1985 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 33rd 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)

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1985

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

7023 ]

CONTENTS

Ministerial Statements

Disposal of government documents. Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7023

Mr. Stupich

Hon. Mr. Chabot

Mr. Skelly

Hon. Mr. Smith

Mr. Macdonald

Real Estate Amendment Act (No –– 2), 1985 (Bill 66). Hon. Mr. Hewitt

Introduction and first reading –– 7028

Tabling Documents –– 7028

Oral Questions

Disposal of government documents. Mr. Skelly –– 7028

Mr. Lea

Ms. Brown

Mr. Howard

Family Law Reform Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 34). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 7031

Mr. Macdonald –– 7031

Ms. Brown –– 7031

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 7033

Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (No –– 2), 1985 (Bill 55). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 7033

Mr. Cocke –– 7033

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 7033

Court Order Enforcement Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 57). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 7033

Ms. Brown –– 7034

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 7034

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (N0. 1), 1985 (Bill 58). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 7034

Mr. Cocke –– 7034

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 7035

Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 45). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7036

Mr. Stupich –– 7036

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7036

Capital Expenditures Miscellaneous Amendments Act, 1985 (Bill 54). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7037

Mr. Stupich –– 7038

Mr. Rose –– 7038

Mr. Williams –– 7039

Mr. Cocke –– 7039

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7040

Motor Fuel Tax Act (Bill 63). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7041

Mr. Stupich –– 7042

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7042

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 1985 (Bill 60). Second reading

Hon. A. Fraser –– 7042

Mr. Cocke –– 7042

Mrs. Dailly –– 7044

Ms. Brown –– 7044

Hon. A. Fraser –– 7045

Coquihalla Highway Construction Act (Bill 2). Committee Stage ––

Mr. Hanson

Mr. MacWilliam

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Skelly

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1985

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, it's a great pleasure for me to

introduce and welcome to our great province and this Legislature, for

his first trip to British Columbia since his accession to office, His

Excellency Thomas Niles, the ambassador of the United States of

America. He is joined by Mr. George Ogg, the consul-general situated in

B.C.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, before the House divides on issues,

I would like to inject a note of joy on behalf of the B.C. Lions, who,

as you know, will be playing in the Grey Cup in Montreal against

Hamilton this Sunday. As a member of the last B.C. Lions Grey Cup

championship team of 1964.... I know that that's a secret to everybody

here, but I don't mind confessing that I am very elated and really feel

I'd like to don my suit again. Mind you, I've played too many games

without a helmet, so I couldn't do that. Nonetheless, I would like to

ask all members, on a note of cooperation and unanimity, that we pound

the desks on behalf of our B.C. Lions and wish them well against the

Hamilton Tiger-Cats.

HON. MR. BENNETT: May I join with the first member for

Vancouver Centre, who indeed had a very illustrious career with the

B.C. Lions. He was an outstanding player and contributed to the only

championship team we have. Our best wishes to a team that many of us

have cheered on for many years, often with a lot of frustration. I want

the member to know that I will personally take his warm wishes to

Montreal to the players, as I watch the game on Sunday.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to welcome to the

House today two New Democratic Party candidates. One is the next member

for Vancouver–Little Mountain, Dr. Adrienne Peacock; also, our

candidate for — and the next member for — Burnaby-Willingdon, Joan

Sawicki. They are here today with my wife Alexandra.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is a visitor from

Florida. Although she is a Canadian citizen, she has lived in Florida

for the past 29 years. It is not a very pleasant visit for Kay Avery.

She is the mother of Wayne McCannan, the British Columbian who is in

Costa Rica under extradition orders to Guatemala. Kay is here to help

raise funds for her son, to help get support to try to bring Wayne back

home to Canada. I'd like you all to join with me in welcoming her.

MR. VEITCH: I'd like to join with the opposition in welcoming

the New Democratic candidates for a 1988 general election. I would also

like to welcome two members of the Society of Management Accountants of

B.C., Mr. Gim Huey and their executive director Mr. Bill Easton.

HON. MR. GARDOM: In the galleries today we have two of the executive

of the Society of Notaries Public of B.C.: the president, Mr. Earl G. Stewart,

and the secretary-elect, Mr. Stan Nicol. I would ask all members to make them

very welcome.

MR. GABELMANN: I'd like the House to welcome three

representatives here today from the Canadian Union of Public Employees:

British Columbia president Mike Dumler, education representative Ray

Whitehead, and their public relations director, Rob Mingay.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleagues on

both sides of the chamber to welcome my wife Linda, who is in the

gallery for the opening today.

Ministerial Statements

DISPOSAL OF GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a ministerial statement.

The former ombudsman for British Columbia, Dr. Karl Friedmann, has

made, apparently on more than one occasion, extremely serious

allegations regarding action taken by the Ministry of Finance for

British Columbia in the summer of 1984. References indicated that a

deputy minister and minister took steps to commence "a break-in, theft"

and other improper actions. These allegations constitute an incorrect

and a very damaging attack on the Deputy Minister of Finance for the

province of British Columbia and on me as minister.

Mr. Speaker, there was no "break-in" nor "theft." In the summer of

1983 the Ministry of Finance contracted with a local firm, operating as

R&B Paper, for disposal of considerable volumes of waste paper.

Materials identified as confidential were to be shredded, and the Crown

provincial was to receive payment for paper which R&B would then

sell for recycling purposes.

R&B Paper commenced disposing of Ministry of Finance waste paper

in October 1983 on what I believe to be a weekly pickup basis. In

addition, on April 4 and July 9, 1994, significant quantities of

records approved for disposal under this Legislature's Document

Disposal Act were picked up at the ministry's warehouse.

However, over time, R&B Paper fell into arrears for their rented

premises, and on July 15, 1984, the R&B stock of stored paper

material was sold by R&B to a firm operating as Rolls Trucking for

the sum, I am informed, of $2,800. On either August 9 or early August

10, 1984, the landlord from whom R&B rented premises telephoned my

office and expressed serious concern that paper material stored in his

warehouse was not secure. It was further indicated that some employees

of R&B had been engaged in a dispute with their employer, and

suggestions were made that confidential documents might be removed

imminently and made public. I could not confirm then, nor can I now,

that these threats were made in the manner reported to me.

[2:15]

On the morning of August 10, 1984, staff from the Ministry of

Finance visited the warehouse in question. They reported seeing an

enormous pile of garbage bags and boxes, many of which were broken,

with their contents strewn about the warehouse floor. None of the waste

paper contained in the warehouse had been shredded. Further, there

appeared to be a considerable quantity of confidential material, marked

obviously for immediate destruction. Such had not occurred. Further, at

the time of this visit the landlord advised ministry

[ Page 7024 ]

staff that R&B Paper had sold their stock of

stored, unshredded paper materials to Rolls Mucking, with whom the

Ministry of Finance had no contractual arrangement for document

disposal. The landlord produced a copy of the bill of sale. It was

further concluded that the premises were not adequately secured and

therefore that confidentiality of records could not be assured.

We were therefore dealing with a situation where private documents

had not been shredded and were not stored in a secure manner, and where

the firm with which we had a disposal arrangement had sold the material

to another firm in an unshredded state.

Mr. Speaker, later that day — in fact, in the afternoon of August

10, 1984 — I met with the Deputy Minister of Finance and a member of

his staff to discuss the problem of insecure storage of confidential,

personal information and records. During the course of that meeting on

August 10, I determined that steps should be taken immediately to

ensure the security and the safe storage of this wealth of private and

confidential material. That was my instruction to the deputy minister,

and the following action took place: between 6 p.m., August 10, and 5

a.m., August 11, with access provided to the ministry by the warehouse

landlord, and in his presence for at least some of the time, the

ministry removed approximately 18 tons of paper, including documents

identified as confidential and therefore, as I indicated earlier,

marked for destruction. I am informed and am satisfied that only

material originating with the provincial government was removed. This

bulk of material was transferred to an adjacent warehouse where it was

felt by ministry staff that security could be assured. Within days of

that action the material was removed by another contractor and taken

for secure disposal.

Mr. Speaker, let me briefly describe to the members of this House

what made up most of the material about which I have spoken. Some of it

related to corporate capital tax returns and working papers on various

individual corporate tax material, government payroll computer

printouts, as well as numerous boxes of other computer printouts and

many, many garbage bags filled with an assortment of waste paper. In

addition, there were T4 slips or reports, master employee records,

payroll registers, audit materials and large quantities of microfiche

relating to provincial home purchase mortgages, payment schedules and

related documents. Other material related to family and children's

services files, much of it obviously highly personal in nature and

deserving of confidential handling and disposal.

Mr. Speaker, at no time on August 9 and 10 or later was I informed,

nor did I have any reason whatsoever to believe that the material under

discussion included any "government policy papers," ministerial

submissions to cabinet or Treasury Board or anything else which could

be construed as "political" in nature.

I recall with clarity, Mr. Speaker, my only concern on the afternoon

of August 10, 1984. Precisely, it was this: material which perhaps

hundreds of British Columbia citizens had sent to government could be

in jeopardy in terms of the trust with which it was provided. It is a

fundamental right of the individual in his or her dealings with

government that where confidentiality is assured or required by law,

confidentiality must be maintained.

Mr. Speaker, to continue. On August 13, 1984, the ombudsman's office

received a complaint from Mr. Walter Rolls, to whom R&B had sold

the paper after falling behind in their rent payments. On September 21,

1984, following a meeting with Ministry of Finance officials, Mr. Rolls

accepted payment of $2,000 — not $3,000 as has been mistakenly alleged

by Dr. Friedmann — as fair market value for the 18 tonnes of material.

Mr. Rolls and R&B Paper signed a normal release of claim to confirm

that all issues involved were fully settled and resolved, including the

complaint he had filed through the ombudsman.

On October 24, 1984, the ombudsman advised the ministry that

notwithstanding that the complaint had been withdrawn, he was

continuing to investigate the matter on his own initiative. On October

31, 1984, he sent his preliminary report to the Deputy Minister of

Finance. In his response to the ombudsman dated November 13, 1984, the

deputy minister advised: "We accept that the original agreement with

R&B Paper was inadequate to ensure the destruction of all

confidential material. We can assure you that the administrative

arrangements now in place for disposal of waste paper are adequate to

ensure the confidentiality of all information contained in that waste

paper."

It is to be noted that in his final report on the matter — the date,

I believe, was June 12, 1985 — Dr. Friedmann made two recommendations

to the Ministry of Finance. On June 25, the ministry responded with

respect to those recommendations and was subsequently advised that the

matter was considered to be closed.

Since August 22, 1984, the Ministry of Finance has contracted with

Allan Paper Stock Co., with penalty provisions for non-performance for

the secure pickup and disposal of records approved for disposal under

the terms of the Document Disposal Act and waste paper which is deemed

sensitive or confidential.

Mr. Speaker, to restate, there was no break-in and there was no

theft. In the view of the Deputy Minister of Finance — a view to which

I then and now fully subscribe — there existed a serious threat to the

security of private and confidential personal records. The Ministry of

Finance acted promptly and firmly to correct this situation. In our

judgment then and now, the protection of information provided by

individual citizens was the paramount consideration.

