1978 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MAY 16, 1978

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1421 ]

CONTENTS

Privilege

Conduct of public accounts committee. Mr Gibson –– 1421

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 1422

Mr. Speaker rules –– 1424

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Highway Act (Bill M 208) Mr. Barnes.

Introduction and first reading –– 1424

Bikeways Development Act (Bill M 209) Mr. Barber.

Introduction and first reading –– 1424

Oral questions

Applications for "F" marine public house licences. Mr. Levi ––

Recognition for New Westminster Bruins. Mr. Loewen –– 1425

Drug treatment centre at Brannan Lake. Mr. Stupich –– 1425

Directives to Crown counsel. Mr. Stephens –– 1426

False Creek group home. Ms. Brown –– 1426

Eviction order on Rogers heritage site. Mr. Barnes –– 1427

Preservation of passenger service on E & N Railway. Mr. Skelly ––

Revenue Surplus of 1976-77 Appropriation Act, 1978 (Bill 5) Committee stage.

section 3.

Mr. Gibson –– 1428

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 1428

Division on third reading –– 1429

Pari Mutual Betting Tax Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 6) . Committee stage.

section 1.

Mr. Stephens –– 1429

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 1429

Division on

Section –– 1429

Report and third reading –– 1429

Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 7) . Committee stage.

section 6.

Mr. Macdonald –– 1429

Mr. Gibson –– 1431

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 1431

Mr. Macdonald –– 1432

Mr. Stephens –– 1433

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 1433

Mr. Macdonald –– 1433

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 1433

Division on

section 6 –– 1433

Report and third reading –– 1434

Social Services Tax Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 8) . Committee stage.

section 7.

Mr. Gibson –– 1434

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 1434

Mr. Lauk –– 1436

Mr. Macdonald –– 1436

Mr. Stephens –– 1436

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 1437

Division on third reading –– 1437

Cigarette and Tobacco Tax Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 9) . Committee stage.

Division on third reading –– 1437

Municipalities Aid Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 10) Committee stage.

section 2 as amended.

Mr. Barber –– 1438

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 1438

Report stage –– 1439

Committee of Supply: Ministry of the Provincial Secretary and Travel Industry estimates.

On vote 194.

Mr. Barnes –– 1440

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 1440

Mr. Strongman –– 1442

Ms. Brown –– 1443

Mrs. Dailly –– 1444

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 1445

Mr. Gibson –– 1447

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 1448

Mr. Stephens –– 1451

On vote 197.

Mrs. Dailly –– 1451

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 1451

On vote 200

Mrs. Dailly –– 1451

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 1452

On vote 203.

Ms. Brown –– 1452

On vote 204.

Mrs. Dailly –– 1452

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 1452

On vote 205.

Mrs. Dailly –– 1452

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy .. –– 1452

On vote 216.

Mrs. Wallace –– 1453

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy . –– 1453

On vote 219.

Mr. Rogers –– 1453

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 1453

Presenting reports.

Consumer credit and debtor assistance branch annual report. Hon. Mr. Mair ––

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. KERSTER : Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to extend a very warm welcome to Mr. Planedon and 35 students from Port Coquitlam Senior Secondary School, who are presently in the gallery.

Mr. Speaker, during the course of the afternoon, as gallery space becomes available, Mr. Woodham and 50 to 60 grade 11 students from Port Moody Senior Secondary School will be in attendance. I would also ask all members to make them welcome in advance.

MS. SANFORD : Seated in the members' gallery today are Mayor Gilbert Popovich of Alert Bay and from Campbell River, Sharon Beggs, who is in charge of public relations and administration for Gulf Air Aviation, and Don Braithwaite, who is the president of Gulf Air Aviation. I would ask the House to give them a warm welcome.

MR. HADDAD : Mr. Speaker, in the Speaker's gallery today is a very good friend of mine, and a hard-working Social Crediter. His name is Clarence Backstrom and he is from Kimberley, where he has lived since 1924. He is also the regional director for Social Credit in area No. 6. Would the House please make him welcome.

MR. STEPHENS : Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today is a constituent of mine, Mr. Bruce Miller, with his friend from Vernon, Mr. Richard Betcher. Both, I believe, are making their first appearance in the House today and I would ask everybody to make them both welcome.

HON. MR. BAWLF : Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome 34 members of the Memorial University chamber choir of St. John's, Newfoundland, led by the Rev. John Tupper. This group is traveling across the country giving concerts in which the theme of their music is national unity. They will be performing tonight at the First Baptist Church in Victoria. I would ask the members to make them welcome.

Also seated in the gallery today is Mr. Aneurin Williams who is the president

of the Newport Rugby Club from Wales. They're the Welsh club champions.

They're playing four games in our province against some of our very good

teams and I must say they're faring better than we might like, but I know

all members would wish to make Mr. Williams welcome and extend their best wishes

to the club.

MR. GIBSON : Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise on a question of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER : Please state the matter.

MR. GIBSON : Mr. Speaker, this question is founded on certain events of this day which I will describe, and which are unprecedented. The following citation is from May, 18th edition, page 132:

"It may be stated generally that any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results, may be treated as a contempt, even though there is no precedent of the offence." The events in question are as follows:

On April 10, as recorded in Votes and Proceedings of this House, upon the

motion of the Hon. Evan Wolfe the House ordered that lithe public accounts

for the fiscal year 1976-77 be referred to the Select Standing Committee on

Public Accounts and Economic Affairs."

The committee was thereby charged by order of this House to investigate

any and all items arising out of the named public accounts.

By what is now well-established tradition in this House, the public accounts

committee is chaired by a member of the opposition in order that the direction

of the committee shall not be entirely under the control of the government.

It is well established that a committee cannot of its own accord vary a

reference from the Whole House - which reference was given -either to expand

or restrict that reference.

Acting under the terms of standing order 72 of this House and the order

of reference to this House, the chairman of the public accounts committee

arranged for the presence this morning before the committee of Mr. R.T. Green,

a public servant of the province of B.C. now and during the period of the

referred public accounts.

By action of the government majority in the committee, I was blocked from

asking questions of fact from Mr. Green with respect to the fiscal year under

investigation. The questions were not in any way related to current events,

negotiations or matters of policy. They related simply to ascertain whether

[ Page

1422 ]

not statements that the Premier had made in the House last August 9 were

correct - namely, that the government was well prepared in its responsibilities

for the Alcan pipeline, and the studies had been underway since November,

1976, within the fiscal year ordered by this House to be examined.

1 was denied the opportunity to ask questions, even in camera, of the public

servant who knows the facts of the case.

In short, acting under an order of the House, the chairman called a witness

and the government majority of the committee refused to allow a hearing.

The means of enforcing this refusal was through an unprecedented motion

passed by the government majority that the opposition chairman leave the chair,

which amounts to closure.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please, hon. member. If I may interrupt the proceedings, matters of a committee, matters assigned to a committee and procedures of a committee ought best to be handled by the committee. We have a series of Speaker's decisions, I think, to which I could refer - not immediately, but certainly given a little time - which would bring to the House's attention that this is the practice of the House. I would caution the member that although it may appear to be a matter of privilege to him, this is a matter which ought to be solved in the committee itself.

MR. GIBSON : Mr. Speaker, I have just one more paragraph. Would you then like to take it under advisement?

MR. SPEAKER : Hon. member, the matter that the member seeks to bring to the House's attention by virtue of a matter of privilege is really a matter which must be solved in the committee and is out of order.

MR. GIBSON : What I was suggesting, Mr. Speaker, was that the committee was not in fact following an order of the House. I would have thought that was for Your Honour to adjudge and enforce.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please, hon. members. The Chair could reserve a decision on it. However, just from memory, I could perhaps give an opinion from May, which suggests that the scope of debate in a committee is to be determined by the committee itself, and the matter referred to a committee by the House is to be interpreted by the committee itself. The only way the House can have knowledge of matters in committee is by virtue of either a report, an interim report, or a special report.

Now we must follow the rules of order for the House and I would suggest to the hon. member that the matter ought to be resolved in committee.

MR. BARRETT : Mr. Speaker, before you make a ruling as to whether or not this is indeed a matter of privilege, I draw to your attention that the hon. member, to my listening, was not complaining about orders in committee but was complaining about the fact that committee was not able to function properly.

I respectfully bring to your attention the fact that it is indeed offensive to the rules of this House to deal with matters in committee. But this member has raised a matter of privilege related to his views of his privilege, and therefore I submit that he has a right to state something that he feels is a matter affecting his privilege. Whether or not it is affecting his privilege is for the Chair to determine after hearing the case, and I respectfully submit that before ruling is given his case be heard, and then the citations be given for a decision after consideration of his reasons.

MR. SPEAKER : Hon. members, perhaps it would be acceptable to follow my first suggestion, and that was that I would reserve a decision and perhaps listen to the matter to its conclusion, the member having stated that he is nearly to the end.

MR. GIBSON : Mr. Speaker, the only other thing that I wanted to say is that I have considered various ways of bringing this situation to Your Honour's attention. Since as yet we have no ruling on the question of privilege, an emergency debate was not a timely motion. But I do seek a ruling on the question of privilege and if Your Honour does rule that there is a prima facie question of privilege I have a motion that I would be prepared to move.

MR. SPEAKER : Thank you, hon. member. Perhaps, having reviewed the subject and the matter raised by the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano, we could return to the House with a decision. The member says he is prepared with the motion; he has it in hand.

HON. MR. McGEER : Mr. Chairman, may I ask in considering this matter of privilege if you would take into consideration further matters that took place in that committee that were not referred to by the member at the time he raised the question of privilege with you?

Since you have no knowledge of these other

[ Page

1423 ]

matters, it would be appropriate that you be able to take these into consideration.

The member in question who feels his privilege has been abused was questioning

a witness who is a civil servant before the committee. That civil servant, Mr.

Speaker, and that witness specifically asked for the protection of his own position

- and to a certain extent, that of the government's position - because it

was his opinion that he was being asked questions of policy for which he ;,

as not responsible.

Mr. Speaker, I'm quoting from the Hansard transcript of the public accounts meeting this morning. I would further ask....

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please, hon. member. I think that it is in order when a point of privilege is raised in this House for the Chair to listen to an observation from the opposite side of the House. This is in order. However, when we get into the actual procedure of the committee, I think it is beyond the scope of that explanation. Perhaps when the matter is being considered, the references to which you are now referring can be considered as well.

HON. MR. McGEER : But Mr. Speaker, there is an ancillary question of privilege that's involved here that I would like to raise with you. That is the fact that when a motion was made by myself as a member of the committee, I hope having equal privileges with the member who raised the question of privilege, that motion to protect the civil servant who asked for this protection from the committee was in fact found out of order by the Chairman of the committee, when the motion itself was clearly in order.

MR. BARRETT : On a point of order, I would ask clearly your ruling as to whether or not the question of privilege, which is a separate matter from the details that led to the question of privilege, shall be debated at this time. If indeed it is, then I think we should go ahead and debate it. Otherwise, sir, I respectfully submit that we wait for your ruling.

MR. SPEAKER : Perhaps we could conclude the matter before us. The Chair will undertake to review the matter and return to the House with a decision, particularly as the matter of privilege.

