So I

have left the recommendation on the numbers of heart surgery cases to

be done within those facilities to a very expert committee of the

British Columbia Medical Association. It has an ongoing study of

open-heart surgery in this province, which recommends to me how many

cases each hospital should be handling. I want the hon. member and the

House to know this is not a simple question of whether or not the

facilities are made available in a hospital at a given time. There is

also some interhospital rivalry among the medical profession about who

should use the operating facilities within that hospital.

The

reason for that, I suppose, is obvious in some ways, but it makes more

important our decision to accept only the recommendation of those

expert committees of doctors who can alleviate that inter hospital

rivalry.

I've said from the beginning that those committees

will recommend to me, and it will be on that basis that further heart

surgery procedure will be allowed. At the present time there are six

cases a week allowed at Royal Jubilee Hospital. Dr. Brownlee has been

in my office as recently as two weeks ago, and has fully agreed with

the procedure in place.

We have asked that committee to

report as quickly as possible on their recommendation for further need

for that procedure to be done at Royal Jubilee Hospital. At the present

time I have no report from that committee. I have asked them to

expedite that report; I want it as quickly as possible. I'm told a

preliminary report was given to my staff either today or yesterday. I

am also told, and I have not seen it, that that report recommends that

heart surgery at Royal Jubilee be increased from six cases to nine. If

that's what that report says, I am prepared to recommend that and to

implement it immediately.

MR. BARBER: The problem has been in the minister's hands for some years now, and immediately....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No!

MR. BARBER: Yes.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No.

MR. BARBER: The open-heart surgery ward opened there in July of '73.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The purpose of question period is not to enter debate: it is simply to ask a question. Please proceed.

MR. BARBER:

The report, with which I'm also familiar, sponsored by the BCMA and

published by the open-heart surgery review advisory subcommittee, as I

understand it, in its first draft has been in the ministry since

January.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It has not.

MR. BARBER: Well. If that's not....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, could I answer that question right now?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARBER: Just a minute.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, I'd like to answer your question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARBER: You haven't even heard the question.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Sure, you just asked me.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. We do not yet have a question. So far we have only had debate. The question, please.

MR. BARBER:

Will you table the report just as soon as you receive it, be it in the

first form — that I understand was made available some time ago — or in

the current form, which the minister indicates has come in to the House

today? There are people out there who would not be impressed by the

cold-hearted and bureaucratic answer you gave this morning.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARBER: They might be more impressed to see practical action. the first stage of which....

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. member has clearly indicated that he's willing to abuse the

rules of question period. I would suggest that either he ask a question

or allow some other member to ask a question.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. member, that is not in order, and the member knows that it is not

in order. It's inquiring into the future activity of a minister. We

have had to warn members on several occasions that those questions are

not in order.

[ Page 534 ]

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. BARBER: He says he wishes to answer.

MR. SPEAKER: It is not a question whether he wishes to answer; it is whether the question is admissible.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: The minister wishes to make a statement?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, either a statement or an answer to one of the questions he did have.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I know very well that the member opposite does not want to hear the truth.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam.

MR. LEVI: If there's no question, there can't be an answer.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't want the answer.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

On a point or order, Mr. Speaker, could I have your guidance? I

understood from the member's speech — and I understand too that the

members on that side don't like the truth nor do they want to hear it —

that there was a question about whether I had received a report. I

would like to answer that question, if I may. I don't know whether it's

in order.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I haven't received the report. That's a lie.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The second member for Surrey.

REPORT ON CHARLENE HARDER DEATH

MR. HALL:

On a point of order, are the last few seconds added on to question

period or not? We have been consistently thwarted by that minister.

He's got reports in his possession and refuses to release them to

either the public or this side of the House. We'll get them after his

estimates, Mr. Speaker, and if I'm out of order, please say so.

Mr.

Speaker, my question is to the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General

called for an inquiry into the unfortunate death of an infant in my

constituency, Charlene Harder of Surrey, and the circumstances

surrounding that death and asked the Assistant Deputy Attorney-General,

Richard Bird, to look into that matter for him. I would like to know if

the Attorney-General has received that report and if he has received

it, when he did receive it.

HON. MR. GARDOM: An

interim report was received, Mr. Member, and seen by myself about a

couple of weeks ago. Additional inquiries are being made and I have not

seen the final report. I'm not too sure if I do have the final report

yet.

MS. SANFORD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker,

some time was again taken in question period on points of order. I'm

wondering if, in view of the time that was taken for question period,

we could have an extension, as was granted the other day.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, on several occasions when it has been necessary for the

Chair to intervene, I have requested that the time which I have taken

from question period not be added to the 15-minute time. However, I

have no way of taking time which members themselves take during points

of order. If members wish to utilize the time in question period for

points of order, that is their prerogative. The Chair is powerless to

act in that regard, unless hon. members wish to make it otherwise.

MR. KING:

On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker, with respect to your

rulings on the admissibility of questions, I would appreciate some

specific instructions with respect to what questions you find

admissible. I wonder on what grounds a question asking the minister to

file a document is out of order.

That seems to me, sir, to

unnecessarily constrict the parameters of question period. I do not

consider it to be seeking a future opinion from a minister to ask for

an undertaking that when a document comes into his hands, he will file

it. That's asking for a current decision by the minister. I would like

the Chair's guidance in that regard.

MR. SPEAKER: I

am bound by the parameters which were clearly established, first of

all, by an order of this House dated February 28, 1977, and further by

the supplementary guidelines established by Beauchesne. In each

instance, certainly if I'm required to do so, I would love to cite the

section that is involved. If a question is clearly rhetorical, then

that question is inadmissible; not only is it inadmissible, but many

times there is no answer to the question. As such, the Chair directs

the attention of the House to the fact that it is a rhetorical question

and hopefully it suffices.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I

think there's where we might be running into a bit of trouble. Yes,

it's within your parameters to rule a question out of order if it is

rhetorical. But I think we're running into a bit of a problem over the

meaning of "rhetorical." It wouldn't be an uncommon thing for a group

of people to find different meanings in the same word.

MR. SPEAKER:

In just such an instance, hon. member, I would remind you of the report

of the committee on standing orders and private bills of February 27,

1973, which states, either fortunately or unfortunately, in

section

[ Page

535 ]

4: "The decision of Mr. Speaker shall be final on allowing or disallowing any question."

MR. LEA:

I quite agree with that. You wouldn't allow the question because it was

specifically out of order, because in your opinion it was rhetorical.

My question is: what, in your opinion, does "rhetorical" mean? I read a

different meaning in the word "rhetorical," I think, than you do. So

if we're going to deal with it, then I think we all have to understand

the meaning of the words we're using in common.

MR. SPEAKER:

That's right. Hon. members, may I suggest that rather than enter a

lengthy debate at this time on this, perhaps the hon. member for Prince

Rupert would like to sit down with the Speaker in his chambers and we

could discuss the meaning of "rhetorical."

MR. LEA:

It isn't good enough, Mr. Speaker, for you and I to come to some common

understanding of what "rhetorical" means. All 57 members have to

understand what "rhetorical" means. I would suggest that "rhetorical"

should be used in this House as it describes it in the dictionary.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Funk and Wagnall?

MR. LEA: No, I would say Mirriam-Webster, seventh edition.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, I think that perhaps we can close the matter by saying

that if we had 57 opinions of the meaning of "rhetorical," we could

not come to a conclusion here this afternoon.

MR. LEA: There's only one meaning. It's the one described in the dictionary, and I'm wishing that we use that one.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. I think this is exactly why the committee in its wisdom

has said that the decision of Mr. Speaker shall be final.

MS. SANFORD:

Mr. Speaker, I wish to pursue the issue that I raised earlier on a

point of order, and ask leave of the House at this stage to have

question period extended to allow the second member for Surrey (Mr.

Hall) to complete his questioning of the Attorney-General. The other

day when a point of order interrupted question period, leave of the

House was granted and I ask that the same courtesy of the House be

extended at this time.

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a ministerial statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

I wish to advise hon. members that today Mr. Justice Peter Seaton of

the British Columbia Court of Appeal was named commissioner, under the

Public Inquiries Act, to inquire and report concerning the allegations

of interference with judicial independence raised in the committee of

this House yesterday.

The matter is before a commissioner, a

justice of the court of appeal of our province, and it is inappropriate

for me to make additional comments.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply: Mr. Rogers in the chair.

ESTIMATES:

MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

On vote 19: minister's office, $145,623 — continued.

MR. HALL:

I was about to ask the Attorney-General a couple of questions, and he

was good enough to reply to the first one a little earlier. I'd like,

though, to ask him if he would acquaint the House with really what is

an interim report on this unfortunate happening in my constituency, and

if he feels the best interests of the community are being served by any

further delay in some response from the ministry that was called, not

only by members of the community, but by his colleague. The Minister of

Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) who, when asking the

Attorney-General for au inquiry said her initial examination of the

case seemed to indicate that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police

allegations were groundless, and that the death of a child in such

tragic circumstances warrants a thorough investigation and full public

disclosure of the findings.

I think that's a good statement,

Mr. Chairman. It's now six or seven weeks since the Attorney-General

called for the inquiry. I know that these things sometimes take longer

than we want them to. Indeed, sometimes government takes a little

longer than we really should expect it to take. But an interim report

has been received. Perhaps the Attorney-General could tell us something

about that report before much more time has elapsed, or perhaps he

could tell us now what its initial findings are.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

With every respect, hon. member, it would not be in the public interest

to do that. When the final report is produced, additional steps will be

taken. But it is not in the public interest to do that now.

MR. HALL:

I'm prepared to accept that it may not be in the public interest,

although I’m sure he'd have to explain that to his colleague who feels

a full public disclosure of the findings is required.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's not finished.

MR. HALL: Well, how long is it going to be?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Not long.

MR. HALL:

Not long! It's been six or seven weeks now and we've had occasion. Mr.