Mr. Speaker, the former ombudsman of the province of British Columbia has gone

too far. He has placed himself in the role of judge and jury by suggesting that

the Deputy Minister of Finance and I were involved in a criminal act. If there

is a scandal in this whole affair, it is this: a scandal of irresponsible and

outrageous misinformation offered in November 1985, some 15 months after the

event. I cannot explain what motivation prompted the former ombudsman to precipitate

this frenzy of concern and speculation at this particular time. That assessment

rests with the members of this chamber and with the citizens of British Columbia.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, a charge of breaking and entering

and theft has been made against the minister and some of his staff, and

that is a serious matter. This morning I phoned the minister to ask

whether I might see a copy of his statement in advance. He suggested

that that was an unusual request, and I agreed; but this is an unusual

situation. On other occasions we are given the confidence of documents

such as budget statements and opening speeches in advance, and to the

best of my knowledge such confidence has never been broken. I am sorry

that we couldn't have seen this particular statement, because it is a

very unusual situation for

[ Page

7025 ]

a minister to be accused of complicity in breaking and entering and theft.

We're assured by the minister that this is not the case, that he is

innocent. We have on previous occasions been assured by government

ministers that they are not guilty of charges that have been made

against them. In this case, I can recall the same minister being

questioned about cheques that went missing in his ministry, that were

found in the garbage. I have yet to hear that that situation has been

corrected and the details of the correction. The minister proved on

that occasion that he is not capable of looking after the assets of the

people properly. By his statement today, he is confessing that he isn't

even capable of looking after waste paper.

Mr. Speaker, it is an unusual situation, It is a serious business

when the minister is accused of something like this. As I've said on

previous occasions, we've had the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) in

particular assure us that the government was totally innocent even

when, as on one occasion, the RCMP let it be known that they had

recommended charges be laid — still the minister said the government

was innocent. I think this is so important that we need something more

than the minister's explanation of what happened. To clear the air, not

just for this government but for the people of British Columbia, there

should be a proper public inquiry in which all of the information will

come out publicly, in which questions may be asked of all the people

who took

part in it, so that we can be assured not just by the

minister's statement but by a proper inquiry that he is innocent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

MR. STUPICH: The shame, Mr. Speaker, is on the head of this

government if it doesn't deal with this seriously. There is one comment

of the minister that I can agree with totally. Twice he said to me, and

indicated in his statement, that this is important; it is a serious

charge. He takes it very seriously. I agree with him: it is serious.

I'm certainly not accusing him of anything. But he has been accused....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I've accused him of sloppy handling of

government cheques and sloppy handling of garbage. But that's the worst

thing I've accused him of so far, and I think that was admitted; he

confessed to that in his statement today. But I don't think it's enough

for him to stand up and tell us and the public of British Columbia that

he's clean. For his own reputation he should be asking for, and indeed

insisting that there be, a public inquiry so that everyone can be

reassured that such is truly the case.

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

MR. LEA: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to reply to the minister's statement.

Leave not granted.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Hon. members, leave having been denied....

MR. SKELLY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if we grant

permission for one private member to speak, I think that permission

should be available for all private members.

MR. LEA: On the same point of order, it is any member's

privilege to stand in the House and ask that leave be given. I mean,

how many are there? What are they afraid of?

Interjections.

[2:30]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the rules that guide us in this

chamber are clear. Without leave the member may not proceed. The matter

is concluded. Leave has not been granted.

DISPOSAL OF GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, as minister responsible for the

public service in British Columbia, I wish to make a statement in

defence of the public service from the attack on their integrity and

honesty by the former ombudsman and members of the New Democratic

Party. I want to say that concern on this issue has been conveyed to me

by public servants.

The former ombudsman now shares a radio show with the honorary

chairman of the NDP fund-raising program, and has repeated his serious

allegations of breaking and entering and theft on the show that he

shares with Dave Barrett. The second member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Williams), in his hatred for this government, has parroted the

Friedmann statement on breaking and entering, more concerned with

politics than the harm he has done to and the cloud of suspicion he has

placed over the public service of this province.

I suggest that his statement was made with the blessing of his

leader. Even the federal NDP in Ottawa is attempting its smear of the

government and/or the public service.

MR. SKELLY: On a point of order, even a ministerial statement

should not be abused by ministers to lie and make insinuations about

other members of this Legislature that are absolutely not true.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

I'm sure that the Leader of the Opposition did not mean to infer

that a lie had been made. Had that inadvertently been done, I'm sure

the Leader of the Opposition would withdraw that.

MR. SKELLY: No, Mr. Speaker, the statement was carefully

made. I'm just asking for your ruling on what the use of ministerial

statements should be. Should the statements be used for political

purposes? Should they be used to spread untruths or to insinuate that

certain members acted in a certain way? Or should they be used

responsibly by ministers to convey information about policy to this

Legislature?

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

Interjections.

[ Page 7026 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, we will have order in this chamber

or there shortly will be fewer members in here than there are at

present. The Leader of the Opposition, in his statement to the

Provincial Secretary, indicated — as the Chair recalls — that a lie had

been made. I would ask that, if any such inference was made, in keeping

with parliamentary tradition the Leader of the Opposition withdraw that

particular aspect of the point of order he made.

MR. SKELLY: No such suggestion was made.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

With regard to the point of order made by the Leader of the

Opposition, the Chair would remind all members that they have an

obligation to follow the procedures in standing orders in the spirit in

which they were written. Members and ministers have an obligation to

follow the procedures as they were intended.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Before I was interrupted, I was saying that

even the federal NDP in Ottawa is attempting its smear of the

government and the public service of this province. Jim Rilton, NDP

member for Skeena, told the Commons that he wanted to put

Solicitor-General Perrin Beatty, Minister of Justice John Crosbie and

RCMP Commissioner Robert Simmonds on notice of the need for a federal

investigation into the matter, saying it strikes to the very heart of

the criminal justice system. Fulton added that the three have a moral

and legal responsibility to uphold the law and to investigate, charge

and arrest all those involved, including the public servants of British

Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, there appears to be sinister political links between

the former ombudsman and the NDP. Members will recall that the

ombudsman, toward the end of the last session, was filing reports in

the House at a rate of almost one a day. Why was this issue not

identified in all of his reports? He had many months to alert the

Legislature to his concerns. Why did he wait 15 months to reveal what

he considers to be serious wrongdoings? Why did he wait until months

after leaving office? This raises the issue of confidentiality in the

office of the ombudsman. I believe that a legitimate question can be

put: did the former ombudsman remove from his office documents or files

that rightfully are confidential and belong in the office of the

ombudsman?

This is a very serious question, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Friedmann's

attack, as far as I'm concerned, is a sleazy, reckless attack, as well

as a political attack, that has revealed his true colours. The most

regrettable part of his partisan display is that he has attacked the

integrity of the public service, which this government will never

tolerate.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I guess this issue has now, by the Provincial Secretary, been brought to the level where it should be.

Members of this Legislature, including the government side and the

opposition side, had an opportunity to question the previous ombudsman

when he came before a meeting of a committee of this Legislature which

was struck to appoint a new ombudsman. In that committee meeting, it

was indicated that the ombudsman felt some reluctance to pursue the

Deputy Minister of Finance, because he was the same person that he was

requesting his budget from. He raised this issue in that committee, and

was shut up by the chairman of that committee and not allowed to

discuss the issue.

We had an opportunity in a committee to deal with this issue and to

question the ombudsman in some detail. The minister should not now be

standing up in this House and accusing the ombudsman of cheap political

tactics, when he had an opportunity at that meeting to question the

ombudsman on....

HON. MR. CURTIS: He is not the ombudsman.

MR. SKELLY: You're right. The minister is correct. This province has no ombudsman now.

Mr. Speaker, they called a private citizen — the former ombudsman —

before that committee, and he was willing to answer these kinds of

questions. He brought that information up to the committee, and the

Social Credit members refused to ask the appropriate questions. What

were they trying to cover up?

I don't fault the members of the federal House of Commons for

bringing this issue to the attention of the House of Commons and the

people in Ottawa who have the responsibility to administer the criminal

justice system in this province. Many people across this country are

concerned about the reputation of the government of British Columbia

and the province of British Columbia under the management of this

current government. I don't blame them at all.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask leave to reply to the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

SOME HON MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SKELLY: Not unless all private members....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, did they say no again?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. LEA: Oh, they did.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, a conditional request is a no. Permission is not granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Just on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it

has been the custom of the House to grant leave under these

circumstances. I suppose the official opposition is wishing to change

the custom.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The matter is concluded.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed.

[ Page

7027 ]

DISPOSAL OF GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I agreed that I would have an

investigation conducted into the criminal allegations that were made by

the former ombudsman, and I wish to report to the House.

I think it's necessary, first of all, to look at the allegations. On

November 15 of this year the former ombudsman is reported to have

alleged at a public meeting in Duncan that a break-in had taken place

in 1984 in a warehouse in Victoria, authorized by a deputy minister in

the provincial government. Mr. Friedmann said that this action had

taken place to retrieve documents that the government did not wish to

fall into the hands of the opposition. He charged that these events

constituted a breach of the criminal law, and he said further that the

case should be investigated by the Attorney General's ministry or by

Crown counsel, implying that investigations had not taken place because

government officials were involved. He also stated that he had fought

the Attorney-General's ministry for a number of months to get some

action about the break-in and entry.

In an interview that he had on BCTV on November 17, Mr. Friedmann

repeated the charge that a deputy minister had authorized the break-in

at the warehouse and that this had been okayed by the minister, but he

further said: "The government doesn't want to face the consequences

either, when they break the law. They're sitting in the driver's seat.

They control the criminal process of prosecutions, and they are in

control of what happens to lawbreakers." Mr. Friedmann went on to say

that a complaint had been made to him, and that ultimately a $3,000

payment had been made in compensation.

My colleague the Finance minister has set out fully the facts that

gave rise to the incident that is alluded to by Mr. Friedmann. It's

clear from what he has said that the Deputy Minister of Finance did

bring about the removal of government documents from a warehouse in

Victoria but that this was done with the permission of the landlord of

the warehouse, who had warned that the documents were not secure, and

that it was the landlord himself who opened the warehouse and suggested

the removal of the documents to a safe place. It is also significant,

Mr. Speaker, that the documents involved were confidential files of

British Columbians, dealing with such matters as taxation, family

services and home purchase mortgages. There can be no question, then,

that these documents were consigned by the government for disposal and

were held in trust by the government to protect innocent citizens

mentioned in them.

But Mr. Friedmann's allegations are serious ones. If I might

summarize their thrust, they are: that a break-in occurred at a

warehouse in Victoria on August 10-11 constituting a criminal action —

that's the first allegation; second, that the break-in was authorized

by a deputy minister and approved by a minister, participated in by

numerous public servants; and the third is that neither the police nor

the prosecutor nor the justice personnel did anything about this case,

presumably to protect public servants; and fourth, that Mr. Friedmann,

then ombudsman, fought the Attorney-General's ministry for a number of

months to get some action about this alleged breach of the criminal law.