MR. NICOLSON : Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to file the first report of the public accounts and economic affairs standing committee.

Leave granted.

SOME HON. MEMBERS : What report?

MR. SPEAKER : The Chair has no knowledge as to whether or not this is a report of committee. I must ask the member if it is a report of the committee or a report of the member of the committee.

MR. NICOLSON : Mr. Chairman, it is a report arising out of matters which happened in the committee.

SOME HON. MEMBERS : No!

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. Hon. members, let's resolve the matter quietly, if we may.

In May, 16th edition, under "Select Committees, " it clearly outlines for all members the method by which reports are made to the House. Under "Special Reports" it says, at page 639:

"Besides the report, properly so called, relating to the subject matter referred to the committee, it is frequently necessary for a committee to make what is termed a special report in reference to some matter incidentally arising, relating to the powers, the functions or the proceedings of a committee."

I would like to draw to the attention of all members that this is a report of a committee and not of a member of a committee. Therefore I must insist that this be a report of the committee before it can be heard.

MR. NICOLSON : Mr. Speaker, I would draw your attention to the 19th edition of Sir Erskine May, page 621, which says: "A standing committee has no power to punish one of its members or any other person for disorderly words, contemptuous conduct or any other offence committed against it, but can only report the offence to the House."

As the entire government side was in contempt of the Chair during the proceedings today, and as two persons in particular were in violation of standing order 16 (2) of our House, refusing to vote during a division....

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please, hon. member. This is beside the question that has been asked. Is this a report of the committee or is this a report of a member of the committee?

MR. NICOLSON : This is the chairman's report, signed by myself.

MR. SPEAKER : I'm afraid that the only report that can be accepted in the House is a report of the committee, unless it is agreed by the House that we do otherwise.

[ Page 1424 ]

MR. LAUK : A point of order, Mr. Speaker, this is a report of the Chairman.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER : HON. members, the first member for Vancouver Centre is on a point of order. Please proceed.

MR. LAUK : Mr. Speaker, when there is disorder in the House and when there are obvious breaches of standing orders, the Speaker deals with them directly in accordance with his office. When such occurs in Committee of the Whole or in select standing committees, that conduct which the chairman finds to be offensive to the standing orders must be reported to the House and to the Speaker of the Legislature.

I can refer to the conduct of committees, really referring to the Committee of the Whole, but as Mr. Speaker knows, those rules apply to select standing committees as stated in Standing order 61 (3):

"The Chairman shall maintain order in the Committee of the Whole House, deciding all questions of order subject to an appeal to the House without the committee rising; but disorder in a committee can only be censured by the House on receiving a report thereof. Words used in committee to be reported to the House must be taken down in writing."

Mr. Speaker, further on select standing committees, standing order 71 (

l) says:

"The standing orders of the House shall be observed in the select standing and special committees to the same extent as the same may be applicable to the Committees of the Whole House."

MR. CHAIRMAN : The point is well received. However, the procedure for a committee bringing to the House any matter regarding procedure or matters under consideration can only be brought to the House by matter of a report from the committee - either a report, an interim report or a special report. Those are the rules of the House.

MR. BARRETT : On a point of order, recognizing the ruling that does exist about the conditions to bring in a report, the hon. member got up and asked leave of the House, and leave was granted.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER : Hon. members, order, please. I think we can resolve the matter without having any great raucous occasion in the House.

Please remember, hon. members, that the member addressed the Chair and asked for leave to bring a report of the committee. The Chair had no knowledge as to whether or not it is a report of the committee or of the member's or not.

However, objection was taken, and the objection was not as to whether or not the report could be made but as to whether or not the report was that of the committee. According to the rules of the House and the citations which I have already given to the House from May, it must be a report from the committee. I would humbly suggest that if this report is to be made to the House, members take it back to the committee where it should be resolved and bring it to the House as a motion of the House. That ends the matter.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE HIGHWAY ACT

On a motion by Mr. Barnes, Bill M 208,

an Act to Amend the Highway Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BIKEWAYS DEVELOPMENT ACT

On a motion by Mr. Barber, Bill M 209, Bikeways Development Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

APPLICATIONS FOR 'T' MARINE

PUBLIC HOUSE LICENCES

MR. LEVI : I have a question for the Minister of Consumer Affairs, Mr. Speaker. On April 20,1978, cabinet approved an order-in-council dealing with "F" marine public house licences. On April 24,1978, a letter was sent to Mair, Horne & Janowsky at 305-186 Victoria Street, Kamloops, granting a pre-clearance of a site owned by the applicants, All Sports Marine, Incorporated, whose directors include Mr. R.D. Janowsky, a partner in the minister's former law firm. Four other directors are also called Janowsky.

Now can the minister give an explanation to the House how such an application %, ms received with such swiftness that it's broken all records, I think, in the history of any department? Four days after the order-in-council

[ Page 1425 ]

was passed, it went to a company which is registered to the minister's former law firm, and one of his partners is one of the principals in the company.

HON. MR. MAIR : Mr. Speaker, I'm very glad to speak out in favour of the efficiency in the liquor control and licensing branch, and let me make this observation and correction of the member opposite. Mr. Janowsky is not my partner and has not been my partner since December 22,1975; 1 have no business association with him of any kind or shape whatsoever. As a matter of fact I signed a restrictive covenant not to practice law within five miles of his law practice in December, 1975.

Now in anticipation of this question, Mr. Speaker, because I did read an editorial in a paper of Gibson's Landing, I checked with Mr. Woodland of the liquor control and licensing branch. I understand that Mrs. Janowsky Sr., who is the mother of the lawyer involved, an old-age pensioner and, I understand, a constituent of the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) , and, as matter of fact, a supporter of the NDP for 30 years ....

But in any event she made an application through her son in July, 1977, for a neighbourhood pub licence. They received no affirmative word until April of this year, when shortly after the marine pub licence went in, they applied immediately for that type of licence because it seemed appropriate, along with three or four other applications which are on file from marine pubs or from marinas. It was granted.

That's all I know about it, but let me say this, Mr. Speaker: at no time have I exerted any influence of any kind whatsoever in this matter.

MR. LEVI : On a supplementary, I would point out to the minister at no time did I say that Mr. Janowsky was his partner. The minister misunderstood what I said. Now can the minister tell us whether Mr. Munkley, who signed the letter, was in touch with the minister regarding this matter?

HON. MR. MAIR : The answer is no.

MR. LEVI : On a further supplementary, can the minister tell the House whether he has instructed his staff at any time that he should be informed about any matters which might raise questions of conflict of interest?

HON. MR. MAIR : The answer is yes.

RECOGNITION FOR

NEW WESTMINSTER BRUINS

MR. LOEWEN : Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation. In our neck of the woods, Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of a great hockey team by the name of the New Westminster Bruins and its very great coach, Ernie McLean.

MR. SPEAKER : To the question, please.

MR. LOEWEN : This team, Mr. Speaker, has appeared at the national junior championships for the fourth consecutive year and has twice become the national champion.

MR. SPEAKER : To the question, please.

MR. LOEWEN : Mr. Speaker, the question is whether the Minister of Recreation and Conservation has any special recognition planned for this great team and this great coach.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. The question is not in order.

DRUG TREATMENT CENTRE AT BRANNAN LAKE

MR. STUPICH : Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier. Can the Premier tell me when the decision was made to allocate the Brannan Lake site to the alcohol and drug commission of the Ministry of Health?

HON. MR. BENNETT : I'm not sure of the date, but it was before it

was announced.

MR. STUPICH : Mr. Speaker, a letter went to the steering committee reassuring them that many sites were being considered and that there would be ample opportunity to discuss this before the decision was made. That letter was dated April 26. Can the Premier tell me whether the decision was made before or after April 26?

HON. MR. BENNETT : Well, Mr. Speaker, I have no idea when the letter was dictated or who sent it. It was dated on the 22nd.

MR. STUPICH : Mr. Speaker, I did say that the letter was signed by a commissioner of the Alcohol and Drug Commission, and was dated April 26.

MR. SPEAKER : To the question. Oh, no question?

[ Page 1426 ]

The member for Oak Bay.

MR. STUPICH : Well, Mr. Speaker, the question was....

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. I've recognized the hon. member for Oak Bay.

MR. STEPHENS : I'll defer to the member if he wishes to continue.

MR. STUPICH : The question was whether or not the decision was made before or after that date of April 26.

HON. MR. BENNETT : Mr. Speaker, the decision was made by the government

some time before it was announced. It's a government decision that is in

place.

DIRECTIVES TO GROWN COUNSEL

MR. STEPHENS : My question is directed to the Attorney-General. In view of the very serious accusations that have been made by Peter Ritchie concerning the conduct of Grown counsel at a recent murder trial in Nanaimo, which you have undertaken to investigate - and I commend you for that - would you be prepared, if you have not already done so, to send a directive immediately to all Grown counsel under your command and jurisdiction making them fully aware of the purpose of the Crown disclosing the names of witnesses to defence -witnesses that the Grown chooses not to use?

HON. MR. GARDOM : That's an excellent point that the hon. member

has raised, but I do believe it is already contained in the handbook for counsel.

I will check that out, sir.

MR. STEPHENS : Mr. Speaker, I am aware of that and you are aware of that but obviously some of your Crown counsel are not aware of it. What I am asking you to do is remind them immediately because this is an extremely serious problem. Here is a man who could have been convicted of murder because of the withholding of evidence.

MR. SPEAKER : Hon. members, I think that it's time we took just a few minutes in question period to remind the members that the purpose of question period is to ask for information. It is not to make speeches nor to enter into debate, regardless of how short those statements may be. You seek the floor with a question and when I recognize you, I assume that you have a question. Please keep that confidence with the Chairman.

FALSE CREEK GROUP HOME

MS. BROWN : My question is directed to the Minister of Human Resources An arbitrary decision made by his ministry raised the room and board charge to the residents of the False Greek Handicapped Group Home from $126.25 a month to $201.50 a month, an increase of $75.25. The residents have opposed this increase and they have also opposed their residence being designated a long-term care facility. My question is: does a residence have the right to refuse to be designated a long-term care facility?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps it's the decision of both Health and Human Resources as to whether a particular facility be designated as long-term care or strictly a residential facility, depending on the type of service required in that particular facility. Negotiations have been going on. The facility was designated as a long-term care facility. However, negotiations have been going on with the residents. A meeting is scheduled for sometime in the next several weeks with the principals involved.

MS. BROWN : Mr. Speaker, the residents of the False Creek Group Home do not want to be designated a long-term care facility, because they are not sick. They are handicapped but they do not consider themselves sick.

MR. SPEAKER : To the question, please.

MS. BROWN : My question to the minister is: will he take this into account and not force this residence into being a long-term care facility? There are healthy people living in that residence.

MR. SPEAKER : The question is rhetorical, and simply asks for an assertion.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure that all people in all long-term care facilities are necessarily sick in the sense expressed by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard. There are a lot of people who are not necessarily sick in that sense but require a level of care that cannot be provided in a normal residential facility. The decisions that we're speaking of now are not made by a minister or ministers; they are made by very professional people in the field who have been there making these decisions for a good many years. And whatever the decision, we hope it will be in the best interest of the residents and not a matter of politics.