Chairman, in this House to wonder when we're going to see the results

of inquiries started by that government. One report is gathering dust

on one minister's table, and he simply refuses to disclose it.

[ Page 536 ]

We're

a little fed up with not getting this kind of information. I know I

can't insist on its being reported, but I'm going to be after you

constantly until you publish some results of this thing. I don't want

to abuse the House, nor do I want to abuse the Attorney-General, who is

waiting patiently for his money. Would you kindly earn it, Mr.

Attorney-General? Kindly earn it, and give us the results of your

findings.

Vote 19 approved.

Vote 20: administration and support, $4,118,780 — approved.

Vote 21: court services, $30,007,013 — approved.

Vote 22: criminal justice division, $8,082,746 — approved.

Vote 23: police services, $38,641,433 — approved.

On vote 24: corrections, $56,487,836.

MRS. DAILLY:

During the earlier debate on the Attorney-General's estimates the

member for Maillardville Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) asked a question about

the closing of Oakalla. His question — which I don't believe was

answered by the Attorney-General — was that to our knowledge extensive

renovations and considerable sums of money are being poured into

Oakalla at the present time the women's unit and the men's....

HON. MR. GARDOM: They're needed.

MRS. DAILLY:

I grant you, they're needed. But I wondered why is it being done — we

didn't get a specific answer — if the intent of the government is to

close it down, as the Attorney-General said earlier.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

It's very obvious, hon. member, and you know and everybody in this

Legislature knows that the renovations are needed. That's why they're

being done. I don't think anybody is going to suggest you are going to

stop running water and cut off electric light — which is not the case;

I am embellishing the point now — because at some time you intend to

phase out something. Renovations are required and the phase-out, I can

assure the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), and yourself,

too, is not going to happen tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. Oakalla

is phasing out, and one major step already taken is the remand

facilities in Vancouver. I'm not prepared to give anybody a commitment

today that Oakalla is going to be closed next year, the year after, or

the year after that. It's just not possible to do that.

gave a commitment to the people of British Columbia, and to this

Assembly, that we were going to take positive steps to phase out

Oakalla. I may say, with every respect to every former administration

since the time Oakalla was built, we have taken a more positive step

than anyone. We've done something. It's not yet built, but we're

totally committed to this remand centre, which is a first step. Until

it's up, and until other facilities are developed elsewhere — if it's

possible to develop other facilities elsewhere — Oakalla, in a reduced form, has to continue. Everybody knows that.

MRS. DAILLY:

I realize that since the inmates are in there certain renovations are

probably needed. But the type of renovations and the amount of money

that's being spent right now are creating a certain amount of cynicism

within the corrections area as to whether it will ever be phased out.

Vote 24 approved.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, on vote 24, it deals with Oakalla....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We've actually passed the vote. I'll have to ask leave to go back to the vote. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. LEGGATT:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've asked the Attorney-General to give

serious consideration to including under provincial jurisdiction women

sentenced to federal prison. At the present time, as the

Attorney-General knows, women sentenced to a term of more than two

years are dealt with in a federal penitentiary. Some of them are sent

to Kingston, Ontario.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Some.

MR. LEGGATT:

The point I wanted to make, Mr. Chairman, is that the most appropriate

place for those women to be housed is in a provincial jail under

provincial jurisdiction — closer to home. There are very few really

long-term offenders among women prisoners. As the Attorney-General may

know, a study was done by a standing committee of the House of Commons

on the subject of the incarceration of women. The Elizabeth Fry Society

has taken a position, as I recall it, that women are more appropriately

housed in provincial jurisdiction and in provincial prisons. So I'm

merely rising to my feet, Mr. Chairman, to ask the Attorney-General to

give some serious consideration at the next federal-provincial

conference to the idea of including women under provincial jurisdiction

for the purpose of corrections. Of course, there would have to be

suitable fiscal arrangements made with the federal authority.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Underline that last statement.

MR. LEGGATT:

All right, I will. I'm not suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that the province

assume any more financial responsibility, but I think an appropriate

arrangement could be made — and it's certainly better for those inmates

that that be the case.

And while I'm on my feet I'd like to

thank the Attorney-General for his very prompt action, which he

announced today in his response to the questions that had been asked

over the last several days. I think he's entitled to some

congratulations for moving quickly on that sensitive matter.

MR. HALL: In the votes for the Attorney-General numbered 19 to 41 — which we can discuss in great detail

[ Page 537 ]

we go through them — there is a figure at the very end which doesn't

have a number beside it. entitled "less recruitment savings."

MR. CHAIRMAN: That matter should have been discussed, I would assume, under vote 19.

MR. HALL:

The assumption may be more powerful coming from you, Mr. Chairman, than

it was from me when I tried to discuss this before under a different

minister.

My point is that if we are indeed going to discuss

recruitment savings, which deals with the wages of personnel, it seems

to me that perhaps the best vote to do it under is the one that looks

forward to paying the largest number of personnel, which would, in this

case. be "Corrections," which is hiring 2,065 people. I'd like to

know, Mr. Chairman — and I'm prepared to have the Attorney-General take

it as notice, if he requires that — what part of that 2,065 personnel

isn't going to be working if he is going to save some $3.75 million in

wages.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, in terms of whether

it's appropriate under this particular vote, we actually have by my

wizardry of mathematics an increase in staff of one under vote 24, so

recruitment savings could hardly be appropriate under this vote. I

appreciate the dilemma that the member is in and I'm trying to point

out....

MR. HALL: May I suggest with all the humility

I have that you're supposed to be working perhaps as much for us as you

are for the Attorney-General.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I

appreciate that, hon. member. I'm also supposed to be the Chairman of

the committee, and it's my determination to try and get the discussion

under the correct vote. It seems to me that under this particular vote

there is no recruitment saving; not only is the budget substantially

increased, but there is actually an increase in staff.

MR. HALL:

You're making my speech for me, Mr. Chairman. I don't think there is

any recruitment saving at all. That's why I'm asking about the $8

million.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It's not under this vote.

MR. HALL: Oh, the Minister of Labour tells us it's not in this vote.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, you can read the books as well as anyone else, Ernie.

MR. HALL: I thought I could; but then you cooked the books a little bit, Mr. Minister of Labour.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Could you two fellows debate your estimates outside of the House and let me get on with mine?

MR. HALL: If you just keep quiet, we'll get on a lot better.

He's not made many contributions since he's been here, so he's not likely to make any this afternoon.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. HALL:

Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to find out what estimate the government used

to try and get $8 million out of the budget in this ministry alone. If

you add up the total recruitment savings for the government. It comes

to some millions of dollars. And I would like to be advised, Mr.

Chairman, where we can discuss it, and where we can get some answers as

to what opportunity is going to be seized by Treasury Board, by the

Government Employee Relations Bureau, by the Public Service Commission

and so on and so forth. Surely to goodness the minister knows, with all

the people he's controlling, where the savings are going to be made.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You get it in his estimates.

MR. HALL: I didn’t get any answer from him either, Mr. Attorney-General.

HON. MR. WOLFE: You did too: it's in the Blues.

MR. HALL: I was told to look in the budget.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. The appropriate place to discuss this is under vote 19.

There is, If I'm not mistaken, a similar recruitment savings without a

particular vote number for every one of the ministers — for example,

for Consumer and Corporate Affairs it's in vote 42, and for

Deregulation it's in vote 52.

MR. HALL: I can follow

that, but my point then, Mr. Chairman, is that I'm curious to know

whether the recruitment savings in vote 20, which will be applied to

vote 24 from the $8 million, is going to the secure custodial

facilities or the community-based programs the Attorney-General boasts

so much about. It's one thing putting a figure in a budget, Mr.

Chairman, and boasting that you're decentralizing things, and then you

use the magical minus figure at the end of a vote and say: "We're not

going to give you the money to start the program off." That's what

we're trying to find out. This isn't a budget; this doesn't tell us how

you deploy personnel. and you know it, Mr. Attorney-General.

All

I say is perhaps you'll take the question as notice. I won't flog the

issue here; I again serve you notice, though, Mr. Attorney-General that

I'm going to be going after every minister, even when the session

finishes, to find out what recruitment savings have been achieved, and

how they stack up with that figure, Frankly, I'm a little bit from

Missouri; even though I'm a Canadian citizen, I'm from Missouri.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Just for the guidance of the committee, for the future

ministerial estimates that we go through, this particular recruitment

saving item had better be discussed under the minister's office vote,

which is the global vote.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman,

I was just going to discuss that very question with you. The Minister

of Finance did tell us that what he really meant by recruitment savings

was that they aren't going to hire the number of people that they have

in these votes as quickly as the vote would indicate, and they're going

to save money by

[ Page 538 ]

delaying the hiring of some of the people included in this vote. So it would seem to me that the most reasonable....

HON. MR. WOLFE: You know that's not what I said.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I suggest the Minister of Finance, who is interrupting me, read the Blues.

There

is a lag in hiring the people who are provided for in these votes. That

was the explanation given to us for recruitment saving. Surely the

place to discuss it would be in the area of the particular service that

would seem to be going to suffer most, where most people are hired. But

if you like, we can save it for the minister's salary.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The matter has already been discussed in general terms under the Minister of Finance.

Vote 24 approved.

Vote 25: Legal Services Commission, $10,014,770 — approved.

Vote 26: Justice Development Commission, $858,317 — approved.

Vote 27: legal services to government, $3,917,204 — approved.

Vote 28: superior and county court, $1,127,114 — approved.

Vote 29: provincial court, $5,698,478 — approved.

Vote 30: coroners, $1,072,456 — approved.

Vote 31: British Columbia Parole Board, $67,225 — approved.

On vote 32: Law Reform Commission, $286,190.

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to the Attorney-General that the Law

Reform Commission has various matters referred to it. Now two of the

members of this House — I think the member for North Okanagan (Mrs.