Because of the seriousness of these allegations I asked my deputy

minister, Mr. Edward Hughes, QC — for many years a judge in

Saskatchewan, latterly of the Queen's Bench — to conduct an inquiry.

Mr. Hughes has done so, and reported to me that there is not a shred of

evidence involving any element of criminality arising out of the

removal of the documents from the warehouse.

I now wish to respond, as a result of this investigation, to each

allegation. First of all, the allegation that a break-in occurred,

authorized by a deputy minister and participated in by public servants.

There is no evidence to indicate any element of criminality. Not only

did the Deputy Minister of Finance have the right to remove the

documents which he held in trust for the public but he had a high duty

to do so, which he discharged faithfully.

On examining the police records of the day that the incident took

place, it is described, Mr. Speaker, in the police records as a civil

matter. The police investigated on a complaint by Mrs. Rolls, the wife

of the proprietor of the company that had the contract to control and

dispose of the documents. The police recommendation was to take no

action. No charge was recommended either by the police or by Crown

counsel.

Then the allegation that police and prosecutors took no action

because public servants were involved. As to that allegation, indeed,

Mr. Speaker, had any charge been laid in regard to these circumstances,

it would have been laid without evidence and would probably have

constituted a breach of the process of the criminal court. No

prosecutor working in our system would have authorized such a charge,

regardless of who was involved. If Mr. Friedmann is suggesting that

prosecutors and the police who work in our criminal justice system

don't lay charges against public servants or officials because they

favour them over other citizens, he is not only incorrect but his

allegations are scurrilous.

Finally, his months of efforts with the Attorney-General's ministry.

Mr. Speaker, my deputy has diligently searched the records of our

ministry and those of the ombudsman's office as well. This search

confirms that at no time did Mr. Friedmann make a complaint of criminal

activity arising out of these events, either to the police or to my

officials. This is supported by the records of the ombudsman's

department. It is certainly correct that the then ombudsman assisted in

negotiating a settlement for the paper disposal firm, and payment was

made in the amount of $2,000 because of the loss of disposal revenue

the company had suffered. This was a common procedure under the Crown

Proceeding Act. It could hardly be constituted as an attempt to seal

the lips of the complainer. The truth is that not only did the

ombudsman not complain of criminal conduct; neither did the disposal

company.

[2:45]

I must conclude, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that the allegations made

by Mr. Friedmann are not supported by any of the records or by a shred

of evidence. Tempting as it is to dismiss these allegations as the

trivial ravings of a disgruntled critic, they must be viewed seriously,

as they come from a once trusted high official in this province. His

allegations are untrue, and they were intended to malign not only

elected officials but also deputies, public servants and all those who

work in the justice system, including police and prosecutors. False

accusations of this dimension must sadden all of us because they strike

at the foundations of the administration of justice, which in our

system is based on a free society governed by the rule of law.

MR. MACDONALD: I am replying to the Attorney-General in my capacity as junior critic for that department. I

[ Page 7028 ]

have been listening to political diatribes in the guise of

statements, including the one just made by the Attorney-General, and

slashing attacks and insinuations against a man who is not here to

defend himself.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: I don't know. The Attorney-General says there

has been an internal inquiry. They have lots of internal inquiries, and

I leave that part aside for the time being.

Can't the Attorney-General, as the chief law officer of the Crown,

see that people's confidential records aren't better protected than

this sort of thing that's been going on? You know, you say it's strewn

like garbage in some little business that can't even pay the

rent.... You've got the records of people and their personal files

strewn like garbage around the floor, and then sold off to some

trucking company. That's incompetence. That's a garbage in, garbage out

government, and all of these political diatribes we've been listening

to today are an attempt by the government to hide their gross

mismanagement of the public....

You know, these documents, when they're confidential records, should

be contained within the public service of the province of B.C. That's

where they should be disposed of, under the act. Don't contract them

out. You've got a record of contracting out to this, that and other

people, very often to government friends. No wonder the records are

strewn all over the place and are not being protected. What we're

dealing with here, over and above any legal point, is gross

incompetency on the part of the government.

MR. LEA: I'd like to ask leave to reply to the minister's statement.

Leave not granted.

Introduction of Bills

REAL ESTATE AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1985

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

a bill intituled Real Estate Amendment Act (No. 2), 1985.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move first reading of the bill accompanying the message.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I move that the bill be introduced and read

a first time now, and in making that motion I would just like to make a

few comments on the bill. The key feature of this amendment bill

enables the superintendent of insurance to permit developers to submit

a shorter, less complex disclosure statement in lieu of a full

prospectus. This amendment recognizes that land development is

sensitive to time constraints, and with this new provision in place,

sales and lease transactions for subdivided land, strata lots and

cooperative units will proceed without undue delays.

To balance less restrictive disclosure requirements for purchasers of undivided

land, a right of recision and increased penalties for contravention are also

included to maintain the consumer protection side of the act. Specifically,

the recision right of three days now applying to purchasers of time-share interests

would be extended to purchasers of subdivided land situated within the province

in respect of a transaction covered by a prospectus or a disclosure statement.

This bill also enables the superintendent to specify the form and content of

the disclosure statement, to use his discretion to determine who should, and

to broaden the sphere of potential liability from directors and developers to

others who are familiar with the specific real estate projects covered in the

disclosure statement. This also increases the penalties involved in regards

to contravention of the act.

With those comments, I move that the bill be read a first time now.

Bill 66, Real Estate Amendment Act (No. 2), 1985, 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.

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled the 1984-85 annual report of the provincial Capital Commission.

Hon. Mr. Brummet tabled the 1984 annual report of the British Columbia Housing Management Commission.

Hon. Mr. McGeer tabled the seventh annual report of the Science

Council of British Columbia, the annual report of the Ministry of

Universities, Science and Communications, the eleventh annual report of

the Universities Council of British Columbia, and the annual report of

the Knowledge Network of British Columbia.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression that the

Attorney-General was planning to make a statement on the crisis at

Lyell Island. Does the Attorney-General plan to make such a statement?

Oral Questions

DISPOSAL OF GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance, in his

statements, indicated that serious allegations were made against him,

the Ministry of Finance and the staff of the Ministry of Finance

concerning allegations of criminal behaviour. A statement appeared in

the Times-Colonist on November 20, 1985 that the Deputy

Minister of Finance, David Emerson, "said nobody in the Finance

ministry considered the question of rightful ownership of the documents

when they were retrieved."

Would the minister confirm that nobody in his ministry considered

rightful ownership when the action was taken to retrieve those

documents?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, that question asks me to provide a legal opinion.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, the statement by the Deputy Minister

of Finance is that nobody in the Finance ministry considered the

question of rightful ownership of the documents when they were

retrieved. Nobody is asking for a legal statement by the minister.

[ Page 7029 ]

Will the minister confirm that nobody in his ministry considered the

question of rightful ownership prior to retrieving these documents?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, in my view, as I indicated

earlier, the question borders on asking for a legal opinion. I believe

that the statement I made at length in this House a few minutes ago

speaks for itself.

MR. SKELLY: Then I assume that the Deputy Minister of Finance was making a false statement when he indicated that.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: I'm just interpreting what the minister has said

about the statement of the Deputy Minister of Finance, in which he said

that nobody considered the legal ownership.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. This is question period.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance indicated

that his main concern in retrieving these documents was that the

confidentiality of the documents be protected, and that the trust

established between citizens who provide these documents on a

confidential basis also be protected.

Will the minister confirm that the confidential documents on

computer paper were stored on the back of an open truck at Allan Paper

Stock Co. Ltd. on Tyee Road for a week prior to Allan Paper Stock

disposing of that computer paper?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, in order for me to assist the

member with that question, could he attach some time-frame to it? Is he

speaking of last week or two years ago? I don't know of the incident

about which he questions.

MR. HOWARD: Old Cop-Out again.

MR. SKELLY: It sounds like a cop-out to me, Mr. Speaker.

Will the minister confirm that the documents he discussed in his

statement were placed on the back of an open truck and left at Tyee

Road for a week? After the documents were supposed to be disposed of

and the confidentiality of those documents was supposed to be

protected, they were left outside on Tyee Road for a week for anyone to

take a look at who cared to.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I would invite the Leader of the Opposition to make further inquiries with respect to that. I indicated....

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I meant further inquiries through his research department, if it still exists.

I dealt with the significant confidentiality of a wealth of material that was brought to my attention in August.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: If I might be permitted to continue, Mr. Speaker....

In addition to the confidential material, there was considerable

material which could not by any stretch of the imagination be

considered to be confidential. I'm informed that it included old

telephone books and blank computer printout material. Therefore....

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: A lot of material that was not of concern in

terms of confidentiality. Therefore I cannot assist the member with

respect to the question he has put. I would suggest that he determine,

through his own sources, whether perhaps the paper to which he referred

was indeed not confidential.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, it appears that the Minister of

Finance is unwilling to answer any questions. That's the reason we've

been asking for a public inquiry. What this House needs into this

incident, and into every other incident of mismanagement on the part of

this government, is a complete public inquiry.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, is there a question? There is obviously no question. The member for Prince Rupert.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: Is it okay now?

MR. REID: Yea democracy! We want to hear you.

[3:00]

MR. LEA: They'd probably stop this too, if they could.

I have a question for the Attorney-General, with some

preamble. I

also listened to the statement by the Minister of Finance. As I started

to say earlier, I've known him for 14 years, and I can't in my wildest

dreams imagine that he would ever authorize an illegal act like that

which has been described.

I also heard the statement by the Attorney-General, and he rightly

described his deputy as an honourable gentleman with a good background.

However, these are serious allegations that Mr. Friedmann made.

I believe that it is not good enough that we have people who are

themselves civil servants to government doing the investigation. That

isn't good enough.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, we must have a question at some point.

MR. LEA: I would like to ask the Attorney-General whether he

has considered — not having a public inquiry, because we're going to

have calls for about 70 or 80 of those over the next two weeks — asking

the RCMP, an impartial body, to take a look at the allegations made by

Mr. Friedmann and then report to the Attorney-General, and having the

Attorney-General report back to the House. I believe the minister and I

believe the deputy, but the people out there have to believe it. With

that in mind, will the Attorney-General be calling the RCMP to ask for

an investigation into this?

[ Page 7030 ]

HON. MR. SMITH: I'm glad to respond to the member for Prince

Rupert, who doesn't take his legal advice from the author of a squash

book sitting across from us, who did, I thought, a tour de force today

of keeping a straight face.