[ Page 1427 ]

MS. BROWN : Mr. Speaker, the False Creek Group Home is a non-profit society which was built in order to give these people a sense of their own independence. They are not getting any special kind of care, and they have indicated this to the minister. Will the minister allow them to decide for themselves whether they want the kind of care which is given under the long-term care facility, or will they be permitted to be allowed to remain as they are, which is a non-profit society? They were told by the minister's department that they had no option. Will you allow them that option?

MR. SPEAKER : Hon. members, this sounds like debate and not like question period, but the hon. minister may wish to reply.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Yes, again, Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps in fairness to the people resident in not only this facility but similar facilities, that if the procedure were followed as outlined or suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard we would find some of these people being moved from the facility. I think if we can somehow provide for these people in this type of setting, and if that requires designating the facility a particular way to assure that the services are provided that facility, then so be it. I'm interested in assuring that these people are given that independence for as long as possible.

MR. STEPHENS : On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I quite appreciate your comment that this is not a time for debate, but a time for questions, but I did ask the Attorney-General a question and he was about to answer it when Your Honour made the statement about debate. I think this is such a very important issue, with not only liberty but perhaps even life at stake, that I should be permitted to have an answer to that question.

MR. SPEAKER : I apologize if I interrupted a reasonable answer.

HON. MR. GARDOM : I responded to his question. What was the other one?

MR. STEPHENS : The supplementary question was: although it is in the handbook, do you feel the necessity now, in view of the circumstances, to remind Crown counsel of the existence of the rule?

HON. MR. GARDOM : We shouldn't prejudge the matter. And with every respect, you may be doing that and you may be correct. But I don't think under the circumstances it's fair to prejudge. I'd say that certainly it's a matter that is and should be brought to the attention of Crown counsel, but I can assure you, sir, it's been the practice as long as you and I have been practising law that this is the general practice.

MR. STEPHENS : I appreciate that statement, and I'm not prejudging. The Attorney-General is quite right; it should not prejudge. But the fact of the matter is, Mr. Attorney-General, through the Speaker, that if you do not remind Crown counsel of this problem, are you not concerned that it might repeat itself in the interim period while you're investigating it?

EVICTION ORDER ON

ROGERS HERITAGE SITE

MR. BARNES : Will the minister inform the House if he has rescinded an order of eviction by the Housing Corporation of British Columbia to small business tenants occupying its property on the Rogers heritage site located in the West End of the city of Vancouver?

MR. SPEAKER : To which minister is this question directed?

MR. BARNES : The Minister of Housing.

HON. MR. CURTIS : Mr. Speaker, as I understand the question, it was: have I rescinded it? No, I have not.

PRESERVATION OF PASSENGER

SERVICE ON E & N RAILWAY

MR. SKELLY : I have a question to the Premier as Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications.

The CPR has issued an order cancelling group tours on the Esquimalt and Nanaimo dayliner, effective June 19, in advance of shutting down passenger service on the line. Has the Premier taken any action to preserve passenger service on the E & N line other than the court case which appears to be having no effect?

HON. MR. BENNETT : Well, Mr. Speaker, I take some exception to the member prejudging a court case in which the hearing hasn't been held yet. The government is preparing its case. It's a ridiculous statement in itself. I'll take the rest of the question as notice.

Orders of the day.

[ Page 1428 ]

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM : Committee on Bill 5.

REVENUE SURPLUS OF 1976-77

APPROPRIATION ACT, 1978

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

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

MR. GIBSON : Yesterday, on second reading, I asked the minister upon closing second reading to give this House an assurance that an accounting will be presented for this bill not only in financial terms but in terms of jobs actually created. We have had various figures put before this House as to the numbers of jobs that might be created.

I would like a guarantee from the minister that at or before the time of the budgetary presentation next year, he will account to this House as to not only the amounts of money actually expended under this Act but also the jobs actually created and the number of non-years actually created in order that we may more effectively judge how this programme works. Will the minister give that undertaking?

HON. MR. WOLFE : As the member knows, this

section 3 commits the government to account for the moneys expended to Her Majesty.

The member is asking whether some accounting for jobs and the effect of the programme could be put forward at the point of time in next year's budget presentation. With every respect, I would think that would be somewhat premature. The programme will run through to the end of March, 1979, and there will be expenditures taken back in fact from April associated with the previous year, which is the normal year-end cut-off. So I would think the availability of that information would be sometime after that point in time.

I can certainly say that there will be a report made to the Legislature at the earliest opportunity on the results of the programme. Certainly the financial terms are required by the Act, and whatever information we're able to put together from it. Some of the information might be difficult to put down in exact numbers in terms of jobs, but I believe the estimates which we have put forward are conservative and are the best that we can come up with at this point.

MR. GIBSON : I'm still not clear. He says there definitely will be an accounting at some time of a financial nature. What I want is a guarantee that the report will also account for the number of man-years actually created. It is only by that kind of post facto measure, that kind of historic look that we in this House are able to assess the validity of future promises with respect to job creation. It's very important we have a measurement of that.

Will the minister account for this piece of legislation not only in terms of dollars but in terms of man-years of jobs actually created? It seems to me that's a reasonable request.

HON. MR. WOLFE : Mr. Chairman, I was trying to say that within the limitations of the fact that this would have to be somewhat of an estimate, I think we certainly can provide that information.

Section 3 approved.

Title approved.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN : Without amendment? There were no amendments moved in committee.

HON. MR. WOLFE : Yes, there was. There was an amendment yesterday.

MR. CHAIRMAN : If the committee will bear with the Chair for just one minute....

HON. MR. WOLFE : Mr. Chairman, with leave of the House, I'd like to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper, having to do with

section 2.

Leave granted.

MR. CHAIRMAN : On orders of the day, on page 8, it would indicate at

section 1, line 2.

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

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

[ Page 1429 ]

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 5, Revenue Surplus of 1976-77 Appropriation Act, 1978, reported complete with amendment.

MR. SPEAKER : When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. WOLFE : By leave now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 5, Revenue Surplus of 1976-77 Appropriation Act, 1978, read a third time and passed unanimously on a division.

HON. MR. GARDOM : Committee on Bill 6, Mr. Speaker.

PARI MUTUEL BETTING TAX

AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

The House in committee on Bill 6; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

section 1.

MR. STEPHENS : Just very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I have no intention of supporting this

section or this Act. It's a pretence, it's a crumb off a plate. It's not enough and it will do the breeders very little good. I want to preface my vote with those remarks that this Act simply fails to recognize the requirements of the racing industry as a whole.

HON. MR. WOLFE : Mr. Chairman, as mentioned yesterday, I don't think that view corresponds with many who are involved in racing and certainly does not correspond with the members of the Racing Commission. I wouldn't call the gesture of $500,000 a year reduced from the government revenues as a crumb off a plate.

Section I approved on the following division:

YEAS - 49

Hewitt

McClelland

Williams

Mair

Bawlf

Nielsen

Vander Zalm

Davidson

Davis

Haddad

Kahl

Kempf

Kerster

Lloyd

McCarthy

Phillips

Gardom

Wolfe

McGeer

Chabot

Curtis

Fraser

Calder

Shelford

Jordan

Smith

Bawtree

Mussallem

Loewen

Veitch

Strongman

Gibson

Lauk

Nicolson

Lea

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Barrett

Macdonald

Levi

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

NAYS - I

Stephens

Mr. Lauk requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Leave granted.

Section 2 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 6, Pari Mutuel Betting Tax Amendment Act, 1978, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Leave granted for division to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM : Committee on Bill 7.

CORPORATION CAPITAL TAX

AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

The House in committee on Bill 7; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

section 6.

MR. MACDONALD : Mr. Chairman, here on a sleepy afternoon we're passing retroactive tax legislation - for no good reason in this case, and under the most peculiar circumstances that have ever come to my attention. Now there are occasions where a minister announces in advance that there is going to be legislation in the fiscal tax field. He gives business an

[ Page 1430 ]

opportunity to prepare for it and that legislation technically could be called retroactive - that does happen.

But in this case there's absolutely no excuse for the kind of fiscal tyranny that the Minister of Finance is engaged in. This section,

section 6, says that these taxing sections are going to come in on October 1,1977. Now you ask yourself why he picked that particular date. Why did the Minister of Finance pick October 1,1977 - about six months ago - to make this legislation retroactive to.

Well, you have to look at the history of the court proceedings. First, in 1976 you have this very question of what shall be counted as the paid-up capital of the companies for the purpose of this taxation, decided in court against the Minister of Finance by Mr. Justice Faulkner. At another stage the Minister of Finance said that was badly drafted wording, it was the NDP wording and so forth. I just pause for a moment to say that, if that was the case, then the Minister of Finance had his opportunity almost two years ago to bring in amending legislation, if he wanted to do so, and make that legislation prospective, not retroactive.

But then the case goes to the Court of Appeal of British Columbia. The Minister of Finance wins the case in the Court of Appeal. In other words, the promissory notes to the extent of about $8 million in the Canfor case - which is the one under discussion - were considered to be part of the paid-up capital of the company for the purpose of this Act. That decision is Canfor Limited versus the Minister of Finance of the province of British Columbia, and the judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal was February 18,1977.

Again the minister made no move to clean up the language of the Act. He was

satisfied with the court victory and he wanted to protect it. Now after that

date of October 1,1977, the Supreme Court of Canada heard the Canfor case, and

the Minister of Finance lost the decision in the Supreme Court of Canada on

November 23,1977. The amount of money wasn't very large in the case of that

company, but Canfor Limited had succeeded on its appeal in the courts of the

land. The minister now brings in an amendment, effective before the Supreme

Court of Canada decision, which, in effect, nullifies that decision - which

means that the company and the lawyers have spent money on an appeal for nothing.

This whisked out from the Supreme Court of Canada decision the very words they

were deciding the case on. It's virtually contempt of the judicial process

to allow the appeal to go ahead and then wipe out the decision, because the

Minister of Finance loses it, by retroactive tax legislation. I don't think

we've ever seen a situation where any government has stepped in in the court

proceedings and then, when they lose one, win one, and then they later lose

it again, reinstate the decision they won in the B.C. Court of Appeal by retroactive

legislation - just dated back to accommodate that situation.

Now what you are doing, Mr. Chairman, when you have this kind of retroactive tax legislation, even if it's for only six months, is telling the companies' auditors - and this involves a great many companies throughout the province of British Columbia - that the statements they've certified as to the obligations of the company, tax wise and otherwise, for the coming year are invalid. You can't expect those auditors to foresee that the government is going to pass retroactive tax legislation -no announcement to that effect had been made.

So the auditors' statement of the balance sheet has been declared by the Minister of Finance to be false because the tax imposition is now shown to be false - retroactively.

The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is watching and listening a little bit. But let me tell the Attorney-General that they had a conference in Nova Scotia - did they not? - of legislative drafting counsel - last year I think it was - where the very principle of retroactive tax legislation of this kind was condemned by the legislative counsel who were assembled there. And the Attorney-General -through the drafting office, the legislative counsel's office - is, in this Act, breaking those canons of legislative drafting which his own legislative office approved.