Jordan) and also the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) — argued

about the question of the mysticism of the law and the democratization

of the law, et cetera. It seems to me a useful consideration that the

Law Reform Commission should be looking at a specific area, and to me

one of the important areas is the way we do royal commissions in the

province of British Columbia. I can speak as a lawyer on this; here I

think we have emphasized too much the whole legal process before royal

commissions. I believe the idea of appointing a judge to conduct a

royal commission with a battery of very high-powered counsel

cross-examining every witness who comes before that royal commission is

a mistake.

I think that what we've had too often is royal

commissions that intimidate the ordinary citizen in the community who

may want to come forward and testify. Now I'm not putting this forward

as a general proposition, but I'm suggesting that when you get to the

study of a specific subject by royal commission we should have another

look at the way those royal commissions are conducted. We should make

those rules much more flexible, reducing to some extent the idea that

there's going to be a battery of counsel before those royal commissions

cross-examining every lay person who comes before it. I could recommend

some studies on this subject done by ex–royal commissioners, who have

recommended certain changes, but I just put this forward as a

consideration for the Attorney-General to give some consideration to

referring to the Law Reform Commission the subject of procedure with

royal commissions, and the idea of using more lay personnel and less

formalistic structure when you're doing those kinds of studies. I'm

thinking particularly of the railway study that was recently done by

Mr. Justice Mackenzie, but there are a number of others in this

province.

We have a tradition of using judges and lawyers on

royal commissions, and I think it's probably one area where I have some

sympathy for both the member for Okanagan North and for

Burnaby-Edmonds, who suggested that we could demystify that process a

little bit.

MR. SKELLY: I know this is a matter of

some concern to the Attorney-General, and I appreciate the opportunity

he's given me to discuss it under this vote. I believe he has presented

in years past a number of private member's bills intituled The Sunshine

Act, The Sunshine Act Revisited and The Sunshine Act Rehashed. But he

is concerned about freedom of information. I believe his staff

presented a position paper or a White Paper on freedom of information

to a Canadian Bar Association seminar possibly some time last year. At

that time the CBA offered certain criticisms and proposed certain

changes to it. We expected that a final paper would be available last

fall and then again, I believe, in June of this year. It now appears to

have been put on the back burner so we may not see it at all, or we may

see it in the fall. I'm wondering what's happening to the minister's

pet project, the freedom of information Act, and I urge the minister to

make this a priority item.

One of the frustrations that

citizens do have with the British Columbia government — and I'm not

talking about this government alone as they had the same problems with

our government — is the lack of availability of information. This is

information that was paid for by the taxpayers and should be available

to the taxpayers, which will allow more informed comment on what the

government is proposing or considering.

I have some

examples. We keep asking from across the floor for the study that was

done on capital formation in the province of British Columbia. We're

constantly asking for environmental, studies such as the one done in

the Cowichan estuary. These studies don't seem to be forthcoming. The

studies about timber supply and the effects of timber management are

not forthcoming from across the floor of this House. Yet they don't

really cause any political problems to the government. They're not that

politically sensitive. We do not have the legislation that allows us to

go to the government and demand those materials as is our right as

taxpayers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, perhaps I could

just interrupt you at this point to remind you that we're on vote 32.

It deals with the Law Reform Commission. I have allowed you a certain

amount of latitude, but this appears to be more on vote 19, which has

already passed.

[ Page 539 ]

MR. SKELLY: Unfortunately the Law Reform Commission has dealt with this subject, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It has, and you also dealt with some manners of legislation and matters requiring legislation which aren't appropriate to this.

MR. SKELLY: This has to do with the White Paper that the minister is preparing, not with the legislation.

1972, when I first became an MLA, I went to the Forest Service to ask

for a copy of a tree farm licence agreement between Her Majesty and a

client of the Crown. I was told that since it was an agreement between

Her Majesty and a client of the Crown, I was not to be able to see it,

even though I was a member of the Legislature and the TFL agreements

covered a large part of my riding.

Also, we were unable to

get the returns filed under contractor clauses, and we weren't able to

see pollution control files. Most of these were open on an

administrative decision by the Minister of Forests at that time. In

most of the things that we established, such as the Land Commission,

access was made available to those files at the time we established

those agencies. But the government seems to have gone back to placing

more restrictions on access to information.

The Pesticide

Control Act is a perfect example. We can’t even find out if permits

have been applied for, and if they have been granted. We also have

section 97 of the Land Commission Act which effectively denies citizens

the right to that information.

I would like to know. I think

this is a priority, should be a priority, and should be brought forward

by the minister. I would like to hear from him that it's going to be a

priority and that we'll see that White Paper or working paper in the

very near future.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, in

response to the hon. member, I'm not going to get into a political

discourse. But I think this government indeed has good reason to be

very proud of its record of accountability: quarterly reporting, the

ombudsman and the auditor-general. These are all firsts for the

province and matters which I'm sure the aged member for Vancouver East

would support.

MR. MACDONALD: There's no ombudsman, They're not appointing him until October.

HON. MR. GARDOM: He was appointed, sir, on the first of July. You're always wrong, Alex. You'd better read a little more.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's still not appropriate under vote 32, hon. members.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

In dealing with the sunshine bill which your former colleague made such

great hay out of and thereafter pulled the blind down upon, the one

that a few of us borrowed a little — something borrowed, something old,

something new — I would like to say to the hon. member that freedom of

information is a matter that is under continuing review. A complete

policy has not yet been formulated. Government policy has not vet been

formulated upon it.

It's not as easy a matter in specifics

as one would really think. Of course, there are very very different

routes taken in different parts of the world, vis-à-vis the route in

the United States and the route that was proposed by Mr. Baldwin when

he was an opposition member in the federal House in Ottawa.

think we were going to took with some degree of interest as to what

route the federal government may take, because it's really a matter

that is delicate. There’s both freedom of information, and there’s the

right to privacy. There are opportunities for conflict between the two,

particularly now, since we're living in the age of almost instant

communication and computer traffic.

MR. SKELLY: I do

realize some of the difficulties surrounding the implementation of

freedom of information, but some provinces have brought in some fairly

successful legislation. I understand that New Brunswick’s, in cases

where information is denied by the government, provides for judicial

review, which is unique in Canada. I understand that Nova Scotia has a

similar statute, but it's not a very satisfactory one, and that

government will be bringing in changes to it. I hope that B.C. can take

a leadership role in freedom of information. rather than waiting for

New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland to bring in their statutes.

I know we did the same thing with the ombudsman. I would think that

this is one thing in which we should take a leadership role, and it

should be a priority item. I hope the Attorney-General will give it

that priority.

Vote 32 approved.

Vote 33: Criminal Injuries Compensation Act, $1,255,000 — approved.

Vote 34: public trustee, $1,569,882 — approved.

On vote 35: fire marshal, $1,239,425.

MRS. DAILLY:

On this vote, I think one of the first things that strikes you, of

course, is that it is one of our most important votes. The need for

fire prevention in this province is understood by all. It is

particularly noteworthy, as seen in this morning's paper, that the

Attorney-General's ministry is apparently moving on the whole problem

of the increase in arson. We're glad to see you're doing a program

there. But at the same time as the Attorney-General is moving in this

area, we find under this vote that he is that we see cutting down in

his ministry the amount of money apportioned to the whole area of fire

prevention. I find this a very confusing situation. For instance, last

year the amount under the fire marshal's vote was $1,439,000. This

year it has dropped down $2 million. We find that the staff has dropped

from 53 to 49. We are in a situation in British Columbia today where we

are faced with increased arson, and at the same time the ministry is

cutting down on their services.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

First of all. If the honourable Chair would bear with me, I'd like to

refer a moment to the Arson Alert program. I must confess I didn't see

the report in the paper that you referred to. This has been underway

for a few months now. Arson Awareness Week was heralded in Victoria on

May 1. This is a frontal attack on

[ Page 540 ]

arson,

and it's very, very necessary. Even in the early stages the program is

progressing favourably. It's far too soon to indicate whether it's

going to be a total success, but somewhat similar programs have proven

to be successful in other jurisdictions.

Some of the figures

on arson are somewhat staggering as to the number of fires created by

arson. Really, the thrust of the Arson Alert program is to request that

members of the community notify the authorities if they have any reason

to suspect arson. They can do that with anonymity; we have a Zenith

call number. If a suspected arson fire is identified as such, it is

sort of a call to the community to respond. We, of course, now have the

fire commissioner, Gordon Anderson, who is an excellent appointment.

We're looking forward to great success there.

Dealing with

the vote itself, it is my understanding that it is down by virtue of

the fact that earlier there was a total allocation for the regional

offices. But the regional offices are now being phased in. The first

one is all ready in Nanaimo, and the contemplated figure is for over a

three-year period. It is the phase-in figure; that is why the vote is

down. There's a re-allocation of budgeted moneys to enhance training

and implement arson alert. In actual fact, it's just a phasing down, as

opposed to writing in the estimates the total amount necessary for all

of the regional offices.

The Nanaimo regional office, I'm

pleased to say, has already opened, and we're looking forward to a

report from it in due course.

MRS. DAILLY: I'm sure

the public is waiting for assurance in that area. We'll follow with

great interest the increase in regional services in this area. I still

find it somewhat confusing how you can increase the regional offices,

yet the figures here don't seem to show that. Certainly we'll accept the

word of the Attorney-General that this service is not showing a decline.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Staff is up.

MRS. DAILLY: Staff is up, is it? Staff is down here.

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, I'm sorry; it's down.

MRS. DAILLY: That's what I still find somewhat confusing.

HON. MR. GARDOM: They've budgeted for the implementation of three, and did one.

MRS. DAILLY:

Finally, I can't leave this vote without once again expressing to the

Attorney-General my concern that lottery moneys were used to provide

smoke detector units for profit-making homes. When we look at this vote

and realize that if there's proper fire servicing, proper fire

inspection, surely we shouldn't have to be subsidizing private

profit-making homes out of lottery funds. But I'll leave that till when

we get to the Provincial Secretary.