I think the member for Prince Rupert raises a fair question. This

investigation didn't just involve the deputy; it involved looking at

the records of the Victoria city police and inquiring through the

system. If there was something, even a tiddle, of evidence there, I'd

be quite happy to go further with it. But to investigate fantasy is

somewhat difficult to condone, and the process doesn't get improved by

doing so. If somebody brought a shred of evidence, most certainly we'd

go further with it.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of

Human Resources. In his statement the Minister of Finance stated that

confidential family and children's services files were among the

garbage which was scattered in this warehouse. Now that the

incompetence of the Minister of Finance to deal with these confidential

files has been brought to the minister's attention, can she tell us

whether the Ministry of Human Resources is doing anything to protect

the confidentiality of the people who in all good faith think that

they're giving confidential information when they fill out those files?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the disposal of documents is

well known to the member who asked the question, as it is to all of us

in this House. When documents reach a certain age and it is no longer

necessary to keep them after so many years, the minister has to sign

for the disposal of those documents. It then goes before a legislative

committee that reviews the disposal of those documents. Nothing that

has been said today, nothing that I have heard in the past, nothing

that has been brought to my attention leads me to believe in any way

whatsoever that the confidential documents of the Ministry of Human

Resources have ever been strewn around the floor or seen by people who

would be able to use them for purposes that we in this House would be

concerned about.

So the answer to the question is that I am not concerned about it. I believe that our security is excellent.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the Minister

of Human Resources, confidential information of a family nature never

ceases to be confidential. Saying that the document is old doesn't mean

that the information ceases to be confidential.

Now that the Minister of Finance has informed us that that

confidential information was included in the documents which were, in

his words, strewn across the floor in this warehouse, is that minister

going to do anything about changing the way in which that confidential

information is disposed of? Or are we to tell people that the

confidential information they give the Minister of Human Resources is

not confidential?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, we all know that the

opposition is attempting in some way to try to get out of the

allegations — which they have assisted, in their remarks today and in

their remarks on television and in the newspapers, of perpetrating.

However, to claim that confidential documents which remain confidential

and are destroyed by government when they are past the time to keep

them in government offices, and when the Attorney-General and the

Minister of Finance spoke of the events which led up to this particular

case which has been raised by a former employee of this Legislature, it

was clearly explained that the Minister of Finance took steps to

protect that confidentiality. I believe those steps were taken, in all

good conscience, to protect the confidentiality of the Ministry of

Human Resources.

MR. HOWARD: May I ask the Attorney-General a supplementary

question with respect to part of the statement made by the Provincial

Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) earlier today in which he said that Dr.

Friedmann had taken documents from the ombudsman's office which were

public property and which he was not entitled to have. Inasmuch as this

smacks of some illegality on the part of Dr. Friedmann — theft,

perhaps, of public documents — is the Attorney-General willing to

investigate, lay charges against Dr. Friedmann, if they can be

substantiated, or the alternative — have a public inquiry into the

whole thing to see whether or not the Provincial Secretary is maligning

somebody from the sanctity of this House?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I didn't....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I take

offence at the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) rising to ask a question

on a statement that I didn't make — suggesting that I made a certain

statement in this House. Apparently he wasn't listening very well or

doesn't hear very well, because I never suggested the point that he's

attempting to raise a question on.

HON. MR. SMITH: I will most certainly make a comment on that

after I've looked into this matter. I don't think the allegation was

one of theft. I didn't take it as that. The allegation was that files

had been removed. It doesn't seem to me to require a royal commission,

but it could receive a report back to the House, and we'll certainly

take action. I know that there are matters involved in this that are

being discussed with lawyers. But I'll make a report to the House.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I wish to request leave of the House

for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public

importance, namely that Wayne McCannan, a Langley resident and

owner-operator of Wayne's Ravel Service Ltd. with offices in Surrey and

Langley, was imprisoned in Costa Rica in July. He spent 112 days in

jail, and on October 25 Wayne went to court in Costa Rica. The court

ordered that he will be extradited to Guatemala to face fraud charges.

Wayne is appealing that decision, but as yet no new date has been set

for the trial. The usual time period for this is three to five weeks.

The purpose of requesting this debate, Mr. Speaker, is to have this

House vote to have the provincial government make representation to the

federal government to bring Wayne McCannan home from Costa Rica. The

reason that it's urgent, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that if Mr. McCarman

goes to Guatemala, we'll probably never be able to bring him home.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair will undertake to review the matter and bring a response back at the earliest opportunity.

[ Page 7031 ]

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to standing order 35

to ask leave to move the adjournment of this House for the purpose of

discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the

employment crisis in the province of British Columbia. The province has

seen employment drop from a peak of 1,315,000 in July 1981 to 1,245,000

in the last month reported — a decline of 70,000 employed over

the last four years. It's also seen unemployment increase, during the

same period, from 82,000 in July 1981 to 192,000 in October 1985 — an

increase of 110,000 unemployed.

Clearly there is an employment crisis in this province, Mr. Speaker,

and the Legislature must deal with this matter in all possible haste.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair will undertake to review

the matter. However, I would advise that this matter has been dealt

with on numerous occasions. The results have been brought to the

attention of the members on numerous occasions, as well, about the

matter and its ability to qualify or otherwise under standing order 35.

Nonetheless, hon. member, I will undertake to give that the attention

of the Chair.

MR. SKELLY: The situation continues to get worse, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

Hon. members, the Chair has been advised that, by agreement of the

House leaders, the question period members' statements for Friday will

continue even though we have not had the opportunity to make the usual

submissions by Tuesday. Therefore I would suggest that members so

interested make their submissions to the Chair by 6 o'clock this date.

That is an agreement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: So ordered.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call second reading of Bill 34.

[3:15]

FAMILY LAW REFORM AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

MR. SMITH: Moving second reading, Mr. Speaker, I just mention

a few of the key features in the bill. This bill amending the Family

Relations Act, is long awaited. I think the amendments that are here

today should meet with the approval of all sides of the House. The

objectives are to further discourage the abduction of children as part

of custody disputes between estranged parents, particularly the removal

of children over provincial and international borders; to assist the

courts to locate children who are being hidden to frustrate the

enforcement of child custody orders; to strengthen the powers of the

courts to make garnishee orders, orders for the seizure or management

of property, orders for the imprisonment of persons who defy court

orders to pay maintenance and other orders to facilitate the payment of

maintenance to economically dependent spouses and children; and further

to facilitate the automatic enforcement of maintenance orders by

allowing, as we have not done in the past, designated public officials

to have access on a strictly confidential basis to information in the

records of public and private agencies indicating the whereabouts and

assets of persons defaulting in the payment of their maintenance

obligations.

The legislation will revise the reciprocal enforcement of

maintenance order programs which facilitate the making and enforcement

of maintenance orders where one spouse in British Columbia and the

other spouse elsewhere are dealing with each other.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

It will abolish as well certain obsolete civil legal actions whereby

a husband can sue for monetary compensation where his wife had been

seduced or was being harboured outside the family home.

I commend the bill for the observation of the House, and I'll be

pleased to respond to the member's observations on second reading. I

now move second reading.

Motion approved.

MR. MACDONALD: I accept that many of these matters should be

questioned in committee, but the Attorney-General, in one of the first

sections of this bill, which I can't refer to by number — and he's not

listening at the present time — is abolishing one of the oldest forms

of action in our law. That's the suit for breach of promise of

marriage. The Attorney-General's attitude seems to be that if it's old,

dispose of it. That's a very ancient action used by women who have been

in many cases debauched, and in other cases despoiled, with evil

intention, in the expectation of getting married. Now what's wrong with

that action when you consider the wide range of perfectly ridiculous

laws that are there before the courts to enforce?

I know the Attorney-General will say: "Well, they've done it in

other provinces, therefore we do it." Lockstep, eh? But there can be

real injustices, particularly in the case of a woman — I suppose it

could apply to a man too — who has been led....

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: It can apply to a man, I'm assured by a nod of

a very sagacious head. But a woman can receive genuine injustice in

terms of the expectation of marriage, being promised marriage, by

somebody with evil intention who has no intention whatsoever of

marrying.

AN HON. MEMBER: A cad.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, let the cad be visited with damages, and

why not? Why abolish this particular action just because it's been done

in other places? I suggest that the Attorney-General take this

section

under advisement and, if he doesn't respond at the end of second

reading, that he respond properly in committee.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I thought that the Minister of Human

Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) stayed in the House because she wanted

to speak on this bill. Maybe she will later on.

[ Page 7032 ]

I just want to jog her memory and remind her of the very first time

that I had contact with her was in 1971 when she introduced a similar

piece of legislation herself as a private member in this House — the

amendment to the Wives' and Children's Maintenance Act. At that time in

my role as ombudswoman for the Status of Women Council of Vancouver, I

had the opportunity to deal with that piece of legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ombudsman.

MS. BROWN: No, I was an ombudswoman at the time.

But what this shows you, Mr. Speaker, is how slowly the laws of the

land and justice grind their way when they have to deal with women and

children. Indeed, amendments to legislation dealing with maintenance go

back many, many years. I was just refreshing my memory with reading the

Royal Commission on the Status of Women report which was tabled in the

federal House, I think, in 1970; it started its survey, I think,

sometime in 1967. At that time recommendations were made to improve the

payment of maintenance to spouses. Here we are 15 years later finally

getting a bill which is not perfect — which is imperfect — but which is

nonetheless a very small step in the direction of doing something about

the nonpayment of support by errant spouses.

What I don't understand is why we still have to use this

old-fashioned legal machinery to get maintenance orders enforced. Why

not just deduct at source? Maybe when the Attorney-General is closing

debate on this legislation he can explain to us once again why it is

possible to garnishee wages for nonpayment of car payments, or for

nonpayment of payments on a refrigerator or a stereo or whatever, but

for nonpayment of support of your children it's not possible to do so.

You have to go through this cumbersome legalistic machinery simply to

get a basic right like payment of support for children and payment of

support to a spouse to be enforced. Why are we still doing it that way?

Why do we not go to the garnishee of wages? I understand that one of

the reasons given is that the paperwork is going to be a burden on

employers. It's going to be a burden on small businesses, for example,

to deal with another deduction from a person's wages. In fact, the

amount of money spent on the court process would make it possible for

us to compensate employers and small businesses for the task of this

additional deduction at source. And it would ensure that those payments

are made first, Mr. Speaker, because one of the things the act still

doesn't do is to place a priority on the payment of maintenance and

support for children. In fact, the judge has the discretion — which in

many instances the judge exercises — to look at the other debts that a

husband would have before deciding what the maintenance will be. I know

that's not covered in the bill, but the judge has the discretion to

decide that first we deal with a father's car payments, payments on a

stereo, the fridge, the yacht, the condominium in Maui and everywhere

else. After that's done, what's left over goes to pay support for the

children.

Once that decision is made, enforcement becomes the problem. What we

learn from other jurisdictions and from statistics here in Canada is

that after the first two years, less than 50 percent of these payments

are actually made. Part of the reason why the Ministry of Human

Resources has been so persistent in seeing this legislation introduced

is that for people in receipt of income assistance, the statistic is

even lower. It's about 11 percent, or something in that regard. We know

from the Wisconsin experience, and the experience in other parts of the

world — certainly in North America, Mr. Speaker — that in many

instances it has nothing to do with ability to pay. In some instances

it has everything to do with ability to pay, but in many instances it

has nothing to do with ability to pay.