Any prospectus issued by any of these companies since the Supreme Court of Canada decision - relying on that decision, and attracting investment capital - has been declared to be false by the Minister of Finance. You've declared that anybody who invested in terms of what the law was in the last six months, in relation to our corporate capital gains tax, now finds that the situation has been retroactively changed and the tax imposition under this Act increased on the company in which that investor invested.

So what the Minister of Finance is doing by this kind of retroactive legislation - I say "this kind"; I know there may be exceptions, and there are when you announce something ahead of time - is destroying business certainty and confidence. He's interfering in the auditing process. He's interfering in the investing process. He's interfering in the matter of prospectuses that are issued by

[ Page 1431 ]

companies in faith upon the law as it stands, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada. I think, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Finance is showing contempt for the Supreme Court of Canada by simply nullifying their decision in this way, by neatly making the retroactive date just prior to the Supreme Court of Canada decision which the minister lost. I say this is a kind of fiscal tyranny.

You know, we're not dealing with very large sum of money. We're dealing with the definition of the paid-up capital of a not very large company, but the principle is a vicious one - that that kind of legislation should be made retroactive. I think the minister has got a lot to answer for. They used to say that we destroyed business confidence. Nothing could destroy business confidence to the extent the minister is doing here, by retroactively overturning a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, upon which people were entitled to rely.

Even if it is only Canfor Limited and the other companies that issued prospectuses and had audited statements, all of those statements have been shaken by what the minister has done by this section.

I am saying to him that if you want to change the basis on which the paid-up capital is to be calculated, fine, but do it as of the date the bill was introduced; don't to it retroactively. That's all we're saying. We're objecting to those words "October 1,1977."

MR. GIBSON : Well, Mr. Chairman, I hope that the minister will try and give some kind of justification for what he's asking this Legislature to do. He's nodding his head that he intends to. I would like to hear it.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

HON. MR. WOLFE : Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned in opening second reading on this bill yesterday, retroactive taxation legislation is not new in British Columbia or in any province of Canada. In fact I have here a list of some 12 retroactive amendments of taxation legislation in the last five years. Some are of a different nature, some of them could be called quite similar to that which we are looking at today. But what I would like to say is that all taxation legislation is a constant target of taxation lawyers and accountants; they make their living, after all, in this game.

Now I'm not objecting to this, except that we have a responsibility in government to protect our revenues, to have the legislation clear cut so that the manner in which legislation is being assessed is clear at all times.

This is a continuous process, is it not, Mr. Member, to refine legislation

and to make it very clear what the intention of the Act is? In fact the corporation

capital tax has been assessed in the same manner since 1973 - the legislation

was introduced by your government, Mr. Member - and since that time has been

assessed to include loans against working capital in the same manner and is

assessed in this manner in other provinces such as Manitoba, which has corporation

capital tax. Now the revenue implications of ignoring this particular feature

of corporation capital tax assessment are very sizable. In fact to ignore the

retroactive feature would cost something like $20 million of revenues. We cannot

overlook this.

So I think it behooves us to consider prior amendments of this nature and to first of all mention the fact that retroactive taxation amendments fall into two categories. One of them is a legislative clarification of an established taxing practice which has been carried on in the past, and that is the term in which I describe this particular amendment.

Let me mention two prior amendments, some of them falling under the regime of the former government. One of them is an amendment to the Mining Tax Act of 1975 assented to June 26,1975, to allow royalties to be deducted from income effective May 6,1974.

MR. GIBSON : How did your party vote on that?

HON. MR. WOLFE : I'll leave that to you, Mr. Member, to draw attention to, if you wish. Nevertheless, it was a government amendment, one of 12 1 have in front of me.

Here is another one. On November 7,1973, there was an amendment to the Coloured Gasoline Tax Act. Natural gas used in an internal combustion engine in the pumping station of a pipeline would be subject to tax effective April 18,1973. That was something like eight or nine months retroactive.

And there's just one last one I would like to mention: the Logging Tax Act, 1973, assented to April 18,1973, after a court case, Mr. Member, to clarify that the Act included processing of products from logs. It was retroactive to January 1. 1972.

Now as I said yesterday, just to remind the members of this House, this particular taxation was introduced in 1973 and it imposes a tax of one-fifth of I per cent on capital used by a company to carry on its business in British Columbia. The base for capital taxable under the Act is comprised of share capital, surpluses, reserves, sums or credits advanced or loaned by shareholders, and all indebtedness represented by bonds, mortgages, lien

[ Page 1432 ]

notes, and any other securities to which the property of the corporation is subject.

This recent court case, the Canfor case decision, substantially reduced the base of this assessment on which the tax is calculated by ruling that only share capital, surpluses and any other loans or financing of a capital nature which were for borrowings for fixed assets were subject to tax under the present Act. This has eliminated, in effect, all borrowings for current working capital purposes and would result in the revenue from the tax being severely reduced. Therefore this amendment was proposed to clearly state that the tax base includes all borrowings.

These amendments are effective, as I've indicated, October 1,1977. They do not impose any new tax, but are for the purpose of confirming the application of the tax in the past.

So as I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, in my view we have a responsibility to protect this very sizable revenue by clarifying the Act.

MR. GIBSON : Mr. Chairman, if we are to accept the argument of the Minister of Finance.... lie is asking this House to endorse the proposition that one bad turn deserves another ' that one injustice justifies another. To me it is absolutely completely incredible that he should be using actions of the former government, a government that in normal circumstances he never ceases to castigate for its every particular deed, as justification for the particularly upsetting piece of work he is doing here.

He speaks of legislative clarification. Surely clarification of the legislation was effected by the courts, up to and including the Supreme Court of Canada. What the minister is seeking to do with this bill is more the goal posts.

HON. MR. WOLFE : You're seeking to give away $20 million.

MR. GIBSON : You’re seeking to move the goal posts, Mr. Minister,

through you, Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry the Attorney-General has left because

I remember when he was on this side of the House. I'm surprised he let this

bill get through if he had any control over it. When he was on this side of

the House, he was always and completely opposed to retroactive legislation,

and so he should be. To be otherwise really, to me, amounts to contempt of court

in many countries, and it should be in our country if only we had an entrenched

bill of rights. This kind of thing is just plain, flatly unconstitutional because

it is moving the goal posts.

What does this eventually do to the rule of law in the field of taxation, Mr. Chairman, I ask you? Who will bother to take questions of tax law to court no matter what injustice is involved if the common apprehension is that if the taxpayer loses, he loses, and if he wins he loses too, because the government just changes the rules retroactively.

The implications that this has for the general concept of the rule of law in our society, which can only satisfactorily work if they're founded on trust and respect, are to me very alarming. I say that the minister is very wrong, not just in this bill but in another one we'll get to in a few minutes, I suppose, in retroactively, as I say, moving the goal posts. I oppose this completely and absolutely. The minister is wrong.

MR. MACDONALD : I'd just like to say one or two more things. The minister refers to this kind of legislation in the past. I don't know of any legislation where you interpolated your retroactive date right after you'd won a court decision in the court of appeal and before you lost it in the Supreme Court of Canada. Even if it's a matter of the court costs of Canfor - maybe we shouldn't shed tears for a big company they went ahead in good faith and spent a lot of money - are you going to refund their lawyers' fees on their appeal in which they were successful? The minister shakes his head.

Well, that's not a very big matter, but they've been put to expense in the expectation that if they did win in the Supreme Court of Canada, the decision would mean something to them. Now it's stripped away.

I don't know about the other cases that the minister mentions - the coloured gasoline situation - and whether that was announced in advance. As I said, there may be exceptions in the case of retroactive legislation as long as you give people adequate notice so that business can govern itself accordingly and understand what the rules of government are going to be. But this Minister of Finance has had two years since he lost the case before Mr.

Justice Fulton to clarify the language or at least to make a public announcement that if it were not upheld in the court of appeal, they were we're going to change it, or if they were not upheld in the Supreme Court of Canada, we're going to change it. Then there'd be some certainty out in the business community. But the minister just sat back. Then when he lost the final decision, he comes in retroactively. As I say, you've just upset all the balance sheets that have been certified for the sake of six months - October 1 last.

[ Page 1433 ]

I'm rather amazed at the figure of $20 million, because it's only for a period of six months. The total revenue from that tax does sound high to me. But whether it's high or low is not the point. The point is that the minister is embracing and defending and approbating the principle of retroactive tax legislation. That's what we're doing this afternoon. He is not making a special case at all, that it was announced in advance or anything of that kind. He is approbating what I think is a very dangerous legislative trend.

When somebody wins a court case, he's saying in effect: "I'll just lie in the weeds, and if I lose, I'll strip away your victory and you won't even get your court costs from the government." Now it's happening to a big company in this case, under this section, but it could happen to a little man. It's a very vicious principle.

MR. STEPHENS : Mr. Chairman, I'd just like briefly to go on record in this debate, as well, on this

section that I align myself totally with the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) and his position on this. It's quite clear that the only argument the minister can give in support of this legislation is, to use his own words, "the necessity to protect the revenue."

I think that it's a disgrace that this government should put aside such basic principles of justice for the sole purpose of protecting revenue.

HON. MR. WOLFE : The member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) referred to the fact that he didn't know whether prior amendments of this type had received advance notice. The very one I referred to earlier, the amendment to the Logging Tax Act, 1973, was after a court case. There was no advance notice indicated there. It's the very same type of amendment to clarify the Act.

I'm not trying to accuse anybody of an improper action. I'm not saying that it is not unprecedented. I have 12 different amendments of this type. If you went right across the provincial legislation in Canada and also the federal government, you would find similar retroactive amendments to taxation legislation.

Well , let's just remember the fact that this is a constant process of taxation lawyers pursuing this game of examining tax Acts for the benefit of their clients. That's their avocation, and I suppose the process will all go on to try to penetrate our tax Acts.

In the case of this amendment, in my view the retroactivity is not unfair as

the legislation does not actually change the tax application. This is the case

of all tax bills with retroactive provisions which are presently before the

House. In the case of this particular amendment, if it were to be ignored it

would have a major impact. It would be of help particularly to large institutions,

including banks, who would have the major benefit associated with this amendment

to the Act. And I think all members should recall the fact that there is a major

revision in the Act in favour of small business by changing the exemption level.

MR. MACDONALD : The minister says it doesn't change the tax application. That is just not the case. As found by the Supreme Court of Canada, the tax application is different from what we are doing here. Of course it changes the tax application.

HON. MR. WOLFE : It's how we've been applying the tax.

MR. MACDONALD : It's how you have been applying it, but you are applying it wrongly. The courts found that you were not carrying out the intention of the Legislature in the way it had been applied. This is retroactive legislation. I don't think it has been justified.

Section 6 approved on the following division:

YEAS - 29

Waterland

Hewitt

McClelland

Williams

Mair

Bawlf

Nielsen

Vander Zalm

Davis

Haddad

Kahl

Kempf

Kerster

Lloyd

McCarthy

Phillips

Wolfe

McGeer

Chabot

Curtis

Fraser

Calder

Shelford

Jordan

Bawtree

Rogers

Mussallem

Loewen

Strongman

NAYS - 19

Stephens

Gibson

Lauk

Nicolson

Lea

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Barrett

Macdonald

Levi

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Mr. Gibson requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the

[ Page 1434 ]

House.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE : On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, is there some way we can record that the member for Vancouver East was defending Canfor?