MR. LEVI: The

minister, Mr. Chairman, gave a nice, pleasant la-de-da explanation

which really amounted to nothing. He's been making a lot of press play

out of the fact that we have a very serious problem in arson in the

province, and it's true, we do. I understand last year we had at least

a $75 million loss.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It was $81 million. No, not through arson, through fire.

MR. LEVI:

Sixty percent of fires are listed as arson, I understood. All right,

with a loss of $75 million, arson would be probably in the order of $30

million to $40 million.

HON. MR. GARDOM: If I could interrupt the hon. member and give you the figures....

MR. LEVI: No you can't; I've got the floor.

HON. MR. GARDOM: But I'll help your speech and give you the right figures.

MR. LEVI: No, no. That kind of help I don't need.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam continues, please.

MR. LEVI:

The Attorney-General has gone into the Arson Alert program, which is

based to a large extent on what's going on in Seattle. Oh, I see. The

one we have here is in the beginning stage, but the key thing in the

Seattle one is an adequate amount of people to do the inspection and to

do the investigation.

As I understand it, there are only 12

investigators. I'd like the minister to comment on this. There are

actually 12 investigators in the fire marshal's department. But are

there other people, perhaps some policemen, who are designated as

investigators? The Arson Alert program is basically attempting to get

the public to phone in and give information about people they believe

are setting fires and incidents where there are unreported fires. But

what are the plans with respect to beefing up the investigation

services? That's the serious problem, in terms of the lack of personnel

to do this. Also, I understand there are some very serious problems

around the overtime problem. People can only work until five, and after

that there's no overtime. There have been some serious problems in that

department, particularly in relation to investigation. But if it's to

be as successful as what's going on in Seattle, there has to be an

adequate amount of investigatory staff. I'm not satisfied with the

minister's explanation. As the vote reads, it's down $200,000, and it's

down four in staff. My colleague said $2 million. Oh, no, you've got a

different book than I've got. It's $200,000.

We'd like to

get the Attorney-General to tell us whether the staff is down. How many

investigators do they have in the fire marshal's department to back up

the Arson Alert program? Because it seems to me that regardless of what

he said, the operation is being scaled down. Now if Arson Alert is to

be successful, it has to be beefed up. Will he comment on that? He's

still looking for his notes, I gather.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

I'm trying to look for the specific figure, but I think the hon. member

and some of the other hon. members might like to have an overview,

notwithstanding the fact that that may take a little bit of time.

First

of all, the figures of deaths over a five-year period, 1974 to 1978:

1974, 102; 1975, 92; 1976, 89; 1977 and 1978, 98 deaths. It should be

noted that the upward trend in

[ Page 541 ]

fire

deaths over the past 20 years levelled off commencing in about 1974. We

attribute this to really significant changes in the former Fire Marshal

Act, and the greater emphasis upon fire prevention and protection

measures which have happened since then.

I want to deal with

some of the programs which are part of the overall program, independent

but associated with and complementing Arson Alert. The fire academy was

established formally by the handing over of a cheque for a half a

million dollars to Mr. Robert Stewart, who's chairman of the board of

the Justice Institute of B.C. That money was to assist in the initial

establishment of training facilities for fire services in B.C. There's

no question that these facilities will be a major step towards

establishing a uniform standard of training.

There was the

proclamation of the Fire Services Act and the appointment of the fire

commissioner, Mr. Gordon Anderson, whose name I mentioned a couple of

moments ago, and their two components under the supervision of the fire

commissioner, the division of operational fire services on the one

hand, and fire inspection and prevention on the other. There's the fire

services advisory board. The appointments have not yet been made to

that, but they will be made very shortly. Its responsibility will be to

advise in the establishment of standards for the province in all

matters connected with operational fire services in B.C.

for regional offices, the plans were underway to establish the first

one in Nanaimo and that has occasioned. It's going to be staffed by a

regional manager, two inspectors and a clerk.

There is also

the Arson Alert program, which we've referred to, and the smoke alarm

program in the rest homes which your colleague for Burnaby referred to.

The railway safety training program, a two-and-a-half-hour audio-visual

training program in the safe handling of railway incidents, has been

completed.

Public information — a lot has been done there in

the last year, because 43 of the total 98 fire fatalities in 1978

resulted from careless smoking habits — just about half from smoking.

There's no question that alcohol has been largely a contributing factor

in most of these deaths as well.

There has been publication

and distribution of about 60,000 guideline pamphlets on smoke detectors

for the home, and this pamphlet was a tremendous success. Guidelines

have further been produced over, I believe, the last 12 months for the

safe installation of propane in recreational vehicles.

Our

fire statistics that we can produce in B.C. are the best type of

statistics that can be produced in Canada. Other provinces have not yet

developed the sophisticated method of producing statistics that we have

insofar as fires are concerned,

Dealing with arson, it's

about 22 percent of the fires that occasion as the result of arson. It

was estimated that there was about $22 million worth of damage caused

by arson. I've told you about the 24-hour toll-free telephone number.

I've told you about the posters that advertise this particular hotline.

I've told you about the fact of identifying burned-out buildings with

some identification.

Smoke detectors — we've gone through that.

Let

me see what else we've got here on Arson Alert that I can help you

with: the toll-free number; the building placards; the arson reporting

system; seven fire commissioners' vehicles are completed in a

high-profile manner — they've all been identified;

magnetic signs for local assistant fire commissioners; standard

uniforms — red coveralls for fire commissioner staff are underway;

control centres operation room was completed earlier on. There is a

brand-new liaison method developed with the fire service and police

authorities and the insurance industry.

The deputy informs

me that the regional office staff increases in Nanaimo are the four

which I already mentioned, and for the fire academy there's an increase

of five there. I think that's about all I've got here. If you have an

additional question. If I can help you I will b able to determine the

answer, but I don't appear to have any additional material on that that

would interest you right now.

MRS. WALLACE: There are

a couple of items under this vote that I would like to raise with the

Attorney-General. The first has to do with the volunteer fire

protection groups. I think last year was the first time that moneys

were allocated to really give any meaningful assistance to those

groups. I would wonder whether the Attorney-General would be willing to

tell the House just how much was actually given to those volunteer

groups and what form those kinds of grants took. Also, what is the

plan? Is it an accelerated plan? I’m concerned, when I see this

particular budget cut back, as to whether or not that program is going

to continue, because that should be an ever-growing and increasing kind

of a program with additional assistance available.

I notice

that there is an item in this budget — grants, contributions and

subsidies — that was not there before. I'm wondering if that is

allocated specifically to the volunteer firefighters. I would like some

specifics on what has gone on with that particular program, Mr.

Attorney-General.

I understand that the Attorney-General

does not have the specifics with him. You don’t know whether or not

there is more or less money allocated this year than last for that

particular function?

HON. MR. GARDOM: The amount

allocated in this year's estimates for grants, contributions and

subsidies is $96,500. That amount is intended to upgrade equipment for

volunteer fire departments. That's the general intention there.

MRS. WALLACE:

That amount of money is, I take it, for the volunteer.... I thank the

Attorney-General for that. The other item I wanted to raise with him

was the problem that he knows I have some concern about. I've had

considerable correspondence with him regarding it. It is fire

protection in highrise buildings.

The Attorney-General may

be aware that I have a constituent, a professional engineer. who has a

The Attorney-General has reviewed this' he's reviewed it with the fire

marshal. My concern is that....

HON. MR. GARDOM: That one?

MRS. WALLACE:

No, not that one. This particular gentleman went to the National

Research Council, as you suggested. He was told by the person he saw

there that his

[ Page 542 ]

particular design was probably superior to the sky van — I believe that's the one you had there.

This

man has an idea that is apparently sound as far as engineering

principles are concerned; it's reasonably cheap, and certainly

effective. He was told by the National Research Council he should first

get a contractor to use it instead of his usual elevators, and then

persuade him to leave it on the building after the construction was

completed. Then, later, he should come to the research people and say:

"Look, here's a new fire escape." This seems a very cumbersome sort of

approach.

This particular vote we are talking about is

supposed to be for research and development in fire-prevention methods.

I'm not going to argue the pros or cons of whether or not this man's

equipment is the one best way to get in and out of highrise buildings,

but the Attorney-General is probably aware that highrise buildings are

firetraps. It's very difficult to get people out of a highrise

building. You can have stairways with doors that close, but those doors

get propped open; they get smoke-filled.

Here is an outside

egress suggested, and I would urge the Attorney-General to reconsider

his decision and have his ministry look into this. Under this vote,

where you have money for research and development of fire-prevention, a

trial building should be constructed, and the government should get

involved in seeing that this outside egress is tried out.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's the same thing, isn't it?

MRS. WALLACE:

I'm not saying it should be this particular design, but something

should be spearheaded by this government to ensure that those people

who live in highrises do have the protection. They pay taxes the same

as anyone else. They pay for fire protection, and they are not really

covered by fire protection. I would urge the Attorney-General to

involve his ministry in taking action to come up with an alternative

egress for highrise dwellers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I

would very much like to thank the lady member for her expression of

concern about highrise buildings; it continues to be a monumental

problem.

As a matter of fact, I met the gentleman — I hope

I'm speaking about the same gentleman — in Vancouver who invented the

Evacusystem, and this matter was referred to the fire marshal for

consideration.

I'm speaking from memory now, but I do

believe one state in the United States has considered relaxing its

building codes to permit this as a method of alternative egress. I've

requested additional specifics, both of him and from officials, as to

what the status of that is in that particular state.

At the

present time this is not accepted as an alternative method of egress.

There still have to be the methods that are — what will I say? —

conventional.

I'm speaking from a completely untrained

position when I make this comment. But it seems to me it will work —

unless it gets stuck, or something. But it is being looked into, and it

is obvious that a great deal of work has been done by the people

involved. It looks very deserving of additional attention.

MRS. WALLACE: Would you be willing to let me have a copy of that?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'd be delighted to send you a copy.

Vote 35 approved.