So now we have a piece of legislation that's going to give a person

who has the ability to pay, and doesn't pay, the option of going to

jail, which is a wonderful option. We learn from research in the United

States and in other jurisdictions that when the threat of jail is used,

suddenly a number of these fathers find they are able to pay.

Nonetheless, what we also learn from those experiences is that the

fathers who end up in jail are in most instances the ones who do not

have the ability to pay. So how is this law going to be enforced

without being an undue burden on those people who do not have the

ability to pay? Speaking to women's groups, for example, we are told

there could be an escalation in violence directed towards them from

their spouses because of increased hostility around this whole area of

going to jail if there is nonpayment. All of this could be avoided if

we could deduct the maintenance payment at source. It could be taken

right off the top, in the same way that the federal government, to be

sure your income tax is paid, deducts it at source; and if you've

overpaid, they return it to you.

If we really are serious about parents of both sexes meeting their

commitment to their children, why do we not make it a priority that

that's the way in which it is done?

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to give the impression that I am not going

to support the legislation. I recognize that it is a very small step,

but at least it is a step in the right direction. All I am asking the

minister to do when he closes debate is to explain why it is that he is

still using this old-fashioned, cumbersome and unsuccessful way of

dealing with this very serious problem. We know from the research done

at the University of Wisconsin and from the International Conference on

Matrimonial and Child Support in Edmonton, Alberta, that divorce has an

especially destructive impact on the economy of the parent who is left

with the support of the children, and that in most instances, that is

the mother. In fact, men experience a real decrease in their income of

about 10 percent after divorce — and if they do pay their support

payments, it is a decrease of about 19 percent — where sole support

mothers caring for the children experience closer to a 30 percent

decrease in their income, which would be really difficult. So I think I

would appreciate the minister commenting on those things.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I am very glad about the decision

that was made to clean up the whole business of interprovincial and

international adoptions. This business of abducting kids and one parent

kidnapping kids from the other is one that has created a lot of pain

not just for the parents but for the children themselves. I certainly

support those sections of the legislation that deal with that.

In support of what my colleague the member for Vancouver East said

about the breach of promise, I realize that it is a very old-fashioned

and archaic piece of legislation. But I have spoken to people who have

indicated that it is a kind of protection for those women who in the

heat of the moment and without thinking will make irresponsible

financial decisions upon the promise of marriage. I don't know whether

we should indulge their irresponsibility by leaving this

Section in

there, or if we should say: "Well, if they were so silly as to believe

that that person meant it when he said he was going to

[ Page

7033 ]

marry them, then they deserve to be punished." I don't know. I don't

like the idea of it being removed. I think it is a form of protection

for men too, who probably on the promise of marriage will sign over

their entire estate to the woman of their love. I don't know; I am not

familiar with these things, but I certainly agree with my colleague

that if it has been working, there is really no reason for us to remove

it.

I am hoping that when the minister closes debate on the maintenance

section, he will explain to us why we still have to go through this

method of enforcing maintenance when there is such a simple and

straightforward way in which the federal government has shown us we can

actually get this money by simply deducting it at source.

[3:30]

HON. MR. SMITH: In closing debate, I'll respond first of all

to the subject of the removal of the action of breach of promise. I

guess it's fair to say that it's not being removed just to keep up with

other jurisdictions or to be trendy. It is being removed because it was

thought that the remedy of seeking monetary compensation for that sort

of wrong in this day and age was probably no longer too efficacious. It

was never suggested in this amendment that there is a condonation of

people who promise marriage to the ladies and lead them on and then

don't marry them.

MS. BROWN: Or vice versa.

HON. MR. SMITH: Or vice versa, exactly, and I might add that

the legislation did apply to spouses, as you know, and it can happen

the other way.

In a modem society, the damage actions there are probably not

socially desirable and are often, of course, very vindictive and

destructive.

The comments of the member for Burnaby (Ms. Brown) on maintenance

are very good ones. Even without this amendment,

section 16 under the

existing act allows the court, under the wage assignment provision, to

make what really is exactly the same kind of order that is the practice

of the federal government — that is, a wage assignment that binds the

existing employer and any other employer that the defaulting spouse is

employed by later who is served the notice of that

section to make

monthly wage assignments directly to the family court, who pays it to

the spouse. I think that is a good section.

In here we are just simply trying to strengthen the garnishee power

a little more where it's not possible to do a wage assignment. It may

be, for instance, that the person works on a commission basis and

doesn't have regular salaries that you can attach it to. Then you're

pretty well stuck with trying to find out who owes money to them, so

you can attach those moneys. You have to do it, unfortunately, by

garnishment. We've extended the life of these garnishee orders from

three months to six months, which will improve.

But you know, I agree with everything she says. I do feel, though, that the

Family Relations Act, now and as amended, goes about as far as we can go to

address these things. Many of these problems are problems of enforcement. They're

not problems of legislation; they're actually enforcement problems. They

highlight the need. It's very important, I think, that the authorities who

are enforcing family maintenance orders have access to confidential information

as to the whereabouts of spouses. It is one of those areas where we have to

override the rights of privacy, and we have to give that information. I know

the member supports me in this point of view, that they have to have that information.

They have to be able to get these characters who are not discharging their obligations,

are taking off and spending the money for other purposes. So I'm pleased

to see her support those provisions and the provisions for reciprocal enforcement

and preventing the movement of children across borders, as has taken place in

the past.

I have pleasure in moving second reading, and I will be glad to respond further when the bill comes to committee.

Motion approved.

Bill 34, Family Law Reform Amendment Act, 1985, read a second time

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

next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 55.

ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1985

HON. MR. SMITH: Because the bill is one of these grab-bags,

Mr. Speaker, beyond the brief description I gave under the new rules in

first reading, there's no point in my adding anything. I think I should

deal with it

section by

Section 1n committee, which I propose to do.

MR. COCKE: On the condition that each clause will be given the latitude of debate in second reading.

AN HON. MEMBER: As is the custom of the House.

MR. COCKE: As has been from time to time the custom of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I've discussed that with the Deputy Speaker, and it's agreed.

The minister closes debate on Bill 55.

HON. MR. SMITH: I close the interesting debate that we've had and move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 55, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1985, read

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

consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Seconding reading of Bill 57.

COURT ORDER ENFORCEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

HON. MR. SMITH: This bill really provides for the

implementation of a convention between Canada and the U.K., providing

for a reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and

commercial matters. It was signed in Ottawa on April 24, 1984. The

purpose of the convention was to protect Canadian-owned assets in

Britain from being attached by litigants in countries which were

signatories to the European convention of 1968 in regard to

[ Page 7034 ]

this matter. Since the government of the U.K. Is expected to become

a party to this European convention this year, the necessity of passing

this legislation is to protect B.C. residents who own property in the

United Kingdom. The implementing legislation has already been adopted

at the federal level and in at least five of the provinces.

MS. BROWN: In the absence of the spokesperson for the

Attorney-General and the deputy spokesperson of the Attorney-General's

department, I am going to speak on their behalf and say that I think

they support this bill, and that we're going to support it as a result

of that. But I have to say a few more words, because I think the next

piece of legislation is the motor vehicle one, and our spokesperson has

gone for some material. So would you like me to speak until he gets

back, or would you wait until he gets back?

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Oh, you have one before that. Oh, okay. We're going to support this legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Further debate?

HON. MR. SMITH: I close the debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The question is second reading of Bill 57.

Motion approved.

Bill 57, Court Order Enforcement Amendment Act, 1985, read a second

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

at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Is Mr. Hanson your spokesperson on the Motor Vehicle Act?

Interjection.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, we can start it off. Second reading of Bill 58, Mr. Speaker.

MOTOR VEHICLE

AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 1), 1985

HON. MR. SMITH: The Motor Vehicle Amendment bill principally is designed

to do some things that will assist in the drinking-and-driving field. The major

one is to close the loophole that some convicted drunk drivers were able to

employ to delay the imposition of the mandatory six-month prohibition from driving.

Previously, by simply filing an appeal, the prohibition was automatically stayed

until the bill was heard, and of course it doesn't exactly inspire speed

in getting on with your appeal if you have a stay until your appeal is heard.

An amendment to the act will require a person appealing a conviction to apply

to the court to have the prohibition stayed, so there is still an opportunity

to do that. A person who feels that they are innocent and have been wrongly

convicted can get a stay from the court, but it just doesn't happen automatically.

This, we think, is also going to reduce the number of frivolous appeals, because

it's no secret that in some cases appeals were launched to allow the driving

to continue to a time when it was more convenient to lose the licence. So that's

the purpose of that amendment.

Bill 56, the miscellaneous statutes amendment act which we dealt

with in this session, contained provisions that allow the continuation

of the superintendent's authority to prohibit from driving those who

commit serious Criminal Code driving offences or who have evidenced

poor driving behaviour through the accumulation of a large number of

convictions for provincial driving offences. The administrative

procedures supporting the prohibitions have been subject to attack, Mr.

Speaker, in a number of arguments under the Charter of Rights and

Freedoms, and in the recent case of Hundal in the British Columbia

court of appeal we argued the right of the superintendent to prohibit

driving where there had been an accumulation of over 88 penalty points.

That was a Charter case in which it was argued that because the

superintendent had not held a formal hearing in relation to the

suspension of Mr. Hundel's licence, that the suspension was invalid and

was to be set aside. That's a case that I actually argued in the court

of appeal successfully, and the decision was in favour of the

legislation. But it seemed to us that we should strengthen the

legislation to clarify it, so that it would be clearer that we were not

in any way violating the Charter and that we could deal with these

people with serious accumulation of points. The amendments will make it

clear now that the superintendent can prohibit a driver from driving on

the basis of any part of his record without the necessity to consider

other information.

The bill also provides for procedures to allow the provincial court

to extend the time within which a person may dispute a traffic

violation report. It was a very short time. You almost got your ticket,

took it home, found your glasses, and your time to dispute the

violation notice had gone by. So I never liked that one very much, and

I think we're going to improve it.

It will also be allowed to appeal a determination of that court

where a person fails to appear at a dispute hearing through no fault of

his own — maybe he was in the wrong court, notified the wrong place or

something like that.

[3:45]

Finally the bill contains a number of housekeeping amendments, one

of which is intended to ensure that vehicle owners remain liable for

municipal parking violations. These may be mostly technical in nature,

but they are important to the traffic enforcement program.

I would be pleased to respond after members have spoken on second reading.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, for the most part the bill is

acceptable, as far as we're concerned. I know sometimes one gets a

sense of deja vu. I recall that the last time I spoke on a Motor

Vehicle Amendment Act the Attorney-General of the day asked if we were

serious on this side of the House about blood testing. I want to

congratulate the government on eventually bringing in that very thing,

compulsory blood testing, and leading the nation vis-à-vis drunk

drivers.