MR. CHAIRMAN : No.

MR. MACDONALD : Does the minister want to start this debate all over again? We are talking about a principle; we're not talking about Canfor. What principle did the minister embrace on that division?

HON. MR. WOLFE : I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 7, Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 1978 reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Leave granted for division to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS : Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 8.

SOCIAL SERVICES TAX

AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

The House in committee on Bill 8; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

section 7.

MR. GIBSON : Mr. Chairman,

section 7 is another retroactivity clause. This one is even more retroactive than the one we just finished debating on the previous bill. I would like to ask the minister to justify to this committee the reasons for this

section noting that sections I and 4 should be deemed to have come in force on January 1,1975,

section 6 on April 1,1975, and the other sections on April 10,1978, which is all right. But here we have sections dating back three years.

I want to know from the minister why this kind of retroactivity is in this bill.

HON. MR. WOLFE : Mr. Chairman, this is basically the same requirement

as the previous amendment under the Corporation Capital Tax Act. In fact, the

Act has been assessed in this manner since 1948, having to do with catalogues,

timetables, paper products, et cetera. So the revenue implications of not correcting

it are very serious. They amount to some $20 million per year in the tax base

covered by social services tax.

MR. GIBSON : It was another court case. You lost another court case.

HON. MR. WOLFE : There was a court case involved in another province and other provinces are making similar amendments to this.

MR. GIBSON : Mr. Chairman, am I confused or 'is the minister? He said that the revenue implications in this bill are $20 million and he said the revenue implications in the last bill for retroactively are $20 million. Is it an equal amount in both?

HON. MR. WOLFE : That's an approximation. The revenue implications per annum in this amendment are something like $20 million. In the other bill, I should correct the information there. The retroactivity wouldn't involve $20 million. It is something less than that, but the ongoing implications are $20 million a year.

MR. GIBSON : Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister if he received a letter from the Retail Council of Canada with respect to the retroactivity of this

section of Bill 8 and, if so, how he replied to it.

HON. MR. WOLFE : The answer is yes, we did receive this letter.

MR. GIBSON : And how did you reply to it?

HON. MR. WOLFE : Mr. Chairman, the response, of course, was that the Act has always been assessed in this manner and there was no real injury to anybody involved.

MR. GIBSON : Well, Mr. Chairman, I would like to read portions of that letter into the record because I think that this kind of cause is just so serious that it should be placed on the public record so that those members of the government who choose to support retroactivity can be very clear about exactly what they are doing.

This is a letter from the Retail Council of Canada dated April 25. It's addressed to me but a copy is designated to the minister and I

[ Page

1435 ]

presume that an original was addressed to him too. I'm quoting now from page 2:

"We are extremely disturbed by the apparent intention of the Legislature to apply its provisions retroactively. To our knowledge, precedents for applying a tax in this way are scant and they certainly seem to be against the traditions of the democratic process. Surely it is in the tradition of the tax collection procedures of British Columbia and indeed the British parliamentary system that both tax collectors and taxpayers should accept laws as they were interpreted by the courts, even though these decisions my provide unexpected results for the tax collectors.

"The amendment, in our view, is questionable in its constitutionality. The bill will certainly encourage further litigation, presumably up to and including the Supreme Court of Canada level, and in the meantime will leave all retailers in doubt as to the position to be taken with regard to the proposed tax. This is costly to taxpayers and government alike and is completely unnecessary since the Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled in this area. In fact, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada stated:

"'However "consumer" is defined, it must be related to direct taxation and it would be strange indeed if, under the terms of a definition of "consumer, " a province could validly tax a seller or a distributor regardless of the subsequent impact of the general tendency of the tax. Constitutional limitations cannot be evaded by such a bootstrap exercise. This issue lurks in the present case but it is unnecessary to pursue it.'

"It seems pointless to provide taxpayers with a system to appeal tax disputes and then to attempt to reverse the effect of a court decision which a taxpayer legitimately has won. To do so makes a mockery of our system of justice."

Mr. Chairman, I could not more strongly support those sentiments. Once again

it is moving the goal posts. Once again it is changing the rules after the taxpayer

has successfully challenged those rules in court and won. It's changing

the rules after the courts have made their judgment, and that amounts to a contempt

of court, in my opinion - in moral terms, if not in legal terms. As I said before,

what does this do to eventually remove taxation from the field of the rule of

law? If every taxpayer has to expect that if in a consequential matter that

taxpayer is successful in a court action against the government, the government

will change the rules retroactively, then what taxpayer is doing to bother taking

things to court any more? When we have a system where Canadians don't feel

they can take things to court because even if they beat the government the rules

are going to be changed retroactively and they're going to lose anyway,

then I say that something very precious has gone out of our justice system.

I say to the minister that this kind of legislation is absolutely repugnant

to all the principles of justice in our system that we hold dear, and I condemn

it.

HON. MR. WOLFE : Mr. Chairman, that was a very good speech the member

made, about what I thought he would say. The point that is being ignored here

is that our Act is different than the Act in New Brunswick. New Brunswick is

where the court case took place. It was not ruled on constitutional grounds,

which is alluded to in this letter you were referring to, which is really beside

the point. It was not ruled on the basis of constitutional grounds. The ruling

was determined on the basis of who is a consumer in terms of their tax Act,

not ours.

Now in our view, our tax Act would not apply the same as New Brunswick's. We're simply wanting to make it very clear to the taxpayers of British Columbia that this would apply. It has no injury to anybody involved. It has not been challenged in the courts of British Columbia. We're simply wanting to make the Act perfectly clear on this point.

Once again I say that it was not decided in New Brunswick on the basis of a constitutional matter. It's a different Act than ours. Ontario is putting forward an identical amendment to this one. Saskatchewan has

an Act similar to ours and are not attempting to clarify theirs, but may well do.

MR. GIBSON : Well, Mr. Chairman, the minister has just told us that really this legislation will have no effect. In that case, why is he asking this House to pass a retroactive bill?

HON. MR. WOLFE : To make it very clear.

MR. GIBSON : He wouldn't be bringing this forward unless he thought there was some substance to it. The constitutional question, incidentally, which was referred to in that letter from the Retail Council of Canada, referred not to the previous court decision. It was simply a comment by the chief judge from the previous court decision which suggested that there might be ways of challenging the constitutionality of the Supreme Court of

[ Page 1436 ]

Canada with a new definition of "consumer, " which, in fact, was the vendor.

HON. MR. WOLFE : Mr. Chairman, I hope the member is not suggesting that we shouldn't always attempt to clarify our legislation. That's all we are attempting to do here -clarify it. I think that's being responsible.

MR. GIBSON : But not retroactively.

MR. LAUK : Mr. Chairman, the minister may have missed the hon. Liberal leader's point. Similarly, he's missed a point that was raised by me earlier with respect to the social services tax, which has been plaguing diabetics in the province of British Columbia for some time. I pointed out at the time that sales tax was applicable to the materials that are used by diabetics.

The minister quite wrongly informed the Legislature at the time, and I'm sure he was mistaken himself, that it would amount to under $10 a year for the diabetic. I'm informed by the Diabetic Association that in fact it means several hundred dollars a year to the diabetic who is subject to the sales tax in question. It is not enough to say that universal Pharmacare covers this expense. The complications involved in getting a refund by diabetics throughout the year, with proper receipts and bookkeeping, is a very confusing matter indeed.

HON. MR. WOLFE : On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, with respect, I think the matter the member is referring to does not pertain to the

section under discussion. We're dealing with the retroactivity of certain amendments here. He's dealing with a specific item of sales tax as it applies. I don't really think it is in order.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Your point is well taken, hon. minister.

MR. LAUK : Mr. Chairman, in answer to the point of order, I believe that the amendment should have been included in this bill and made retroactive.

MR. GIBSON : Order!

MR. LAUK : Well, I was thrashing around through the thing and couldn't think where I would raise it. But could you be kind enough to make some comment? There are about 75,000 to 80,000 diabetics, so far as the association knows, and it does amount to several hundred dollars a year.

Surely we can make amendments that will allow for these people who, through no fault of their own, have this tremendous extra expense. It's a medical expense, it's the kind of expense that the taxation policy of any party, whatever its political philosophy....

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please.

MR. LAUK : It's a taxation philosophy to relieve these people.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please, hon. member. Hon. member, please address the Chair. And when called to order, please refrain from continuing your debate. The subject, as you are well aware, is not in order under

section 7.

MR. MACDONALD : Well, I just want to support what was said by the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) . No money and no public revenue has been lost in this legislation - it may be similar to the New Brunswick case - so why make it retroactive? Why not just make it effective now? If you want to write a new

section to safeguard yourself in the future, let it be decided then. But I think it's the same principle we talked about under Bill 7, so I'm against it.

MR. STEPHENS : Mr. Chairman, I would also like to join in on this debate. It seems quite clear to me that the Minister does not appreciate the concept being discussed here. The fact of the matter is that if this legislation is to be made retroactive, that in itself is a recognition that some citizen or citizens of this province have a claim. There is no other reason why you would make it retroactive, except to shut out those existing claims. And you've totally ignored this position.

You're prepared to shut out with your legislation those citizens who have claims or might have claims and you justify it by talking about revenue. It really surprises me that you do not grasp that concept or, if you do 'grasp it, that you can so easily flick it aside.

You have seated right behind you the hon. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) who, when he sat on this side of the House, would have hit the roof with this kind of legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER : Oh, he's changed now.

MR. STEPHENS : And right beside him there is the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Mair) , a man who's also trained in the law and should appreciate what this is all

[ Page

1437 ]

about. I really don't understand how this government can handle this in such a cavalier fashion. And the reasons he gives are: first, we've got to protect the income and, second, it's been done before.

HON. MR. WOLFE : What's wrong with that?

MR. STEPHENS : Yes, but you cannot justify something just because it was wrong the last time. Each time you do that, you destroy this basic concept. It's a frightening situation, and I really feel that other members of your government should be heard; they should be standing up and fighting for this very basic principle.

AN HON. MEMBER : Power corrupts.

HON. MR. WOLFE : Mr. Chairman - in closing the debate - we went all over the explanation that this is a different Act in other provinces, and so on. The fact is that, as a result of the court case in New Brunswick, there have been a number of people inquiring about refunds. We want to clarify the position taken back in 1948. And I just say to you, Mr. Member - speaking now as the member of this government who is responsible for finances -that I have some responsibility to protect what is $20 million a year.

To belittle that, in terms of a taxation that has been administered in this manner for 30 years, and to say that somebody should be protected.... We want to make it very clear that this doesn't apply to people who are misunderstanding the court case in some other jurisdiction - it's simply a clarification amendment.

MR. STEPHENS : Mr. Chairman, I think that the minister should be prepared to set aside $100 million for the protection of the rights of one citizen; you cannot measure these rights with a lousy $20 million.

HON. MR. WOLFE : $20 million will take care of a lot of citizens.

MR. STEPHENS : Why sure, it'll take away a lot of rights of citizens too. It's quite clear that the minister is measuring rights by dollars and he simply should not be doing that.

MR. CHAIRMAN : I would ask the members to wait until they're recognized

when they stand, please.