Vote 36: British Columbia Racing Commission, $455,990 — approved.

Vote 37: film classification, $125,362 — approved.

Vote 38: land registry program, $6,172,021 — approved.

Vote 39: order-in-council Patients Review Board, $83,692 — approved.

On vote 40: building occupancy charges, $32,204,000.

MR. LEVI:

Could the minister explain the 50 percent increase in his rental costs?

Is he renting the Bayshore Inn? He's gone from $21 million to $32

million. They must be housing juvenile delinquents in the — what's the

name of that hotel? They spend $10 million for the cost of housing

delinquents in God-knows-how-many hotels.

What's the reason

for the very large increase? I don't want the minister to start the

trend which is happening in his estimates — that not only is he taking

questions as notice in the question period, but he's now got into the

habit of taking as notice questions in his estimates. Can you tell me

why there is a $10 million increase in the occupancy? What buildings

have you taken over? Does this include a new jail which you haven't

told us about, or what?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, at times I'm really forced to side with Gloria — he can be an unreasonable man.

The increase in cost, sir?

MR. LEVI: Yes.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Do you want to do it on the basis of 20 questions? It's not the

Bayshore Inn; it's not the Empress Hotel; it's not the Notel-Motel in

Duncan. Guess what? It's block 71 in Vancouver — the new courthouse.

Vote 40 approved.

On vote 41: computer and consulting charges, $1,667,623.

MR. LEVI:

I want to ask a question about computer and consulting charges, which

is down $1 million. In earlier debates I made reference to a report

which was done by the deputy ministers in respect to the B.C. Systems

Corporation, and at that time there was severe criticism about the

phasing out of the justice information system that had been set up and

operating for two years. Now am I to take it from the reduction in the

vote, which is almost $1 million, that this represents the saving on

the phasing out of that system?

You had a justice information system that was operating. According to the deputy ministers — not your deputy

[ Page 543 ]

minister,

but the deputy ministers of the major users of the B.C. Systems

Corporation services — part of the report referred to the phasing out

of a very valuable justice information system. Now does this

significant reduction in your computer service costs represent that

phasing out? If not, what does it represent? I know these are very

complex questions for the Attorney-General.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

It does not represent a phasing out, sir. The costs last year were $1.6

million, approximately, and this is a closer estimate to actual costs.

Vote 41 approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS

On vote 42: minister's office, $133,005.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Chairman, I have a few words about the Ministry of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs. During the past year the ministry has been involved

in a period of consolidation and some maturing for what is a relatively

new ministry in the government. During the first years of the ministry

the most common challenge was one of introducing and updating statutes

that would offer protection to consumers, renters, investors, borrowers

and others in our society in areas where they were particularly

vulnerable and where there was some demonstration of abuses or problems

in the past.

Once those laws were put in place, it became

obvious that our new challenge within the ministry was one of internal

structure or restructuring in order to administer the laws in an

efficient manner and provide services to the people of the province.

Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, steps have been taken in recent months to

improve the ministry's effectiveness in these areas by reorganizing our

central support services to all the factions within the ministry —

consumer, corporate, rentalsman's office, liquor distribution, liquor

control. These are no longer dependent on small, isolated and sometimes

inadequate internal services. It has been consolidated, and this will

offer a great deal more efficiency in our service.

Mr.

Chairman, we've been able to strengthen our finance, our personnel and

the administrative service, to enhance our administrative efficiency

and accountability. We've been able to pool our policy-planning and

research resources, thankfully all without increasing bureaucracy, and

in almost all instances utilizing existing staff.

Another

part of this process is this ministry's substantial across-the-board

development of computer applications: in many instances this will

literally bring us out of a very antiquated system into modern

technology, and in all instances it will allow the ministry to cope

with an increasing growth in our activities within our resources as

they are now without expansion in an economic sense. We should be able

to meet increasing demands of the public and expectations of the

citizens of the province without a great deal of growth in bureaucracy

or a great deal of growth in cost.

Some examples of these projects, Mr. Chairman, include in the corporate affairs

division the computerization of the companies office, which it is hoped will

speed the process of incorporation, filing and searches: a new computer system

for central registry; and a new modern inventory-management system for the liquor

distribution branch. While the other applications in other parts of the ministry

may be somewhat smaller, they have in common an improvement of service to the

public and cost savings to the government.

Mr.

Chairman, the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is a large and

diversified ministry. We are. as I suggested, making every effort to

consolidate our activities so that we operate as a cohesive unit. In

the eyes of the general public perhaps we are best known on the

consumer side, and I would like to offer a few remarks relating to the

consumer side of the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

One

item of interest is that the ministry introduced the Motor Dealers

Licensing Act, proclaimed on January 1 of this year, and since that

date approximately 1,500 motor vehicle dealers in the province have

registered. The ministry and its officials have been in constant touch

with motor dealers and consumers to read back to us that which they see

taking place in the marketplace, in an attempt to ensure that the

legislation and the regulations are workable and fair and are producing

something constructive.

Another example of an attempt to

offer additional protection to the public was the Travel Agents

Registration Act, which entered the second year of its operation in

February of this year. About 600 agents in British Columbia have

registered under the Act. The fund stands at approximately $180,000 at

the present time. The fund is made up entirely from contributions by

travel agents and the wholesalers who are involved in that industry.

The ministry has been able to assist about 200 consumers to receive

about $85,000 in claims through the fund. In one case there were 20

vacationers from our province stranded in Hawaii, and our offices were

advised. Apparently there was a failure by a Vancouver agent and the

people had been threatened with eviction from their condominiums, I

believe they were, down in Hawaii. We learned of the situation and

approved payment from the travel assurance fund. My staff contacted the

owners down in Hawaii, we guaranteed payment, and the people were

permitted to continue on with their vacation without interruption,

without being thrown out. So that area has improved very much. There

are still some minor modifications that could be made to see that it

works better, and some of the agents are still concerned about the

implications. However, generally it's going very well.

integral part of ensuring consumer protection is the ministry's

commitment to providing assistance, educational materials and

information on consumer matters to the public of our province. The

education and information branch is increasing its activities in this

area. We're producing new materials: we're producing new brochures on

consumer issues. We plan to offer regular weekly contributions to most

of the newspapers in the province with examples of consumer claims —

problems associated with consumers based on actual examples — and how

the problems have been resolved if, indeed, they have been resolved.

The

ministry has improved its administration of the Debt Collection Act by

providing additional enforcement staff and upgrading its regulation of

collection agents and private bailiffs throughout the province. About a

month ago a complete review of the debt collection legislation was

begun to ensure that the laws adequately protect consumers in this

province from harassment or what could be described

[ Page 544 ]

as abusive collection practices. The field of debt collection will be

reviewed with particular attention devoted to the rights and

responsibilities of the private bailiff industry.

Mr.

Chairman, a specific problem which was before consumers in the province

was resolved in the past year when the problem of General Motors engine

switches on some models of 1977 automobiles was brought to the

attention of the ministry. The ministry entered into negotiations with

General Motors and an agreement was reached after very lengthy

negotiations. It seems to have satisfied the concerns of those

customers who had purchased an automobile which contained an engine

which they hadn't anticipated. They were compensated by way of a $200

payment. Other provinces in the country have apparently now begun

negotiations with General Motors to resolve the problem on similar

lines; Quebec and Prince Edward Island have entered into similar

agreements now.

Tax rebating was an area of many consumer

complaints. Investigation of rebating services resulted in the

prosecution of a Vancouver-based tax discounter, and about $50,000 was

returned to consumers because it had been determined that they had not

received the full amount allotted under the Act — 85 percent. My

ministry was also successful in encouraging two large conventional

lenders to enter into the field of tax rebate services for the tax

season, and indications show that the Beneficial Finance Co. of Canada

and Vancouver City Savings Credit Union dealt with the tax rebate

question much to the satisfaction of their customers. There is ample

evidence and experience now to show that the tax rebating services may

be reformed without a great many problems. The ministry has encouraged

all consumers and citizens in the province to, if at all possible, wait

for their refund rather than sell their tax refund for a discount.

have also continued with grants to consumer groups and consumer

protection services to the extent of nearly $160,000 in the present

fiscal year.

On the corporate side of the ministry I'm sure

that some members will be encouraged to learn that the staggering

growth of business activity in our province has continued this year,

resulting in an overall increase of filings in corporations and assets

of between 25 and 30 percent.

On the legislative side of the

corporate division we're continuing to adjust and review our

legislative base with a view to updating the relevant sections of

legislation, reflecting current activities and practices, and

implementing major deregulation opportunities wherever those

opportunities arise for us.

One of our major corporate

projects over the past year has been to study the province's capital

markets, and the methods by which capital is raised. Part of that study

and consideration by the ministry was by way of a report known as the

Schroeder report, which we commissioned in 1977. That report has been a

valuable starting point for the review; we are presently reviewing this

report and other studies which are involved in the same question. We

are attempting to place the recommendations in the overall context of

the securities field in our province, with some identification of

similar problems in other parts of the country.

The challenge of simplifying and codifying corporate legislation in our province

is being met very well by the ministry, and there is now an excellent rapport

between the ministry and the business community. I'm sure one of the reasons

for this rapport has been our practice to seek information and advice, and to

share with many elements in the business community our concerns and our attitudes

as to how some of these problems can be resolved. It's not experimental,

but the exercise has certainly proved satisfactory and very valuable.

Mr.

Chairman, another thing that affects the corporate community was our

moving two offices to Vancouver's downtown area. The superintendent of

credit unions, cooperatives and trust companies and the superintendent

of brokers, insurance, real estate are now settled in downtown

Vancouver, and this move has turned out to be a correct move. It has

resolved many problems. It has provided greater access to the

superintendents' offices, and seems to be working well after an initial

problem associated with change in staff and location. We're continuing

to consolidate in the Vancouver area by continuing to move more and

more into a single building.

I have a quick comment on the

question of the rentalsman's office and the Rent Review Commission.