We are in a situation right now in which the Motor Vehicle Act is a

very important act in this province — and anywhere in the world where

people drive. Some people out there have the opinion that a driver's

licence is a prerogative to do anything you like once you get it, as

opposed to getting the feeling that it's a privilege to drive. I don't

think that any government, no matter how irresponsible, can ignore the

fact that it is important that people not only obey the law but also

[ Page

7035 ]

know the law, and also that they be educated to not, in fact, break

the law. I feel that this bill provides some areas — the area of

plugging a loophole created by a recent court decision where an owner

was reprosecuted because his vehicle was parked in violation of a

municipal parking bylaw. The defence was that there was no evidence to

show either that the owner parked the vehicle or that municipal bylaws

were covered by

section 76 of the Motor Vehicle Act. This amendment

specifies that the municipal traffic bylaws are specifically covered by

the act and thus enforceable. The onus is now on the owner to show that

the person who had the vehicle when the alleged offence was committed

was not entrusted by the owner with the vehicle. In other words, you

have to show it was stolen. So if I lend my car to my kid, my friend,

or anybody else, I take full responsibility for having done so. That's

quite acceptable.

We have some questions for the A-G on second reading of this bill.

My first question would be: has the government decided that they are

going to proclaim the 1982 amendments?

Section 69.2, also passed in

1982, provides for imprisonment for non-payment of fines. Are they

going to proclaim that? Also, has the minister been advised on whether

this amendment is consistent with the Charter? What we're really

discussing in this particular

Section is lining up with the Charter,

wherever the government deems to see fit. The cure will speed up

prosecutions against corporations, but since the cure violates the

legal tradition and also the Charter, perhaps the cure is worse than

the disease.

When, if ever, will you proclaim the 1982 amendments? The next one:

has the minister advised us...? He didn't in second reading. But

has he advised anybody on whether this amendment is consistent with the

Charter? We're asking those questions.

I think it is so long since we have been here, and on this

particular subject, and as we all know there was another person who had

the responsibility on this side of the House for this particular area

of concern, who now finds himself elsewhere....

MS. BROWN: Happily.

MR. COCKE: Happily. We were more than delighted.

Mr. Speaker,

Section I amends

section 69.3 on ex parte proceedings.

That's been unproclaimed since 1982. The A-G should be asked, and we're

asking, when all those 1982 amendments are to be proclaimed. I asked

you about one.

Section 69.2 also was from 1982. The amendment introduces an

inequity into the law: where ex parte trial may proceed will depend on

the nature of the defendant. So we're talking about the defendant being

a corporation, or a person, and so on and so forth. We're just wanting

to know exactly what direction the government will be going.

I would also like to ask the Attorney-General where we stand now on

the whole question. Has it been resolved once and for all, on the whole

question of the police taking your keys, impounding your car for 24

hours, and then you have the right to go and get it the next day if

there is some doubt as to whether or not you are drunk? I happen to be

one who feels that that is a relatively good idea, rather than having a

lot of cases come before the courts because they're not sure and

because they don't have time to check out everybody.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, I notice that the Attorney-General, who

was carrying the bill, has moved out. His bills were going through so

quickly, I guess he couldn't stand it.

He quickly rushed out, I presume because of a dizzy spell because of

the speed. Now we're going to have to listen to the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) answer my in-depth

questions about this bill that I know so much about.

MR. STUPICH: There's a cabinet meeting going on.

MR. COCKE: Is there a cabinet meeting?

MR. STUPICH: There's nobody left.

MR. COCKE: That's right, all the papergate guys have gone.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, we would like to hear one or two answers before we vote on this particular bill.

HON. MR. GARDOM: On behalf of my colleague the

Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker, I will be closing the debate, if there

are any other interested speakers.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House will have to be advised then.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I have so advised.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, the Chair has to do it, hon. member: the minister is closing debate. Presumably there are no other speakers.

In recognizing the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, the House is advised that the minister closes debate.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, in response to the questions of

the hon. member for New Westminster as to when the government proposes

to proclaim the 1982 amendments, I would say that they are under

discussion at the present time concerning a few problems in

implementation vis-à-vis penalty and so forth, and it is contemplated

that they will be proclaimed in due course.

The second question as to whether or not the thrust of the bill

complied with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as to

whether that had been given consideration by the ministry, I am

informed the answer is yes, in the affirmative. It is considered to be

unoffensive to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 1, though,

would like very much to associate myself with the remarks of the hon.

member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) when he articulated to the House

that driving today is a privilege and not a right. We have to remember,

Mr. Speaker, that essentially a vehicle can end up being really little

more than a weapon on a highway. I think society has very clearly

indicated...

Interjection.

HON. MR. GARDOM: As my colleague the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) mentions, a lethal weapon.

I think it's been very clearly indicated to the political process

throughout our country that Canadian society is not prepared to

continue to tolerate the deaths and the injuries and the tragedies that

are resulting from automobile accidents. It's a never-ending fight.

There has to be a continuing amount of effort developed at the

community level — at the public level — to see that there is very much

a change of attitude, specifically insofar as it relates to drinking and

[ Page 7036 ]

driving. Drinking and driving is nothing more than a crime. It is a criminal offence, and it has to be looked at in that light.

The hon. member talked about penalties. I've always really favoured

an additional type of penalty. I think that there should be some type

of custody — be it social agency custody or custody in the corrections

system — for any offences that involve drinking behind the wheel. I've

made this type of speech in this assembly before, Mr. Speaker, and I

was accused of being pretty hard-line on the thing. Well, it seems to

me now that the general public are supporting that position, because

what I'm suggesting at this point is something that will be

life-saving. We owe that to society, and I think the sooner we get to

definitely having specific penalties which involve interfering with the

liberty of the subject when it relates to drinking and driving, the

better.

Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleagues across the floor and indeed

on this side of the House will have other comments when we come to

committee stage. I would therefore move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 58, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 1), 1985, read a second

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

at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 45, Mr. Speaker.

FINANCE STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill

45, Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1985, which the Votes and

Proceedings will show was introduced on May 30 of this year. The bill

before us, as my critic opposite will know, contains a number of

amendments which are to be introduced uniformly in the 11 major tax

statutes administered by the Ministry of Finance. The list is, I'm

sure, also known to the member: Corporation Capital Tax Act, the

Gasoline (Coloured) Tax Act, Gasoline Tax Act, Hotel Room Tax Act,

Insurance Premium Tax Act, Logging Tax Act, Mining Tax Act, Motive Fuel

Use Tax Act, Social Service Tax Act, Taxation (Rural Area) Act and

Tobacco Tax Act. Given that these are designed to establish consistency

and improve fairness in certain administrative aspects of the tax

system, and that each of the four items is suggested for inclusion in

each of the 11 statutes, I propose, if it is the wish of the House, to

specifically address each amendment only once, and then ask for

discussion and debate at that time. It is an omnibus bill, but if it is

acceptable, I can just briefly touch on the amendments which it

contains.

The first amendment standardizes the conditions safeguarding

confidentiality of tax records — the restricted circumstances when

disclosure is appropriate. It also establishes a penalty for improper

release of taxpayer information by a public employee.

This provision also allows intergovernmental sharing of tax record

information for the purposes of administering the tax system. Most

provinces, including Ontario, already have such a provision for sharing

information regarding taxpayers who conduct business in one province

but maintain business records in another. This amendment will also

allow other provinces to begin exchanging with B.C. Information needed

to effectively administer the statutes and ensure that interprovincial

businesses pay their fair share of taxes in the province of British

Columbia.

[4:00]

The other three amendments were suggested to me in the course of the

tax study tour in the fall of 1984 — the public meetings about which I

have spoken. These are sensible improvements related to one another.

They protect the rights of persons and businesses requested to pay the

government amounts of money that they hold on behalf of tax debtors.

The first of these makes it clear that money held for a tax debtor in

his role as a trustee may not be requested in a demand notice. The

reason for this is that the notice should only be effective for

deposits which a taxpayer has access to and is entitled to withdraw for

his own purposes.

The second of this group of amendments limits the period that a

demand notice remains in effect to 90 days. Presently the period is

open-ended, and the government feels that this is just too onerous. A

limited demand notice is preferable to the government, and to me, and

it is consistent with federal and provincial income tax legislation.

The final change protects persons and businesses acting in

accordance with a demand notice. Money paid by them to the government

on behalf of tax debtors will be deemed to have been paid by the person

or business to the debtor corporation, thus protecting them from action

by the debtor corporation. I note for the House, Mr. Speaker, that an

equivalent provision is contained in both the federal and provincial

income tax legislation.

In my belief the several elements contained in this bill will assist

and benefit many in the province of British Columbia, and will also

improve consistency by introducing these provisions in all the tax

statutes to which I referred. I commend it to the members.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, after the heat generated earlier

this afternoon, it's almost comic relief to talk about protecting

confidentiality at this point and in this context.

However, it's well that the minister's explanation was given once,

because if he gave it with respect to every

Section it would be exactly

the same, word for word. It's doing the same thing with a number of

statutes, as the minister said. The purposes of the legislative changes

announced by the minister are laudable. The changes in the legislation

are fair. The opposition will support this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister closes debate.

HON. MR. CURTIS: With respect to confidentiality, indeed,

quite apart from the discussion which occurred earlier today, there are

those, as the member would know, having served as Minister of Finance —

and as others would recognize — who believe that they should have

access to tax information that is resident in the Ministry of Finance.

They make inquiries. They may be acting on behalf of someone else; they

may be professionals; they may be those who are concerned about a

particular firm. The number of inquiries with respect to tax

information made by individuals regarding small or large businesses is

quite surprising — it was surprising when I first learned of it some

time ago. While it doesn't happen every day, it happens often enough

that I really think we have to address that. The answer at all times is

absolutely no. In that regard, those who are in charge of the revenue

section of

[ Page

7037 ]

the ministry are very cognizant of their duty and responsibility. So

I'm speaking of those who would like to have information that is

provided to the government and is still held by the government with

respect to taxes due, penalties or whatever. That's one of the reasons

for that.

I thank the member for his comments, Mr. Speaker. With respect to Bill 45, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 45, Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1985, read a second time

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

next sitting after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call second reading of Bill 54.

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES

MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS ACT, 1985

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move second reading of Bill 54, Capital

Expenditures Miscellaneous Amendments Act, 1985. The purposes of this

bill, which was also introduced in the spring and therefore has been

available for review for some considerable time, are to streamline the

borrowing and approval process for school and hospital district capital

expenditures, to broaden the range of debt instruments through which

provincial financing authorities may raise funds, to introduce

off-lending provisions for these authorities and to make a number of

other technical amendments relating primarily to borrowing.

Members who were present at the time will recall that in 1983

amendments to the Financial Administration Act were passed which

allowed the provincial government to borrow funds on behalf of Crown

corporations and to re-lend those funds to the Crown corporations. The

purpose of the 1983 amendments was to utilize the province's credit

rating to obtain funds for Crown corporations at a cost below that

which some Crown corporations, particularly the smaller ones, could

achieve on their own. This procedure, as members will recognize, is

referred to as "off-lending." In this bill I've introduced parallel

amendments for the school and regional hospital district and

post-secondary institution capital financing authorities to streamline

their off-lending to the bodies on whose behalf they currently borrow.