Section 7 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 8, Social Services Tax Amendment Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on a unanimous division.

HON. MR. WOLFE : Committee on Bill 9, Mr. Speaker.

CIGARETTE AND TOBACCO TAX

AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

The House in committee on Bill 9; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 9, Cigarette and Tobacco Tax Amendment Act, 1978, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS - 45

Waterland

Hewitt

McClelland

Williams

Mair

Wallace

Nielsen

Vander Zalm

Davidson

Davis

Haddad

Kahl

Kempf

Kerster

Lloyd

McCarthy

Phillips

Wolfe

McGeer

Curtis

Fraser

Calder

Shelford

Jordan

Smith

Bawtree

Rogers

Mussallem

Veitch

Strongman

Stephens

Gibson

Lauk

Lea

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Barrett

Macdonald

Levi

Sanford

D'Arcy

Barnes

Brown

Barber

[ Page 1438 ]

NAYS

Lockstead

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

HON. MR. WILLIAMS : Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 10.

MUNICIPALITIES AID

AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

The House in committee on Bill 10; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Section 1 approved unanimously on a division.

section 2.

HON. MR. WOLFE : Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

section 2 as amended.

MR. BARBER : I have two general questions for the minister in regard to this bill. The first concerns the definition of provincial land, as it appears in

section 2. The thrust of the bill, which is commendable and is going to be supported by this opposition, is that provincial lands shall now be paying taxes at a rate equivalent to that that should have been paid were they in private hands. The bill itself, however, does not give a precise definition of the phrase "provincial land" and, indeed, we've already been informed that there will be some exemptions from that. So my first question to the minister is: could you tell us what your definition shall be as provided herein - or by the Assessment Act as you read it - of "provincial land" for the assessment and taxation?

HON. MR. WOLFE : Mr. Chairman, the definition is in the existing Act which, I believe, is before the member.

MR. BARBER : I checked with that Act, and I'm not at all satisfied with the definition. If the minister is not prepared to answer now in regard to the definition as he reads it in the extant Act, the Municipali ties Aid Amendment Act, then perhaps the minister could indicate to us which properties, if any, in the capital city are to be exempted for the purposes of this bill specifically? I've been told previously that the grounds of the Legislature themselves, the Provincial Museum and some other properties that have not yet been named shall be exempted for the purposes of this bill.

My question about definition is also a question about exemption. I should like the minister to tell the committee today which properties in the capital city shall be exempt from having to pay taxes as a result of the provisions of

section 2.

HON. MR. WOLFE : Mr. Chairman, the same buildings which qualified last

year would qualify this year. In general terms, that would be the Legislature,

Provincial Museum and three or four other more minor buildings in the vicinity.

But the buildings which are exempt from this application, as I am advised -

or at least properties - are those which are not in use generally.

MR. BARBER : So I take it then that the entire list last year upon which this tax was paid shall not be changed at all this year on the basis of the

section which we're now debating - that there's no change whatever to the list.

HON. MR. WOLFE : Yes, that is true, keeping in mind that most of the properties are now owned by the B.C. Buildings Corporation. So there are only those that remain in the Crown which still apply, which are the same ones that applied in that case last year.

MR. BARBER : I accept that answer. Thank you.

Now the second questions I have, of course, are the questions relating to whether or not Crown corporations shall also be governed by this. The minister assured the House yesterday when debating second reading of this bill that the British Columbia Buildings Corporation, which is now in fact the principal landlord of most provincial government buildings here in the capital and elsewhere, will itself, by policy, follow the commitment made implicitly in this. I want to ask whether or not the same policy commitment is now being made, or has been made, by other Grown corporations - particularly B.C. Hydro, B.C.

Rail and the British Columbia Ferry Corporation. Have commitments been made, or will they be made, to pay taxes on the equivalent basis as set forward in this legislation by other Crown corporations? If so, will the minister name the corporations? Then I have additional questions on that subject.

[ Page 1439 ]

HON. MR. WOLFE : Mr. Chairman, the policy in other Crown corporations differs from one to the other. So the answer is no to the question of whether they would adopt the same policy. I might say, just singling one out, that ICBC has had a similar policy of paying on the general rate. Of course, in this amendment before us we've added to the general mill rate, the mill rate associated with debt and the mill rate associated With the regional district.

MR. BARBER : I am aware of the ICBC policy as is the minister, because it was initiated under the previous government. It was good policy then and it is good now. What I want to be assured of from the minister is that there exists in writing - and if so, would the minister give us that assurance today - a minute passed by the board of directors of the B.C. Buildings Corporation, guaranteeing in writing that their taxes shall be paid on the equivalent basis as provided for in this legislation. IS there a minute and, if so, will the minister agree today to table it today or at some time in the very near future?

HON. MR. WOLFE : Mr. Chairman, with respect, I would suggest that question might be addressed to the minister responsible for the Buildings Corporation. I am advised directly that they are going to pursue that policy of paying on the basis of the same mill rate policy as has been adopted in this legislation, the very same.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The point is well made, however, that it would be better canvassed under another minister.

MR. BARBER : It is my understanding of the rules of committee, Mr. Chairman, that it would be possible to ask the Minister of Public Works to give an answer now, that he has, as much as any other member, a right to speak to this question.

MR. CHAIRMAN : We're not on estimates, though.

MR. BARBER : I quite appreciate that. But he, like any other member of

this House, has the right to speak to the question. I'm asking him if he

will exercise his right as a member of this House to provide an answer now to

a question that is of considerable importance in the capital city. So if I may

put the question again - if he doesn't answer, I realize he is under no

obligation to do so. To the Minister of Public Works responsible for the B.C.

Buildings Corporation, has there been a minute passed, or do you anticipate

that there will be, guaranteeing that the B.C. Buildings Corporation will pay

the tax equivalent were its property still owned by the province as provided

for in the bill which we are now debating? Would the Minister of Public Works

be willing to give that commitment today?

Well, okay, if he's not willing, then we will have to ask him during his estimates. But the question more broadly that I want to raise is this: does the minister anticipate, as the author of this bill, that we may hear of policy coming from other Crown corporations for which he may not be directly responsible that will commit them in principle to the same taxation status as this bill commits the government itself - and, I'm told, the British Columbia Buildings Corporation?

Does the minister anticipate as the senior author of taxation legislation in this province that other Grown corporations will in the near future take the same position that ICBC and apparently the B.D. Buildings Corporation have taken?

HON. MR. WOLFE : Mr. Chairman, with regard to the policy on other Crown corporations and other properties outside of the Crown, this has been a matter under the recommendations in the McMath report for one and has been under consideration of the property taxation committee of cabinet over a period of time. But no decision has been made with regard to other Crown corporations.

MR. BARBER : My final question: does this bill, in any possible

interpretation of it, affect the taxable status of the lands and properties owned by any of the corporations that have been transferred to the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation?

HON. MR. WOLFE : Mr. Chairman, no.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE : Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. SPEAKER : When shall the bill be considered as reported?

[ Page 1440 ]

HON. MR. WOLFE : With leave of the House, now, Mr. Speaker.

Bill 10, Municipalities Aid Amendment Act, 1978, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF THE

PROVINCIAL SECRETARY AND TRAVEL INDUSTRY

(continued)

On vote 194: minister's office, $212,278 -continued.

MR. BARNES : Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) if she could inform the House whatever happened to Mr. Harry Jerome. The hon. minister knows that Harry Jerome was an outstanding athlete. In fact, I was just going to refer to a statement by the minister in April, 1976, 1 think it was, when she appointed Mr. Jerome. She said:

"We must do more to train young people and to encourage young people to have a lifetime experience of sports, fitness and recreation in our province. To this end, Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce this evening that I have asked a very outstanding person in the field of physical education, recreation and sport in this province to undertake a close liaison with our department for the next few months to advise me and to advise the departments of government which have responsibility for recreation in this province.

"I have asked Mr. Harry Jerome, and he has accepted. This fine Canadian and fine athlete has accepted the responsibility and the challenge of giving to this government an organized programme of representation which will meld the departments responsible for recreation in our province - Health, Provincial Secretary, Education, Recreation and Travel Industry - and to incorporate such things as the outdoor recreation branch of the Recreation department, where we are committed to developing the outdoor recreation towards greater effectiveness and co-ordinating government involvement in outdoor recreation in the province.

"I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that the involvement of Harry

Jerome, in giving advice to me and our departments and in finding out where

we can much better involve young people in a lifetime recreation activity, will

see in the future no longer Empty ballparks and Empty parks, but involvement

of the schools, involvement at the park level, and involvement at the home level

in a lifetime sport activity.

I happen to know that Mr. Jerome, in the last couple of years since that six-month appointment, has been unemployed. Perhaps before I go any further maybe you could explain everything, and what happened to him. I just wondered if he had an offer to work for the government at any time after that appointment.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : Mr. Chairman, first of all may I concur with the remarks made by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre and also the press release which he read to the House. The Pacific National Exhibition board has the privilege of having Mr. Harry Jerome serve as a director on that board. At the present time I understand he is actively engaged in a very special committee in terms of sports activities, to report to his board at the PNE.

But in addition, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, this really doesn't come under my ministry. For the information of the hon. member, as I understand it, Mr. Jerome has been on a federal government programme and consultative role with the federal administration's fitness and sports program . Other than that information I can't get him up to date on Mr. Jerome's activities.

I do want to say though that it was not under the Provincial Secretary that Mr. Jerome was engaged. He was engaged on a six-month programme contract, and in the course of his duties under that particular contract he effectively, I believe, assisted us in some of the decisions that were made which saw at that time the reorganization of the Recreation ministry.

MR. BARNES : Thank you, hon. minister. One of my concerns was the fact that you had spoken of Mr. Jerome as being extremely qualified to do the work, and I would like to have you explain why it was that for about two years this person who is very qualified was unable to get any permanent work with the government.

As you know, he was going to be a candidate in the by-election in 1976 and had indicated his support for the government, which, of course, was his right. I don't know if the House really realizes the extent to which Harry Jerome has contributed to British Columbia's history. I would like to point out to the House that Mr. Jerome is now 38 years old.

[ Page 1441 ]

fie was born in 1940 in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan; he was a son of a Pullman coach attendant. He moved with his family to Vancouver when he was 12 years old, attended North Vancouver High School, and became physical education teacher at Templeton Secondary School in Vancouver.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, could you relate this to the Provincial Secretary's vote which we are on right now?

MR. BARNES : Mr. Chairman, I'm referring to the statement made by the Provincial Secretary when she introduced Mr. Jerome about two years ago and commented on his accomplishments, indicating that he was eminently qualified to do the work that he was being appointed to do. I recall that on this side of the House we were querying the extent to which the government intended to use his services."In light of some of the other appointments the government has made, such as Mr. John Plul, who is the convention co-ordinator, and Mr. Dick Lillico in B.C. House in the U.K., Miss Hartwick, et cetera.... We don't need to go down the list; our House Leader went down that list a few days ago.

I'm merely trying to determine to what extent a person's qualifications really matter. Certainly this individual deserves some kind of consideration, because he made what I consider the supreme sacrifice by taking a political stand in support of this government, when most people like to get on the fence. Then he had to go all the way to Ottawa to try and get a job with the Secretary of State, because he was unable to do so here with this provincial government, although it is obvious that a number of appointments have been made.