Approximately 9,000 rental units have been decontrolled — for want of a

better term — since decontrol began. There were 37 appeals, and I am

advised that in only one case was it necessary for the Rent Review

Commission to take action to reduce the increase. It's our finding that

landlords have accepted their responsibility, and appear to have been

reasonable and responsible. We continue, of course, to monitor the

rental market to identify any other possibilities of decontrol on rent.

One

of the major functions of the ministry is our liquor control and

licensing branch. Those policies are also under active review, with a

view to incorporating into regulations some of the practices,

procedures and requirements affecting licensees which are now simply

done by policy or guidelines. We intend to see that they become part of

statutes or regulations.

In conclusion, the watchword for

the ministry in the months ahead at least will be synchronization of

the internal workings of the ministry, in an attempt to offer uniform

excellence in our provision of services to the citizens of the province

— more specifically, to the consumers, the renters, the borrowers, the

investors and the business community.

MR. LEVI: We're

not going to keep the minister or his staff too long. But I would like

to raise a number of issues directly with the minister and ask him to

comment on them.

I did ask him a question on March 28 of

this year in the question period. I will read it to the minister and

then I want to make some comments on it. I said that last May 18 and

May 24 — and I'm talking now about 1978 — I asked the minister's

predecessor a question regarding the evidence of kickbacks that was in

the hands of the staff of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture.

May 24, 1978, the then minister replied that he had written to the

Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs federally because there was

some discussion about the Combines Investigation Act. I asked the

minister at that time if he could tell us the results of the

correspondence, what the position was of the federal ministry and what

was done in respect to the evidence available. The minister took the

question as notice. He didn't come back.

I would like to

just talk for a moment about that particular issue. I would like to

know whether the minister or any of his staff are monitoring the

hearings that are going on in the royal commission which is dealing, in

effect, with

[ Page 545 ]

the

problem of kickbacks and other arrangements that are made in the retail

field, particularly in the food area. These hearings have been going on

for some time.

Does the minister have anyone monitoring

that? Are they familiar with what is going on, other than what they

might pick up from the newspapers? The minister may know that we did

try to get the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture, when it was

looking at the whole question of food, to look into the question here

in the province. It may very well be that we may be in a much better

position later on. All I will say is that a case is before the courts

in relation to this issue so we may be able to learn something from

what is produced in the evidence. Perhaps the minister might comment on

that and what he's doing in respect to monitoring that commission.

made mention of the Schroeder report. I am continually confounded by

the remarks made, both by the Premier and now by the minister. They've

had a report done which was an extensive report. I did have an

opportunity to talk to Mr. Thompson who oversaw the report. He didn't

write it, although he had a lot of help. For the past year the

government has been looking at it. One of the difficulties with this

government is that they have reports and they don't release them. We're

not able at this particular time to take a good look at some of the

things that have been happening in respect to the investment field.

were told by the Premier that it is not released because part of the

report deals with what goes on in the Vancouver Stock Exchange. Well,

that may very well be. I said at that time and I would say to the

minister that if it's a question of bringing in new legislation in

respect to the stock market, fine, then don't release that part of the

report. Let's get a look at the report in respect to the capital

market. Surely that would be of interest to everybody in the province —

to the investment field, to people who invest. Leave aside the stock

exchange thing. We can wait till eventually they get around to

releasing it or deciding, whether they're going to change the rules.

know part of the reasons that impelled the previous minister to get

this study going, but again, I say, leave aside the stock exchange

thing. Let's have some information; release that part of the report

that deals with the capital markets. It's very important for people.

The minister talked about the number of incorporations that have

happened in the province last year and the year before, the amount of

assets that have been brought in. Fine, then let's look at that and

look at the whole question of the capital market situation in British

Columbia and find out exactly what is going on. That would be

reflective of an open government, a government that is concerned about

improving the investment climate. They apparently have a document which

may do that. But we won't know. It's well over a year since the report

has been in the hands of the government. One can get very cynical about

what they're doing with it. We don't know whether they're censoring it

or whether they're deciding they're never going to release it. I would

ask the minister to make some comments. Leave aside, as I said, the

stock exchange question. We don't necessarily have to deal with that at

this point in time.

I would ask the minister about the

statement he made last week. He made a statement about the exploding

bottles which have been causing some accidents. At that time he

indicated that he had no jurisdiction in this matter. I would like to

know, because the federal Solicitor-General, Mr. Lawrence, has also

indicated that he has no jurisdiction.

I'm just wondering

whether the minister has given any thought to looking at some sections

in the Health Act —

section 23, which deals with the production of

mineral water and that kind of thing — and doing his own piece of,

legislation in order to accomplish the kinds of things that he would

like to see, which is that these bottles do not continue to be

distributed.

Again, it is my understanding that the federal

minister doesn't seem to have any jurisdiction anyway, so who would be

encroaching on whose jurisdiction? I guess it appears that nobody has

any jurisdiction if that is the case. Maybe the minister could get his

colleague to do something under the Health Act which would assist

people. We're thinking of all consumers. of course, but particularly of

children. Perhaps the minister might want to make a comment about that.

The

minister. I would hope, would make some comment, not say that it's

future policy, but there was a cooperative Act tabled last year. It was

widely circulated. I think it's a practice that the government should

be applauded for. They undertook the tabling of legislation, which gave

the public a good opportunity to took at it. But at the moment, I don’t

know where we are with that particular legislation.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

I'm

also informed that there is some pressing need to look at credit union

legislation. Perhaps the minister might tell us what's happening in

respect to the request from the credit union people about getting the

legislation.

Again, we're dealing with the question of

consumers, which involves everybody in the public. I hope that the

minister continues the practice of his predecessor. If he's doing

legislation, he should table it. let it sit there and wait until the

next session so that we can get an adequate amount of discussion. The

whole question of getting input from the community is very important.

The

minister made mention of General Motors and the engine exchange. That

was reasonably concluded about a year ago. He's probably aware of a

case in the Victoria area — and there are two or three other cases; not

as many as we're led to believe — which amounted to the fact that the

individual did not purchase the warranty plan, and as a result he had a

great deal of trouble with a transmission which shouldn't have been in

the car in the first place. The ministry has not been able to do too

much about this. However, probably 40 percent of complaints to the

ministry deal with the area of automobiles. I'm not now dealing with

the question of second-hand cars and that kind of thing, because the

Motor Dealers Licensing Act has made some progress in that area. But

there are some very serious problems in respect to warranties and the

apparent practice of the major automobile manufacturers setting out to

mislead the public in respect to some of the products they produce.

The

minister referred to a situation where there was an engine placed in a

car which was not the appropriate engine, yet it was advertised as

something else. There is also the particular case in respect to the

transmission. It seems to me it should be something his ministry should

be looking at in terms of the general practice of the major automobile

[ Page 546 ]

dealers.

He would have to take on the proportions of Jack the Giant Killer if he

were taking on the major automobile dealers. There is no doubt that

there are some very serious problems with respect to the purchasing of

new vehicles. We don't want to be relying continually on the federal

Corporate and Consumer Affairs. The ministry has got into the field a

little bit with the negotiations with General Motors. There should be

some continuing negotiations and some study done on some of the

problems. Just because there are no complaints doesn't necessarily mean

that there are no problems, and many people know about these. I hope

that the ministry will look into this, because it's a very serious

question.

In order to clue the minister in, I was dealing

with a Mr. McEwan, who had trouble with the transmission. It was a

General Motors product. As I said, apparently he did not purchase the

warranty but nevertheless had a great deal of trouble with the car.

That is a problem that needs to be looked at, in terms of the ministry

developing real expertise about this.

I want to discuss for

a moment the Credit Unions Act. I presume the minister is familiar with

the Corporate Financial Regulatory Services Weekly

Summary. In the

March 30, 1979, edition there was reference to a hearing in relation to

the credit union versus the Credit Union Reserve Board. I presume his

officials are aware of it. I want to bring the minister's attention to

the final statement made by Mr. Herbert, who was the vice-chairman of

this particular hearing. He's making reference to the Credit Unions

Act, quoting from a decision made by Mr. Geddes when he was chairman.

He said: "The simple fact is that the Credit Unions Act insofar as it

concerns the jurisdiction and procedure of the commission is a mess. We

urge those responsible to reconsider the statutory provisions." I ask

the minister to comment about that. If it's under review, fine. Are

there hearings planned for the people affected? I know there are some

discussions going on.

That's basically all I want to say at the moment. I've asked the minister a number of questions.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

The federal government is conducting inquiries into the concern about

kickbacks in various industries, including the food industry. We are

not monitoring the hearings per se by having someone in attendance, but

there has been a considerable amount of discussion with the federal

government on this, and we have let our concerns be known to them. The

member referred to a letter which had been referred to before in this

House; I have not been able to find the letter that was referred to, I

think, a couple of years ago. There may have been an error made when it

was suggested that a letter ad been written — I'm not quite sure that

letter ever was written — but certainly we have discussed it with

officials. And the member is correct that at the moment there is a

court action regarding a charge.

The bottles question, which

was mentioned in the House last week, continues to draw a lot of

concern across the country. It would appear that, to the best of our

information, the federal government does in deed have jurisdiction over

this. Should they wish to make use of the Hazardous Products Act, it

seems clear that they can. The federal minister did say that he was not

about to ban the bottle at this time, but he would perhaps bring in

certain standards to improve the design or quality of the product.

There have been a number of suggestions made on these bottles. One

suggestion was plasticizing the bottle; another was using different

labels, which the glass would adhere to in the event of an explosion or

break. So there is a fair amount going on. We've been very, very

fortunate in the province; we've not had any serious incidents reported

to us. I don't know whether that is because of where the bottles were

manufactured or the manner in which the bottles are filled. A large

number of retail companies have taken the bottles from the shelves, and

I think we can resolve that problem quite satisfactorily.