During the period when the off-lending program for Crown

corporations was being developed, the government also examined the

process and procedures by which school districts, regional hospital

districts, colleges, institutes and universities borrow money to

finance capital expenditures. The result then was implementation of

measures to improve the accountability and the control of these capital

expenditures, and to lower borrowing costs through the establishment of

a new capital project certificate of approval process. The purposes of

the capital project certificate of approval process are to first

improve accountability, to improve control, to lower borrowing costs

and to provide additional information on the progress of approved

projects.

If I might briefly explain how this process works. Local entities — a term

a number of us use to describe school districts, regional hospital districts

and any post-secondary educational institution receiving government debt-servicing

assistance for capital expenditures — are required through submissions from

their respective ministers to obtain Treasury Board approval for their capital

projects. Treasury Board considers all requests in the context of the government's

fiscal position and its long term fiscal strategies. If a request is approved,

the responsible minister then has the authority to issue certificates of approval

to that local entity.

This certificate is used by the local entity to secure short-term

borrowing at a financial institution through what is in essence a line

of credit. Banking arrangements are set up by the Ministry of Finance

which allow the local entity to borrow funds indirectly from the

provincial government and which covers any draws on the line of credit

made by that local entity.

This represents a significant cost saving for interim financing of

capital projects, which obviously benefits the taxpayer, the local

entity and the province. I estimate that annual savings from this

program exceed about one-half million dollars. As projects are

completed, the short-term borrowing is converted into longer-term debt

through the financing authority.

Although this process is in place currently, outdated administrative

requirements in the School Act and the Hospital District Act impair to

a certain extent the ability of the new process to function efficiently

and effectively for school and regional hospital districts. The

amendments before the House today will shorten these administrative

requirements appreciably without any change in the level of government

approval over school and regional hospital district capital

expenditures. I should add, for the information of members, that to the

best of my knowledge both the school districts and regional hospital

districts are supportive of these proposed amendments.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

The current provincial financing authority legislation which

establishes the educational institutions capital financing authority,

school districts capital financing authority and regional hospital

districts capital financing authority is restrictive in that debentures

are the only debt instrument that can be issued to raise money. In an

age when innovative financing methods are constantly being developed,

this seems to us to be an overly restrictive provision, and it requires

amendment. So we have tabled through this bill amendments to each of

the respective statutes to permit the issuance of all forms of

securities by these financing authorities. These will allow the three

financing authorities to utilize a variety of debt instruments that

more accurately reflect the needs of the individual school districts,

the regional hospital districts and educational institutions. I believe

this will, in the long run, lower costs to these entities.

These are the three major thrusts of this bill: first, permit

off-lending by the three financing authorities; secondly, streamline

the school and hospital district capital approval and borrowing

processes; thirdly, broaden the range of securities that the financing

authorities may use to raise funds. In addition, as I indicated, there

are a number of technical amendments to improve control but at the same

time provide flexibility in areas such as emergency expenditures and

capital project requests.

Mr. Speaker, the amendments to the Financial Administration Act are

designed primarily to clarify existing legislation. The amendments also

authorize borrowing in forms other than through the issuance of

security, such as through bank lines of credit; provide that borrowing

approval by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may be authorized in

either

[ Page 7038 ]

Canadian dollar or foreign currency terms; provide that the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — may specify the amount that the

Minister of Finance may borrow to meet the needs of the consolidated

revenue fund. Under current legislation, this amount may be determined

by the Minister of Finance, so we are broadening that control. .

Provision for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to authorize this

amount I think ensures greater control and accountability. It also will

require the Minister of Finance to table in the Legislature each year a

report of the guarantees and indemnities provided under the Financial

Administration Act.

So, Mr. Speaker, Bill 54 accomplishes two major goals: first, the

streamlining of the school and hospital district capital approval and

borrowing process; second, to make what are in effect technical

refinements to legislation for consistency purposes. I trust that the

House will support this amending bill. I move second reading.

MR. STUPICH: The opposition will support this bill. As the

minister quite clearly points out, it has to do with borrowing, really.

All of the changes have to do with borrowing. And if there's anything

that this government should be good at by now, it is borrowing.

When this government took office in December 1975 the total debt of

the province — and it was all in Crown corporations; there was no net

direct debt at that time — was $4.4 billion. By the end of 1985, ten

years later, it will be $19 billion. They've had a lot of practice at

borrowing. They've had a lot of practice at changing legislation and

bringing in new legislation to deal with borrowing. The bill before us

now does clean up some of their problems with respect to borrowing.

The minister's press release dated June 24, 1985: "To streamline and

modernize capital borrowing procedures." That's good. We'll certainly

support that. The fact that it was introduced in June 1985 is good as

well. The minister is able to point out, with some satisfaction, that

school districts and regional hospital districts have been consulted,

and they support the legislation. I think that's a good procedure: to

introduce the legislation, to give the community time to respond, and

then to pass the legislation and make it effective. One wonders, if it

is as good as it is — and I believe it is — why we've had to wait so

long to pass legislation that is going to save, in the minister's

estimate, some $500,000 a year; but I suppose the government has other

timetables.

There was another paragraph in the minister's press release that

surprises me a little: "The proposals in this bill will significantly

shorten the approval process for school and hospital capital projects."

Mr. Speaker, I believe the situation now and in the past and in the

future will still be that the decision as to when a certain hospital is

going to be built, or when a certain school is going to be built, or a

school is going to be extended, or a hospital is going to be extended,

or whether a municipality is to undergo some public works project that

requires borrowing — that the decision in detail will be made by the

Minister of Finance. Perhaps on the advice of cabinet, but the Minister

of Finance is the one who says when these things are going to happen.

It was that way under W.A.C. Bennett, it was that way when the NDP were

in office, and it's that way today. I don't see it shortening the

process, unless the minister wants to have some flexibility so that he

can shorten the process to meet certain timetables. I suspect that that

is maybe what is in mind. I think up to now the Minister of Finance, as

a member of the government, has had the authority to speed up these

projects or slow them down at will. I don't say that's necessarily

wrong. I know it was government policy until 1972 under W.A.C. Bennett,

and after 1972 under Dave Barrett, that projects like these were used

to fuel the economy when the economy needed fuelling, and were used to

slow down the economy if the economy was racing too fast. That's fine;

the government should have that responsibility, and should accept the

responsibility for keeping the economy moving when it needs some

government involvement, and for getting out of it when the economy

doesn't need that kind of assistance.

[4:15]

There are some concerns about some of the details. We'll deal with those,

of course, when we come to the committee stage, Mr. Speaker. But I think all

I can say — and I've said it already — is that we'll support a bill

that does clean up borrowing. I would like to offer the minister a bit of advice.

It's the same kind of advice that I passed on to the Legislature some time

ago, quoting his predecessor from the same constituency — no, I guess he was

Oak Bay: Herbert Anscomb. He tried to persuade the governments then and after

to do their borrowing in Canada rather than outside Canada. It used to be the

practice, again under W.A.C. Bennett, to do as much borrowing.... As a matter

of fact, for years he didn't borrow anything outside Canada. He was able

to do all the borrowing that he needed within Canada out of various pension

funds and through parity bonds.

My concern, Mr. Speaker, and I have quoted this previously, is that

B.C.'s debt — taking Crown corporations and everything else — outside

Canada now exceeds $4 billion. That means that we have to export or, by

some means or other, raise some $500 million a year by borrowing

further, by selling round logs to China, by selling the products of our

mines. They don't want Canadian dollars, Mr. Speaker; they want

something of some intrinsic value. The more we increase that debt, the

more — to paraphrase Herbert Anscomb — we put ourselves at the risk of

economic conditions in other jurisdictions and the risks attendant upon

that.

Ways have been found by other jurisdictions to try to borrow less

from abroad and to have a higher percentage of our borrowing within

Canada. That's the one thing I would like the minister to look at. It's

so easy to go to New York. It's so easy to go to Tokyo, as he's done —

they may be very nice trips — and to Europe, and raise money in all

these places and justify the trip on the basis of the money raised.

But, Mr. Speaker, it is costing the people of Canada whenever any

Canadian government goes outside of our borders and borrows from

foreigners.

Mr. Speaker, I say that the opposition will be supporting this bill.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, this is a bit of a departure from the

way that school districts have operated in the past. I defer to my hon.

colleague, the member for Nanaimo, and his long experience in financial

matters if he tells me that this is a superior way for hospitals and

schools to be financed. If the spokesperson in finance has agreed with

the minister that the minister's suggestion outlined in the bill is a

superior way to borrow than the practices of the past, then I'm willing

to take his advice on that. I'm not so sure.

I'm a little concerned about the fact that, again, hospitals and

school districts will lose control of their own borrowing. The minister

rushes, I would think, to the counter-argument

[ Page

7039 ]

that the superior credit rating of the province will enable, as he

said in his press release, these substantial savings of up to $500,000,

which is a sizeable sum but in terms of the total borrowing is a drop

in a bucket — because the province has a superior rating, as far as its

borrowing is concerned. But I recall from the previous session that the

credit rating of the province fell from triple-A, by Standard and

Poor's, to an AA rating.

I don't think that this is the time for the minister to be bragging

about how successful we are and what a tremendous rating the province

has, and that that is the reason for a particular kind of new technique

that has been suggested. I suppose that I tend to be rather cynical

about things like that, and I don't know that these motives, told and

clarified by the minister, are necessarily the ones that are operative.

I hate to be suspicious, but sometimes I feel that there is a hidden

agenda in this thing.

Is it not possible, Mr. Speaker, that if the minister has total

control of all the borrowings for schools and hospitals throughout...?

That is exactly what is happening: he has total control. When the

minister has total control, he can

schedule these borrowings. Maybe

that's not a bad thing. Maybe it's something that needs to be

undertaken, so you could

schedule these things out and they wouldn't

all jam up at one point. At the same time, approvals are now going to

be totally in the hands of the minister, and the scheduling.

Will the scheduling and the approvals come down just prior to an

election? I mean, will certain approvals all of a sudden appear for us,

and the various areas be showered with goodies just before the election

time? I know, in terms of capital borrowing, that the total borrowing —

the total capital expenditures on all schools for the province of

British Columbia last year — was $25 million. That's for leaky roofs,

new buildings, school expansions, etc. In my own district, School

District 43, there is a need right now, as demonstrated by the

treasurer and the school board — expressed by the treasurer; a decision

by the school board — for $12 million for this year. In other words,

half the capital requirements of the total expenditures last year is

needed by my one school district. And, you know, there are over 70

school districts in the province, so that would be a major scheduling

problem.

But the minister controls the amounts that are going to be spent on

school budgets. The ministry now controls the amount that's going to be

spent in capital, in maintenance and in every other part of a school

board budget. So what I'm suggesting here is that yes, there may be

some savings, and yes, it may be streamlined; but local autonomy is

again, I think, put at risk. It reduces the local autonomy and puts the

Minister of Finance in the driver's seat. That's why I'm concerned.