Mr. - Jerome joined a local track club in Vancouver called the Optimist Striders when he was 12 years old. At 18 he broke a 31-year standing record for the 220-yd. and 100-yd. dashes in what was the phenomenal time of about 9.5 seconds. He was given an athletic scholarship to the University of Oregon where he was coached by the famous Mr. Bill Bowerman, who was also an Olympic coach. At 19 he ran the 100 metres in 10 seconds flat, establishing a world record that stood until the 1968 Olympics.

He came out with a pulled muscle and did not qualify in the Rome Olympics of 1960 or the British Commonwealth Games in Perth, Australia. However, he returned to take the bronze medal in the 100 metre in the 1964 Olympics in Tokyo and ran the 100-yd. dash in 9.1 seconds in 1966 in Edmonton.

Mr. Jerome won his first gold medal in the British Commonwealth Games in 1966.

He ran in the 100 metres in the Mexico Olympics in 1968, finished in seventh

place and decided to retire at the age of 28. Mr. Jerome has set up sports clinics

cross-country, held coaching clinics in high schools all over Canada, and as

a member of Sports Canada, he works with young people in sports. He was a Canadian

Amateur Hall of Fame candidate and succeeded, and is at the present time a member

of the Hall of Fame. I wonder why it is that there is no place with this government

for such a person, especially in light of the large number of patronage appointments

being made. Perhaps the minister could explain.

There is one thing I have noticed: it seems when someone goes out on a limb with the government, such as Mr. Ozard, and expresses some appreciation for the good deeds or whatever has been done for them, they get canned or something happens. I'm just wondering if Mr. Jerome did something wrong. Perhaps you could explain it to the House. I would also wonder if Mr. Jerome was offered anything else to do when he finished. Could the minister tell us whether he felt he didn't want to to work for the government? It could be that the information I have is incorrect.

I do know that he was unemployed for a year or so after, a state of affairs that was quite serious, and he indicated that he was disillusioned, just as another person who came here some two years ago was disillusioned. He was a supporter of the government and the government turned their heads on him.

You will recall that you had invited Mr. Alex DiCimbriani to the Legislature and a number of cabinet ministers were going to meet with him at the Empress Hotel. Unfortunately, Mr. DiCimbriani had had some uncomplimentary press which, of course, could happen to anyone and the government decided that they wanted to disregard his presence and, in fact, refused to introduce him in the House, although they had arranged two tickets for him.

The government seems to turn its back on its friends. Harry Jerome was your friend, Alex DiCimbriani was your friend. I guess Mr. Ozard was a friend, and I don't know how many other people were friends of the government. But it seems to be a government that is callous and without principle.

I don't suggest that the government doesn't believe in what it's doing, but it seems as though it is remiss in understanding what is right and what is wrong. Certainly Mr. Jerome is disillusioned. Personally I felt that he didn't understand what was happening %ben he was asked to run against the former Premier of

[ Page 1442 ]

this province in Vancouver East by this government. They induced him by some kind of fast talk and suggested he was going to have a future with this government. He, believing this, submitted his name. Of course he got the wind somewhere along the line and allowed Mr. Ralph Long to go it on his own because, obviously, it would have been a meat grinder for Mr. Jerome.

In any event, he almost jumped in, Mr. Chairman. Now we have him disillusioned, disgruntled and of the opinion that a person who is committed in a nonpartisan, nonpolitical way in this province and would like to do something for the good of the community which Mr. Jerome obviously was committed to do.... He believes in sports and he believes in public involvement. He was a school teacher for many years. He is a concerned citizen. The government had no place for him. And yet he was spoken of as being an outstanding Canadian and we are honoured to have him with us. What a sham, what a disillusionment for that person!

His home is in Vancouver. He loves it here but he can't find a job. I asked him if he thought it was racism.

"Did you believe that perhaps you were used as a token for a period to give the government the impression that they were very liberal minded and able to account for the involvement of all the different segments in the community?11

Mr. Jerome said: "I don't want to make any charges like that because

I believe the government is not interested in playing the race game. I think

they just have better friends and other people whom they think are better than

myself."

And I said: "You know, I hope you're right. But I can't see how

you could feel that way with your accomplishments."

He has his BSc degree in education and his masters degree. He held at one time seven world records, even more than Percy Williams held, and he is one of the most famous Canadians. We talk about him all the time. Harry Jerome had to leave the province to find a job. This government used him at a time it was expedient and to its advantage, the same as it did with Alex DiCimbriani in the big event that they used during the 1975 election, the same as they've done with all kinds of situations that were to their advantage. But then you take off and leave everybody high and dry, including the people of the province of British Columbia.

And all I'm asking the minister to do is explain why it is that a person of this calibre can't find a job with this government in some capacity if he's as good as the minister herself has said he was right here in Hansard, April 13,1976. If he was that good then during an election, why is it that he's no good today? He's working for Heritage Canada in the Secretary of State's ministry, having to commute back and forth because he loves British Columbia but can't make a living here. Some of the people whom he respects, such as Wendy Robertson and others who are working, are colleagues of his.

He has no complaints with them but he wonders why it is that he was left out. I would like the minister to answer some of those questions.

MR. STRONGMAN : I would like to address myself today to the minister with regard to the prof its that the provincial government is making with regard to lottery funds. Many members, from both sides of the House, from all political parties, have been questioning what our government is going to do with regard to the dissemination of the proceeds from the B.C. lottery. I would ask that the minister in the very near future make some of these funds available for use in the community for the very reasons that the fund was originally set UP.

In particular, I'd like to talk today about a project I have presented to you and to a number of other ministers, as well as a federal minister, and that is a swimming pool for Pearson Hospital in the constituency of Vancouver South. There are many worthwhile projects that I'm sure you are considering at this point. However, I can't think of one that is more meaningful and would be more rewarding not only for the people who are going to make use of the facility but also for the people who would actually be part and parcel of the funding for such a project.

For those of you who aren't aware of Pearson Hospital, I of ten visit there, in that it is in my constituency, with my associate, Stephen Rogers. I would say that it is one of the more difficult places to visit. And yet, when you leave, you come away with almost a euphoric feeling that there are people in our society who are willing to work with the disabled. I'm talking about the Pearson patients because these people are the most severely disabled in our province.

There are very few hospitals that cater to this type of person. Society, in my mind, from time immemorial, has placed this type of person in a closet. We tend to want to forget about them, and it takes very, very strong people, a very dedicated staff, to work with them and get the rewards that they have been achieving at Pearson.

[ Page 1443 ]

Pearson is a hospital for handicapped adults. As a said a few moments ago, the staff there are just exceptionally fine people.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : Hear, hear!

MR. STRONGMAN : The work that is being done with the handicapped at Pearson is a model for almost any hospital in this country.

One of the things that they require is a swimming pool. Handicapped people get even more enjoyment out of the use of a swimming pool than, for lack of a better word, those of us who are normal and not handicapped. They find they can do things in the water that they are totally unable to do under normal conditions - just the moving of limbs and the feeling they get of freedom in water that they don't get when they are in a wheelchair or actually in a bed.

The cost is significant. We have approached the federal government and Iona Gampagnolo has very nicely ducked the issue and passed it on to someone else. We've approached the Ministry of Recreation and Conservation with regard to a community recreation grant. The Health minister's office has indicated that the land is available adjacent to Pearson, and now we are asking your department to see if funding could be available from the lottery fund. I think it would be one of the most laudable things that could be given. I believe the people at Pearson deserve this type of facility.

It is not only the people at Pearson who would benefit from a swimming pool in that area, but also the community at large. There are disabled people throughout the community, throughout the city of Vancouver, Burnaby and Richmond, who would, on an out-patient basis, be able to make use of the pool. Many of us don't realize that hundreds and hundreds of families look after their own disabled in their own homes. These people, on an outpatient basis, using programmes that are already in existence at Pearson, would be able to use the pool.

There's a very active financial committee in place, working towards the success of having a pool built there. Plans are already underway, and I would urge the minister, if at all possible, to look at even partial funding or total funding.

I'm speaking now on behalf of both myself and the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers) . I would hope that you can see your way clear to aid us in our quest for a pool for the patients at Pearson.

MS. BROWN : Mr. Chairman, I certainly would like to associate myself with the remarks of the member for Vancouver South. I think if the government can find the funding, that would certainly be a very worthwhile way to spend it.

I have a couple of questions about the First Citizens Fund, and I'm wondering whether the minister would prefer that I wait for that specific vote. I just want to say that the reason I'm asking these questions is because the annual report isn't out yet, and a delegation approached and asked if I could give them some figures.

The first thing they wanted to know, Mr. Chairman, was how much money had been given out of the fund. This was a delegation from the Indian Homemakers' Association of B.C., who were expressing some concern about the fund, and, as I said, I was able to supply them with the 1975 and 1976 figures, but I couldn't for 1977. 1 wonder if the minister would make available the same kind of breakdown, in particular the total.

The other thing that one of the members who is on the First Citizens Rind Advisory committee asked me to check was whether the criteria for applications under the fund had changed, because apparently they had applied to another department and they were referred to the First Citizens Fund. They also brought to my attention an application which came to the Ministry of Human Resources from the Mission Indian Friendship Centre and it was referred to the First Citizens Fund.

What they are wondering is whether the new criterion is that all applications should go to the First Citizens Fund rather than going to the departments such as Human Resources or Education, as the case may be, that they think is relevant.

The third question they were wondering about is whether there is any education money coming out of the First Citizens Fund. Is the First Citizens Fund funding any education projects?

They also expressed some real concern about the fact that the committee wets quarterly instead of monthly. They gave a very good example of one particular band which gets its mail weekly by helicopter, and they told about the band getting their application in one day late and having to wait for three months before their application was considered.

All of the information, as I said, comes through the Indian Homemakers Association and they would be very happy to get that information to you. I gather that the application has to be in six weeks prior - they were a day late getting it in and had to wait for an additional six weeks.

Mrs. Rose Charley, who sits on the advisory committee and is also a member of the Indian

[ Page 1444 ]

Homemakers' Association, wrote to the minister asking for some kind of indication about the guidelines and philosophy of the First Citizens Fund and suggesting that it be reviewed. Your letter went to her on July 29, saying that you appreciated her comments and that you had asked the director of the First Citizens Fund to have the guidelines and the philosophy of the fund reviewed. You also said that you would in the very near future have a meeting with the committee.

On September 8,1977 -when there was still no call from you about a meeting - another letter went out, again asking about meeting with you to discuss the guidelines and the philosophy of the First Citizens Fund. They did not receive a response to this letter and to date there has not been a meeting.

Now I'm not quite sure what the minister's feeling is about the Indian Homemakers' Association. My own experience with them is that they certainly have been a group who have been very active in the community and have made some very positive contributions to the Indian community as a whole. As I said, Mrs. Rose Charley herself is a member of the advisory committee. It may not be a bad idea, if they seem to have some concerns about quarterly rather than monthly meetings, just to meet and discuss with them and hear some of the reasons why they think that meeting once every three months is not often enough for them.