The

transmission problem. I understand that some people have been advised

or some people believe that there are several hundred owners involved —

we have not been so advised. We know of three or four cases in

Vancouver and one in Victoria, and the information provided to me is

that these cases have been resolved. It's quite possible individual

consumers may have had difficulty, but my understanding is that the

problems have been resolved. My information is that it was a new-style

transmission and perhaps it didn't have the capacity to handle the

manner in which some of the vehicles were used — towing trailers or

boats or whatever. I think that has, to a large degree, been resolved.

The

commission vice-chairman mentioned the Credit Unions Act. I believe he

was quite correct in saying that it needs to be cleaned up. The Act is

a bit messy and it does require a certain amount of cleanup. We intend

to do that. There are certain aspects of the Credit Unions Act which

perhaps require more immediate remedial action than all of it, and we'll

move in that sequence. We'll try to respond first to that which the

credit union movement identifies as being absolutely essential, and

then try and clean the Act up generally to resolve some of the other

problems.

The federal government and various provinces are

presently discussing the feasibility of warranty legislation with a

view to having some uniformity across the country, and it's quite

likely that this will result in fairly uniform warranty legislation

across the country.

The member, Mr. Chairman, referred to

the first portion of the Schroeder report, which dealt with capital

markets and so on. What I have been doing with that report and what

staff people have been doing is, as I said, to attempt to develop a

paper based in part on the Schroeder report, and I felt it would be

improper to release the Schroeder report prior to compiling the

information. But the member, I think quite appropriately, splits the

Schroeder report into two sections, and we'll give serious consideration

to perhaps releasing that first part earlier than we would the balance.

MR. LEVI:

Could the minister tell us whether there has been any change in the

process of approval for neighbourhood pubs? There appears to be an

impression about that some of the decision-making actually gets to the

minister's level. Can the minister tell us how many of these decisions

he's had to make in respect to neighbourhood pubs? Is he granting them?

Have there been any appeals? If that's not the case, then that's fine

and he should say so. Is the minister at all involved in the ultimate

approval of any of the neighbourhood pub licences?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Chairman, the Act was changed to permit an appeal to the minister

when the general manager refused a licence — and it is only in that

area.

[ Page 547 ]

MR. LEVI:

I have one other question, around what appears to be a phony definition

of what "as the crow flies" means, exactly, in terms of the measure of

the distance between where there is an existing hotel and where

somebody wants to put in a neighbourhood pub.

Three people

have written to me about running into this particular definition. Was

it the intent of the original regulations really to see this as

measuring distance as the crow flies, or were we really talking about

distance of travel — that is, by human beings and not by crows. That

has created some problems. Some people have been refused licences

because the "as the crow flies" definition considerably reduces the

amount of distance. You have to have a mile between an existing place

and the one you have in mind. In many cases this has been reduced.

this a definition that is hard and fast? It has been used in sonic

decisions. Is it the intention to carry on with such a definition or

are they really looking at the whole question of how people travel on

the road? Perhaps the minister might want to comment on that.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

The one-mile "as the crow flies" is a policy guideline. I believe that

the reason for the one-mile separation of licensed premises originally

concerned density and how many licensed premises were within a specific

area.

It does cause some rather strange situations. If you

were to interpret "as the crow files" strictly, it's quite possible you

could have a location one mile across a major river but many, many

miles separated by road. In fact you get many alternative explanations

of the distance because of that restriction of one mile. You get people

who will insist that it may be a mile in a straight line but by walking

it's a certain distance, by driving it's a longer distance and so on.

It's

not a hard and fast rule; it's simply a guideline. There have been

licences granted within that one mile as the crow flies. Usually we

identify by way of the inspector's report the density of the number of

licensed premises within a given area, perhaps within a mile from that

central point, just to determine how many licensed premises there are.

It's a rule that has been relaxed in several instances because of other

conditions and other details which have been provided.

MR. LEVI:

Just one other question. I would like the minister to comment on the

change of policy which came about in respect to the reduction of the

allowance. Perhaps I might just read the letter and then get the

impact. The minister wrote to a colleague of his. This came down as a

result of somebody writing me a letter. "I refer to your memorandum of

March 23, 1978. The agency agreement is a contractual document agreed

upon by both parties." This is to do with the reduction of agency

commissions from 10 percent to 5 percent. You did reply to Mr. Bachen

at Dawson Landing saying: "In 1975 the government policy provided for

the establishment of agency liquor stores and to establish such terms

and conditions including the remuneration as deemed appropriate." And

then you lay out the formula.

Perhaps the minister might

comment as to why you found it necessary to do the reduction from 10

percent to 5 percent. After all, if there's one profit-making

enterprise in this government, it's the liquor industry. The people who

live in remote areas do in part depend on this agency for their income

and yet it's been reduced. I think that in the letter that was written

to the Minister of Lands and Urban Affairs from one of his

constituents, Mr. Bronson Little, he makes a complaint about it. He

said: "We do not feel our commission in this case should be reduced to

5 percent. The agreement does not stipulate that a beer strike would

make it impossible for an agency store to stay open under the $70,000

figure. ''

Now why the reduction? I don't quite understand

this at all. After all, these people do provide a service, yet you

decided to cut it from 10 to 5 percent. Is that a cost-saving measure,

or what? It seems very inappropriate, particularly in that ministry.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Chairman, the money associated with that reduction from 10 percent

to 5 percent after a certain amount has been reached in no way saves

money for the government, of course, because it reduces that amount

after the $70.000. which I believe was the figure where it begins to

change.

There were a number of reasons for that originally.

It was felt that as volume grew in an area, then perhaps the costs

associated with additional volume could be accommodated by a lesser

commission.

The figure requires a review, if it's required

to be there at all. That's under consideration now, because of a number

of letters — I think we received about three or four complaints from

agents. I think it was made clear to them originally that those were

the terms. But we’re looking at that $70,000 figure to see if it is

reasonable and if it's necessary at all, or whether it might be easier

or reasonable just to give a flat commission for product sold, or to

raise it, perhaps, to $100,000 or $125.000. But that probably would

simply mean that in a year or two we’d have to reconsider that figure

as a ceiling.

I appreciate their concern. They feel that

once they reach a certain point it's diminishing returns and perhaps it

might affect their operations. But we're giving that consideration.

MR. LEVI:

Just as a final comment, I think that probably what's missing from the

discussion on this is some consideration given to the people who

provide this service. I'm not now talking so much about the volume, but

rather about the fact that they are there and that they're kind of a

distribution point for the liquor administration branch. That should be

part of the consideration and the equation. and not strictly on the

basis of the volume question. I agree with the minister that to set it

at $70,000 and then go to $100,000 is not very practical. It should be

done, if they can find a formula, on the basis of an increase, of a set

amount of percentage so that you don't have to keep changing the

regulations. I'm glad that they're looking at it.

MRS. DAILLY:

Mr. Chairman. my question is related to the granting of licences for

pubs. Now I know that this isn't the forum to bring up specific cases

because I'm sure the minister has many of those. I find it more

beneficial to deal with your officials and those who are in charge on a

specific case.

Generally speaking, I just wanted to say to

the minister there has recently been a very controversial pub in North

Burnaby which I'm sure you're aware of. Some of the points which were

brought up by the group which was

[ Page 548 ]

against

the granting of a licence for the pub appeared to me to have some

validity in the sense that some of the present regulations do raise

some questions. The minister must have a lot of material on this. Is he

considering, after weighing some of the concerns expressed not only by

this group but maybe by other people who've applied, that there perhaps

should be an analysis of the present regulations to see if some of

these concerns which these people have brought out do have some

validity? There's the whole matter of pre-site clearance granting.

Basically, why do some people get a licence and others don't? It never

seems quite clear to anyone just what the basis is. I know it varies

from community to community. I was wondering if the minister, now that

he's been in office several months in this ministry, is completely

satisfied that the present regulations as they apply to the granting of

licences are satisfactory.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: You're

speaking of neighbourhood pub licences specifically. I certainly am not

satisfied that the regulations and the procedures are the ultimate

because it's such an inexact situation. You may have a situation in a

community in the province where a pub licence is granted, and in

precisely the same circumstances elsewhere it's denied.

With

neighbourhood pubs the most common problem is that the majority of

people are in favour of them because of the atmosphere, but not that

many are in favour of them in their neighbourhood. This is the problem.

It's like group homes or any other situation. It's such an inexact

thing to grasp because circumstances are so different in each

community. We rely to a large degree on the neighbourhood attitude by

way of survey and so on. We had to develop a procedure. They had to

start somewhere. We felt that it was more reasonable to ask the

applicant to apply to us for pre-site clearance rather than go through

the council rezoning if necessary, taking the survey and spending a

considerable amount of money only to come back to our general manager

to be denied. We felt that we should tell them up front if they had any

opportunity at all of getting a licence, not that they would get it,

but at least we wouldn't be turning it down because we were opposed to

it, but rather there were other circumstances and reasons.

are attempting to come to grips with those problems. Recently we had a

meeting in Vancouver with representatives from all sections of the

industry that deal with liquor distribution — hotels, motels,

restaurants, neighbourhood pubs, representatives from the RCMP,

Vancouver city police and representatives from the city, the Union of

B.C. Municipalities and others. We had an excellent meeting discussing

the various problems associated with licences. Some very intelligent

suggestions were made by representatives. We are actively responding to

many of those. For the first time, the people who represent the

Neighbourhood Pub Association, the B.C. Hotel Association and the

Restaurant Association had an opportunity to understand the municipal

problems associated with licences and some of the policing problems

associated with the proliferation of licences. I think that will come

to resolve some of those problems.

The big problem is the

inexact situation involved in this. The other member mentioned

distances. When does a mile really mean a mile? Is it going to be that

clear that if it's within a mile there's no possible way at all?

Sometimes that's not practical. I don't know how we're going to resolve

it — if ever. But we're trying to develop a more orderly system whereby

a person would know well in advance if his application was doomed to

failure. We are just as concerned about those who believe they're going

to get a licence and fail as those who are pushing or complaining

because they didn't get a licence at all. We're trying to resolve it by

having a very easily understood and uniform set of standards. But it is

very difficult to draft.