Another thing that happens is that some of these portions have been

called little technical amendments for clarification. It looks to me

that there isn't the same kind of public disclosure when things are

handled centrally as there is when they are handled in a decentralized

way within a school district. Usually, these things come before the

people — whether it's health, hospitals or schools — in terms of some

kinds of bylaws which can be debated and which can go to the people for

full discussion. That may occur now but it won't occur in future — or

it's unlikely that it will occur in future. The minister might

contradict and debate that point with me and say: "Well, they can go

through the same process. If the board wants to build a new building or

expand a high school or add a swimming pool or do whatever it wants, it

can have the discussion locally and then send it along to us, and in

our own good time we'll decide when we're going to authorize the

borrowing." Maybe at the most favourable rates, maybe just before an

election — who knows? We don't know.

Again, I think it is a mark of this government that powers that were

once dispersed throughout the province, where people who would be

affected by the decisions had a say in making those decisions, have

been severely eroded over the last three years. I think this is another

example of that kind of centralization. As I say, I support the bill

with some reluctance. I know that there is a practice in this House to

get up and speak against it and vote for it. My colleague, the member

for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), has suggested it is worthy of support. I

defer to him, but I would just like to have on the record my concern

about the uncertainties existing in my own mind about this relatively

new procedure.

MR. WILLIAMS: I have some trouble with the idea and I know

it's in the earlier statute of 1981 — of the authority to borrow with

respect to inadequate funds in general revenue. It just seems to me

that this is accepting the idea that we are going to be in a deficit

position on a regular basis, and that the Minister of Finance simply

wants to be in a position to run to the money markets and deal with his

problems. The Americans are looking at constitutional amendments in

terms of dealing with debt questions, and to have complete freedom as

you have under the present statutes and this statute, only with cabinet

authority to go borrowing to deal with operating funds, strikes me as

quite unsatisfactory. That's not in the tradition of this province,

other than the recent history under this administration. I must say

that I have some trouble with that kind of open-ended borrowing

authority for the Minister of Finance for current operations.

MR. COCKE: I think that this bill is indicative of a

government that has gone crazy on centralization. The minister got up

and talked about: "Well, now we're streamlining things; we're getting

everybody to the point where they can benefit — that is, these smaller

Crown corporations — from the province's relatively good credit

rating." Then he goes on to say that this bill takes us into that

situation where school boards, hospital boards and so on can get into

the same act. Well, Mr. Speaker, I wonder how many of these

institutions, these districts, have been beset by the higher interest

rates.

In any event, whether it has been one or two, or three or four, I

sometimes feel that it's much better if there is some local input. The

local input isn't here if it's up to the minister to give the final

authority for the borrowing. I don't subscribe to the fact that this

government has done a good job on borrowing. When we lost government in

1975....

MR. REID: Forever.

MR. COCKE: That sure isn't true. You're going to find that

out sooner than you think. There's the member for Surrey telling us

"forever." He's a one-term wonder.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for New Westminster has the floor on Bill 54.

[4:30]

MR. REID: Stake your seat on it.

[ Page 7040 ]

MR. COCKE: Yeah, I'll bet my seat on it any old day.

Mr. Speaker, this government started out and told us all the

marvellous things they were going to do in 1975-76. They were going to

put the province on its feet. They were going to get the province out

of debt. In 1975 we had a total debt — no direct debt — of $4 billion.

That Minister of Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) over there is trying his

best to outdo that by himself. Today in this province we owe $18

billion. It took us a century to get to $4 billion, and now here we are

at $18 billion debt. And the Minister of Finance, on a bill such as

this, comes to us and says: "Trust me." How can I trust that Minister

of Finance, who has been the incumbent Minister of Finance over most of

those years? He's got us into most of that debt by his authorizations

and by his borrowings. And now he comes to us after bungling everything

in this province and says: "Trust me. We are streamlining things. We

are going to put this province right on the road to better interest

rates.

Mr. Speaker, I would far rather some of these borrowing decisions be

made in New Westminster than in Victoria with the present incumbents in

power. They have ruined the financial structure of this province, and

yet they were the ones to come in and do it for us. They were the ones

who were going to clean up the "mess."

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: What a beautiful job we did in retrospect,

notwithstanding that one-time wonder from Surrey, Mr. Speaker.

Notwithstanding that one-time wonder from Surrey, who will never be

back again after the next election....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, that's my concern. My concern is that we bumble....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The members will come to order. The member for New Westminster has taken his place.

MR. COCKE: The government has bumbled the finances of this

province. They have us in a position now, when we desperately need jobs

so badly that we're hurting and when we've a lost generation of young

people out there, where we aren't in the financial condition to see to

it that they get the jobs that they need.

They say: "Trust us." They blew it, Mr. Member for Vancouver East,

during the better times. And now we're in the tough times. When

government should be there to take care of the needs of society, they

can't do it. The Minister of Human Resources can't do it. No minister

in this government has the kind of attitude that they need, just by

virtue of their mismanagement of our economy, and they come to us and

say: "Trust us."

Fortuitously for that minister, one of our cooler heads, the member

for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), who thinks mathematically, indicates that

because there is some sense in this bill, we're going to support it.

I'll support it reluctantly because that member says so. But I'll tell

you, Mr. Speaker, I just want the province to know that I do not

support this government in any way, shape or form. They are a disgrace.

They are a financial disaster and have been since day one.

Mr. Speaker, the minister asks me a question, and I'll answer it.

The government owed ICBC $200 million at the time. ICBC therefore

showed a deficit of $182 million.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: He knows it, and everybody else knew it. You were

here, Mr. Minister, when we passed that act in 1974 allowing the gas

tax to be used for the purposes of ICBC. So don't give me any of that

stuff from the Cariboo. We know what they are famous for.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) was clearly out of order in his comment.

MR. COCKE: And I was too.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: And the member for New Westminster was as well. Bill 54, please.

MR. COCKE: Certainly. I get a little bit nervous when they

get me out of order like that. I try so desperately to get back on

track, but you know how it is with us boys from the little towns like

New Westminster, where good decisions are often made. But they are not

made often here. That's why I have so much trouble with this bill.

That's why I have trouble when I hear the minister saying we're going

to streamline it. They have streamlined us down the tube, Mr. Speaker.

Go out and talk to your constituents. Get out of that cabinet room for

about 10 or 15 days. Just travel the province and hear what people have

to say about what you've done. Haven't they told you what you've done?

Haven't they told you what you've done to their children? Haven't they

told you what you've done to their jobs?

How come British Columbia has the worst record in Canada? How come

everybody else has had some restoration? How come every other

jurisdiction in this country has had an improved economic situation,

with one exception our beautiful province?

HON. A. FRASER: Too many socialists in it.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the remarks of the

Minister of Highways, whether socialists or non-socialists, the citizens

of this province in by far the majority would echo exactly what I have

been saying about this government, about their responsibility and how

they have turned their back on their responsibility.

I sit down saying only that I have a terrible time supporting

anything that the Minister of Finance puts forward on behalf of this

humbling government giving them more control, when their control of the

past has put us in such a precarious situation. That's all I can say,

Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, it's the first day back in the

fall. I've resisted the temptation to interject that this is a Capital

Expenditures Miscellaneous Amendments Act.

I would like to respond to a couple of questions. The approval

process is to be shortened, and as I indicated in opening debate, while

there may be some in the school or hospital area in the province who

are not pleased with the legislation, they were consulted in advance in

very general form prior to the introduction of the legislation, and all

that I

[ Page 7041 ]

have heard in the interval is that those local authorities, local entities, welcome these changes.

What is the approval process? We can deal with this in committee

perhaps more appropriately. But in one instance we have a

Section in

the existing legislation where it has been found over time unclear as

to whether borrowing under that

section requires an order-in-council

approval. That refers to short-term borrowing. These, as members would

know, are taken on a daily basis, in many instances. It has very little

to do with the actual approval of a project, but the approval

mechanisms which flow once a decision is taken by a local or regional

authority with the provincial government to proceed with a project.

With that kind of uncertainty in one

section of existing law, is it not

a little ludicrous, is it indeed not pointless, to require and insist

that there be an order-in-council every time working capital, as a

project proceeds, is borrowed daily, or for a one-day, three-day or a

seven-day period? That's the kind of thing we're talking about in terms

of streamlining: requiring an order-in-council approval for each

borrowing, meaning money which is taken in short term in order that a

project can proceed and progress payments can be made.

I invite the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) who expressed

some doubts — to call his regional hospital district directors or

school trustees this evening, or tomorrow, as he chooses, to determine

if they are distressed. I don't believe that they are. As I say, the

bill came in some months ago. There was consultation in general form

beforehand, and certainly local agencies have had an opportunity to

review it in detail in the meantime.

The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) alluded to borrowing in

Canadian dollars. He reminded the House of the late Herbert Anscomb as

Minister of Finance. For capital purposes, we have not been borrowing

in other than Canadian dollars — and being specific, capital purposes,

for operating purposes as well, but since this is a capital bill — for

some considerable time. He alluded to a trip to Japan. That money was

in Canadian dollars. We borrowed in Canadian dollars. We borrowed in

the Japanese market, but we are fully protected in terms of any

currency fluctuation between the yen and the Canadian dollar. It was a

pleasant 22 hours which I spent in Japan, not days, in order to

conclude that particular borrowing. There have been two or three of

those where we have been borrowing offshore but in Canadian dollars. I

simply want to make that point very clear.

I urge members who have doubts about the intent of this legislation,

which is not to centralize, but rather indeed to assist local entities

in the streamlining of their process when capital projects are

underway, to make contact as they wish — this evening, tomorrow or over

the coming days — to assure and to satisfy themselves that indeed the

local authorities with which we deal once a project has commenced are

satisfied with this amending act. I move second reading of Bill 54.

Motion approved.

Bill 54, Capital Expenditures Miscellaneous Amendments Act, 1985,

read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I call second reading of Bill 63.

MOTOR FUEL TAX ACT

HON. MR. CURTIS: Bill 63, the Motor Fuel Tax Act, is a bill

which was quite consciously and deliberately introduced to be left on

the order paper in order that it could be reviewed by all interested

individuals in British Columbia. As I said at the time of introduction,

it is to consolidate the three existing fuel tax statutes into one act.

So the Motor Fuel Tax Act now takes the place of the Gasoline Tax Act,

which provides for the taxation of aviation fuel and clear gasoline.

This act was first introduced in 1923. The Gasoline (Coloured) Tax Act,

which provides for a lower rate of tax on fuels used off public

highways, was initially introduced in 1946, and the Motive Fuel Use Tax

Act, which provides for a higher rate of tax for the on-highway use of

diesel fuel, was first introduced in 1959.

[4:45]

These existing fuel tax statutes were amended earlier this year to accommodate

or incorporate the fuel tax policy changes which were introduced in the March

14 budget. The consolidation of the fuel tax statutes, in my view, represents

a commitment to — here is this word again, Mr. Member for Nanaimo — streamline

and simplify government policies.

I assured the House at the time of introducing the bill that there

were no policy changes through the consolidation contained in Bill 63.

I think that it will reassure and will be found to be of assistance to

purchasers of various fuels, tax collectors and manufacturers of fuel —

to all who are involved in the distribution and purchase of the fuels

which are taxed under these three acts.

The consolidation was unde