In any event, I wonder if the minister would make those figures available to me - not necessarily today, but in the very near future so that I can pass it on to them.

MRS. DAILLY : I have a concern which I would like to discuss with the minister and have her comments on. I am referring to the youth employment programmes and to the manner in which moneys are allocated and to which groups. I am referring to the citizens' committee groups - which I know the minister must be aware of - which were, I believe, set up by the government so they could set priorities for youth employment programmes. I have a question to the minister. Did she issue a directive to the North Shore area on how these moneys should be allocated?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : Can I ask you if you're not in the wrong ministry? I think that should come under Labour.

MRS. DAILLY : Well, I will explain the connection, Mr. Chairman, if I may. I have a copy of a letter which was sent - you are quite correct - to the minister in charge, Hon. Mr. Williams. But as it ref ers to the

Provincial Secretary and Minister of Travel Industry and has a direct relationship to her work as tourism minister, I would like to carry on with this.

This is an expression of concern from the chairman of the citizens' committee, in which he expresses his concern, bewilderment and frustration to find out that all submissions made by the chamber of commerce have been approved without regard to the priority of their application in relation to other applications from non-profit organizations in the community. Then he goes on to say, "I further understand that the directive emanated from the Department of Tourism, under the leadership of the Hon. Grace McCarthy, but referred to your department" - that's the Ministry of Labour - "for expedition."

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : What's the name of the organization?

MRS. DAILLY : My point here is.... The letterhead is the North Shore Neighbourhood House. It's signed by John Braithwaite, chairman of the area recommendation committee. I'm bringing this up because, unless the minister can assure us that in no way did she interfere with the allocation of funds.... I would like to pursue this with the minister because I think it's shocking if any minister would interfere with the citizens' committee and try to put the needs of his or her particular ministry ahead of the needs and decisions of the community.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : I don't know what you're talking about. If you have a case to make, make it.

MRS. DAILLY : If you know nothing about it, I would be pleased to send this over to you and perhaps you could comment later on. I certainly hope that such a thing would not happen.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that there were several points brought up by other members, which I know the minister wants to answer. As I have no specific question on her salary vote at this time, I think that I'll now give her an opportunity to answer the questions that have been brought up this afternoon and simply say, before we leave the salary vote, that I, personally, am not happy with the manner in which the minister is handling her department.

I made my point yesterday; I feel that this minister has been wasteful and extravagant with public moneys, particularly in the area of tourism. I feel the whole thrust of the tourism programme is misdirected. Therefore I personally will not be approving the salary

[ Page

1445 ]

vote.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : First of all let me just address my remarks to the member who has just sat down. I'd like to just refer to some statements that have been made in terms of extravagance and so on. Last year there was $1.4 billion brought into the province because of the travel industry, and last night this same member made some comments about how good the year of 1975 was. Let me just give you the totals now because last night they weren't at hand. In 1974 during the NDP administration, -there were....

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. members, perhaps if we can keep the other conversations down it would be possible for the Chair to hear the speaker. Please proceed.

HON. He's. McCARTHY : In 1974, $869 million emanated from the travel industry; in 1975, $970 million; in 1976, $1.18 billion - for the first time in history it went over $1 billion; in 1977, $1,345, 000,000. That's not a decrease, and that is more than 1974 and 1975. The difference between $970 million and .roughly $1.4 billion is a considerable difference. The over-expenditure-of $900,000, which was explained last night, I think, was for the purpose of job creation for over $100 million last year which this province benefited from in terms of new jobs and continuation of jobs.

The member, too, does not seem to recognize that in 1977 we had the largest total of visitors that we've ever had in the province figures from 1974 to 1977 show almost 11 million people visiting the province, and belie the figures that she would want to give. She wants to place on record and, tries to put on record the statement that we have had a falling off of visitors. It's not true. In 1977 motels had an occupancy, for example, of 61.9 per tent as compared to the 1975 year with 55.3 per cent. That's some decrease -61.9 per cent compared to the NDP record of 55.3 per cent.

So let's be very clear about where the figures are and where they stand. We have had a great improvement in the travel industry. I'm not going to stand here and take credit for that; I give credit to the people of the province of British Columbia who recognize the value of the travel industry.

You asked about the Youth Employment Programme, and as I said before, that

should come rightly under the questions towards the Labour minister. But the

reference in the letter which the hon. member has sent over is that submissions

made by chambers of commerce have been approved without regard to the priority

of their application, et cetera.

I want to say to you, Mr. Chairman, that I have had submissions from chambers of commerce where the Labour minister's youth programme has not been able to benefit the chambers of commerce, and in my capacity in the travel ministry I have had letters from them which have asked of that, so that certainly belies the statement contained in this letter.

These are Mr. Braithwaite's words, the writer of the letter: "I further understand that the directive emanated from the department of tourism, but referred to your department for expedition." If I would recall, and I've asked for my response to Mr. Braithwaite, I recall a letter coming to me from him with a request for some youth employment programme. I referred it, as I do all letters in that regard, to the Labour ministry; it's his responsibility. And if I referred it in that regard - that I acknowledged his letter and referred it to the proper ministry - I simply referred it.

I wouldn't refer it with any directive, and your accusation that there is some sort of directive.... I frankly think that your line of questioning both yesterday and today is to build up some sort of case which you don't have any foundation for - some rumour, something that you've heard - and then expect me to respond in some way which I think makes for perhaps some kind. of discussion within the estimates. But it would be nice if we had some basis for fact in some of this questioning.

Let me just refer to the questioning from the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) , who started the questioning today. Let me just say to the hon. member that when the appointment of Mr. Jerome was made when I held the Ministry of Recreation and Conservation you did not get up in the House and make the statements that you've made now. However, your party and members of your party have reflected on his political affiliation at that time and in a derogatory way. Where was your support then? It wasn't as evident as it is on the floor of the House today.

I want you to know that he did a darned good job on that committee and I'm very pleased that he did. When I was Minister of Recreation and Conservation, I was pleased with the job that he did do.

But this is a new twist, members of the House and Mr. Chairman. We have a member standing on the floor of the House today asking a job for someone because of his political affiliation. That's what you're asking for.

MR. LEVI : No, he did not.

[ Page 1446 ]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : I'm suggesting to you that just as recently as last week I had a phone call from Mr. Jerome. I was not in my office at the time it was received, but a member of my family did receive a call from Mr. Jerome, and I understand that he is very happy and has had quite an interesting commitment to the federal administration. We're pleased to have him serving on the Pacific National Exhibition Board. If Mr.

Jerome applies for a position within the government, I'm sure that he will be given every opportunity, just like any other person applying through the Public Service Commission, because he is an outstanding person in his field. I certainly backed that statement by my own actions when I appointed him to the committee on which I asked him to serve and to bring in a report.

I would like also to say to the member for Vancouver South, who has put a case forward -and, Mr. Chairman, you have a very great interest in this because I know you have been interested in the rehabilitative and recreational swimming pool for the Pearson Hospital - that if ever there was a case for lottery funds or government funds of any kind, the member for Vancouver-Burrard also agreed and I'm sure all members of this House would agree that it would be a tremendously important part of their daily lives, and I would feel very much in sympathy with the proposal.

Certainly I would like to have a more detailed look at that proposal, but I'm most supportive of anything for the handicapped and I would be very pleased to see something for those very severely disabled patients. I know they'd put it to tremendously great use - the staff and the people there. So I thank you for bringing that proposal to the floor of the House, Mr. Member for Vancouver South.

I also would like to make comment on the questions from the member for Vancouver-Burrard. The First Citizens Fund is a perpetual fund of $25 million of which the annual interest earnings are spent for expanding the cultural, educational and economic advancement of British Columbia native Indians. In 197778, the fund has paid from the earnings of this fund $1,761, 959, which brings to a total of $14,779, 570 being paid from the earnings of this fund.

You asked a question on the Indian homemakers of British Columbia. Have the criteria changed? The answer is no. Is there any educational money used in respect to individuals? We often do help young people to further their education through the Indian Advisory Fund -the First Citizens Fund.

You asked about the band or the community that offered an application a day

late. Mr. Chairman, I would really find that a little difficult to accept, if

you'll pardon. I think one day late they would certainly be brought into

the programme. The alternative, though, to not setting a time for applications

is that the applications were being brought in the day before without any opportunity

for the staff to vet them, to find out how many applications had come from the

area. We'd like to see some both in the attention to the programme.... We'd

like to see some area representation. They didn't have time to assess it

to give the advisory committee the information they should receive and so we

changed that.

When we say the criteria have not changed, we changed the application in that they cannot just get it in one day in advance. However, if an application that should have been in in six weeks and came in in six weeks and a day before that committee met, as you suggest, I really suggest to you that we would have been flexible enough. It is a hard-working, tiny staff land they are trying very hard to do the very best with it.

But if you would like to give me the example of that, I shall pursue it. I'm sure they are flexible enough not to have had that happen. You must also understand that they have to have some time to vet the applications and get the information in front of the advisory committee so the advice the committee gives to us can be founded on the very best possible knowledge.

You asked why they meet quarterly instead of monthly. A lot of that has to do with being careful with the dollars we have entrusted to us and keeping the expenses of the committee to a minimum. It also allows time. Remember that the projects they are handling are not just simply a project, for example, for a soccer team to go to the northern games; they are sometimes of a capital nature. They don't get them ready in a month. So I really doubt if a monthly meeting is necessary. It hasn't been necessary up until now.

I am not aware of the reason why. I haven't really any outstanding mail from September. So if there is something gone astray from a September letter, I would be pleased to look into that.

I had the pleasure of meeting with the advisory committee last year and I think it was a very beneficial meeting. If you have any specifics in that regard, give them to me personally and I will certainly chase them down.

MRS. DAILLY : On a quick follow-up on an answer re the youth employment programme, I simply want to ask the minister: have you any record there from your deputies on the number

[ Page 1447 ]

of youth employment programmes approved which did involve the promotion of tourism in this province?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : Mr. Chairman, I don't know what is meant by "directive." I asked the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) if he could assist us in having the counsellors on the ferries - again because I think this is an important adjunct to the ferry service. I suggested that we would also like to do the same thing this year on the Princess Marguerite, and I asked for that. Directive? I don't know. So far, we haven't been successful on the Princess Marguerite.

If "directive" means sending on applications which have come to me but should have gone to the Minister of Labour, that has been done in the course of events. In terms of supporting youth employment summer student work, I have certainly been supportive. I don't know how else the member wishes an answer. There certainly has been no directive as to how the Minister of Labour allocated funds, except in support of those things which different people in the province have asked of us in terms of tourist-oriented things. Of course I'm supportive of that. I'm supportive of students working in information centres.

I'm supportive of students working on the Ferries Service; I'm supportive of students working during the summer.

MRS. DAILLY : Mr. Chairman, we've listened now to this tone of debate from the minister since the estimates started. It makes it very difficult because, frankly, we never get a straight answer. According to that letter, the point is that the chamber of commerce on the North Shore had all of their requests acceded to. It is suggested in that letter that the Minister of Travel Industry was the one who suggested that priority be given the youth Employment programme in her area of tourism. It is an interesting fact - and I think we could all check it later - that the chamber of commerce had all their requests acceded to. Yet many other citizens' group