Vote 42 approved.

Vote 43: executive and administration, $586,979 — approved.

Vote 44: consumer affairs, $2,736,650 — approved.

Vote 45: corporate affairs, $4,159,986 — approved.

Vote 46: rentalsman, $1,968,397 — approved.

On vote 47: liquor control and licensing branch, $1,241,997.

MRS. WALLACE:

I have written to the minister and I know I'm probably rushing it

because he hasn't had time to respond, but I do have some very grave

concerns about the auxiliary employees in the liquor distribution

system. I took this up with the Attorney-General when this was his

responsibility. I took it up with the former minister who was

responsible for Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Now I'm going to raise

it with this minister because the situation has just not improved.

a case in point, I have sent to the minister an outline of what has

happened to one of my constituents who is an auxiliary employee with

the liquor distribution branch. That employee has been an auxiliary

employee for five years. He is attempting to support a wife and family

and in that five-year period of time he has simply had a bread-and

butter kind of existence. I sent the minister his

schedule for June,

which was a series of some 11 part days for the entire month. That's a

sort of sample of the kind of employment this man has been receiving;

and this is a particularly good example really, in June, because

certainly the sales are up during the summer months. It is a very bad

situation that these auxiliary employees are facing. This man has

attempted to bulletin out, but even with five years' seniority he is

still in a position where he has not sufficient seniority to get on on

a permanent basis with the distribution system.

I think, Mr.

Chairman, that the minister has to give some consideration to changing

the whole setup so there is provision for those people who are involved

in working with the distribution system over a period of time to get

into permanent positions, because it's very unfair to ask a person to

carry on for a period of five years in an auxiliary position. It's

impossible to provide an adequate standard of living for his family. I

think I sent the minister a copy of this particular constituent's

wife's letter. She wrote to me outlining some of the things that have

been facing them over the years since this has been going on — a

heart-rending letter in fact.

There are a couple of other

concerns I have too, particularly in relation to the Duncan outlet

where we have no separate outlet for beer. There isn't enough room in

that store to handle the returns and the beer supplies. The

[ Page 549 ]

employees

are so busy getting rid of those empties and trying to find space on

the floor for the empties and to handle the stocks of beer that are in

the store that very often there is not time to even replenish the

shelves. There is a need for more employees in that store and there is

a need for a second store in Duncan. If that sort of thing happened,

then the problem of my constituent who has been an auxiliary employee

for a five-year period would automatically disappear because there

would be a full-time position for him. I would urge the minister to

have a look at that situation.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Just

a quick response, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry I don't have a reply to your

letter. I have been advised that your letter has been received, but I

haven't had the opportunity of going through it. I gather it is a

one-person situation right now, so we'll have to look at it from that

point of view.

The beer bottle situation is a problem in all

our stores, and we have resolved part of it by a little bit better

system with the people who pick up the bottles, particularly in the

major centres. We're looking at alternatives to try to find out how we

can remove the necessity of sorting, stacking and storing the empty

bottles in our stores. As you know, the Mineral Act requires that they

bring them in for a refund. And that's what has created the problem.

Most stores were not designed to handle it; we are trying to come up

with a resolution. I appreciate the problem in Duncan; it's common

throughout the province.

MRS. WALLACE: Is the

minister looking at a separate store? I understand that is what has

happened in Nanaimo, where a separate store has a volume about similar

to the Duncan area. I'm also asking whether he's considering extending

the hours of the Duncan store. It's open only on Friday evening, and is

the only outlet in that area.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: We

certainly want to service that community, and if extended hours are

required, there'd be no problem. We're very flexible on hours, and if

it's required in the community we'll give it serious consideration. I

can't see any problems.

We have not given consideration to

opening a beer store in Duncan, although the idea is attractive

throughout the province. There seems to be room for beer stores in

certain areas because of the traffic associated with beer purchases. It

could be part of the resolution in handling this very large quantity of

material.

MR. COCKE: I'd like the minister to explain

the criteria for specialty distribution, such as the larger bottles,

the smaller bottles, et cetera. I notice, for example, we have two

stores in Westminster. One is the old-fashioned kind where you line up

and order everything you want, and the clerk finds it for you.

Incidentally, there is a very poor selection in that store. I suspect

there's a little bit of elitism around that by virtue of its location.

Second, the other, which is a sort of a cash-and-carry type of store,

for supermarket effect, has in my view a selection that is poor, for a

city the size of New Westminster. You could then go to some of the

large shopping centres, et cetera: or you can by luck or, possibly,

good management by inquiry find a liquor store with the additional

service of these specialty items.

Incidentally, while I'm

talking about specialty items, as the party Whip, I'd like to see Stu

Leggatt in here as fast as he can get!

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

I'd like to acknowledge the questions offered by the member for New

Westminster. Some of the stores require updating. The specialty

products are handled by only a few stores because of low-volume sale.

We try to locate them as best we can throughout the province, but

there's generally a low volume associated with the items. That's why

they're not carried by all stores. Again, it's a space problem.

MR. COCKE:

I would like the minister to look at New Westminster very carefully

with respect to more specialty items. I'll be keeping an eye on

Westminster, and if by the time his estimates come around again, and we

haven't seen any improvement, he can expect to hear from me to a

greater extent than he has today.

Vote 47 approved.

Vote 48: Corporate and Financial Services Commission, $68,500 — approved.

Vote 49: Auditor Certification Board, $3,000 — approved.

Vote 50: building occupancy charges, $1,495,000 — approved.

Vote 51: computer and consulting charges, $1,132,038 — approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

On vote 56: minister's office, $164,683.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

As I reported to you last year, the economy of this great province is

indeed going well under the policies of this great and dynamic

ministry. I know that you are just waiting anxiously to say "aye" to

vote me the money so that I can get on and carry on the job of creating

jobs for these British Columbians, and the young and growing work force

that we have here now, and the people who are coming to British

Columbia, indeed, from other provinces in Canada to seek opportunities,

once again because of the dynamic policies of this great government.

Now

I know that you will notice a tremendous increase in the estimates of

this ministry this year. I know that under close scrutiny you will

recognize that most of that money is for our cost-shared programs where

we put out a little seed money to the private sector and when we put

out a dollar they invest three or four times that. That is really what

is happening.

As you know, we've gone to Ottawa: we did our

homework and we went down and negotiated a lot of new programs. Those

programs are really working; they're even working better, Mr. Chairman,

than I ever thought they'd work. As a matter of fact, the applications

are coming in and small business is thriving and tourism is thriving.

The only thing I am disappointed in this year is the fact that the gentleman who set up this ministry and usually is

[ Page 550 ]

my critic is away ill. I want to wish him a speedy recovery and hope that he gets back before the session is over.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: He can have the files now; we're making out fine without them, Mr. Chairman.

But

seriously, the programs that we have signed with the federal government

are off and running. The private sector is taking advantage of them.

Oh, we've had the odd problem here and there, but I'll tell you, my

friends, that when you plough new ground you are always going to have a

few problems. When you plough new ground and start new innovative

programs like we have, there is going to be the odd little problem.

Other

than that, the economy is strong and is growing. I have great

confidence in its future and I know that you will be most happy to vote

me this money so that I can carry on the work of British Columbia in

getting the economy rolling.

MR. COCKE: I can't believe it. It's like the will o' the wisp — here one moment and gone the next.

Anyway,

I was very interested in the minister's remarks. He was telling us what

a marvelous economy we have in British Columbia. I would just like to

say, Mr. Chairman, that the only thing that saved the Social Credit

government in this province in terms of economic development, in terms

of its economy, is the forest industry, and that was sheer good luck,

nothing else. It certainly was nothing in response to anything this

minister has done. He's an absolute failure. He's created chaos

wherever he's gone. All you have to do, backbenchers, is sit around and

listen to him for a while and you'll understand precisely what I am

saying.

Thanks for coming back, Stu.

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Chairman, I am totally taken by surprise. Given that particular

minister's penchant for long-winded addresses to this House, I thought

he'd be good for at least another hour. I knew that in the first 20

minutes he never says anything, so there wasn't any point in being in

the House.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Now be kind.

MR. LEGGATT: I will be.

Mr.

Chairman, there must be a great urgency to get the minister's estimates

through, in view of his short, pithy and to-the-point remarks.

The

one thing I did hear was that things have never been better in the

province of British Columbia. I don't know. I'd just like to look at

some of the things that this minister's government puts out, and

examine them. Let's look at the labour force statistics. In this

current report of May 1979, issued by the Ministry of Labour, the

labour force is 1,232,000 and the unemployment rate for May was 8.3

percent. There was a change from April, up from 8.2 percent. British

Columbia continues to have the worst record of unemployment in the

country outside of the Maritimes and Quebec.

Now I can't

conceive of a minister who gets up and tells us everything is coming up

roses and doesn't mention the unemployment rate in the province of

British Columbia. We have one of the worst records in finding jobs of

any province.

My colleague for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke)

quite rightly pointed out that if it wasn't for the Canadian dollar,

which has had the impact on the forest industry, there wouldn't be a

Social Credit government here today. You can thank the depressed dollar

on the world market for your success, gentlemen, because it certainly

had nothing whatsoever to do with what this government did.

don't want to get into a long debate about the state of the economy.

The economy is not in good shape. The economy is in bad shape. Nearly

one out of ten people can't find a job. Ask any young person in this

province what the economy is like. Ask how easy it is to find a job.

And they're looking, Mr. Minister; they're out there trying to find

jobs that don't exist.

MR. BRUMMET: They don't look in the right places.

MR. LEGGATT: They do look in the right place.

AN HON. MEMBER: Every one of them is lazy.

MR. LEGGATT:

How many jobs have you got up north? Mr. Chairman, I am told by my

friends in the government that all they have to do is go to look for