1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

FRIDAY, MAY 28, 1982

Morning Sitting

[ Page

7845 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Home Purchase Assistance Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 46). Hon. Mr. Chabot

Introduction and first reading –– 7845

Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund Repeal Act (Bill 47). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Hewitt)

section 2 –– 7845

Mr. Hall

Division

Third reading –– 7846

Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 36). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

section 9 –– 7846

Mrs. Wallace

section 14 –– 7846

Mr. Levi

section 19 –– 7846

Mr. Levi

section 25 –– 7847

Mrs. Wallace

section 27 –– 7847

Mrs. Wallace

Assessment Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 6). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

Third reading –– 7847

Family Relations Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 14). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Williams)

section 2 –– 7847

Ms. Brown, Mr. Barber, Mr. Levi, Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

section 3 –– 7854

Ms. Brown

section 10 –– 7855

Ms. Brown

On

Section I I –– 7855

Ms. Brown

Third reading –– 7856

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Agriculture and Food estimates (Hon. Mr. Hewitt)

On vote 5: minister's office (continued) –– 7856

Mrs. Wallace, Mr. Macdonald, Mr. Kempf

Appendix –– 7863

FRIDAY, MAY 28, 1982

The House met at 10 a.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

MR. LEGGATT:

I rise at the first available opportunity to raise a question of

privilege for your consideration. If you find a prima facie case is

made, I have a motion to present to the House. The matter of privilege

arises from statements made in this House on May 27 by the Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). In answer

to a question, the minister stated as follows, and I'm quoting from Hansard :

"I'd like to state that of the $440 million worth of contracts that

have been let on northeast coal so far, approximately 85 percent have

been let in British Columbia."

Mr. Speaker, we have

double-checked ministerial publications and publications by the

Northeast Coal Development News, and we found the following: a $20

million contract with Mitsubishi of Japan for the stacker reclaimer; a

$94 million contract with Atkinson-Commonwealth of San Francisco, which

is over budget and still rising; North Star of Edson, Alberta, has a

$7.6 million contract; Soychuk Contracting of Alberta has a $2.3

million and a $2 million contract. Those contracts total $123 million.

By anybody's calculation, at least 28 percent of the contracts let are

now outside the province.

My motion is that the members of

this House are entitled not to be misled and not to be given incorrect

information. We have a right, our constituents have a right, and the

people we represent have a right to receive accurate information from

the ministers of the Crown. By every measurement — the ministerial

publications and the stage two reports — 85 percent is a false figure,

Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair

will take under consideration the matter raised by the member and

return a decision without prejudice to the member, as far as the

time-frame is concerned, at the earliest opportunity.

MS. SANFORD:

In the precincts this morning is a group of students from Parksville

Middle School, accompanied by their teacher, Mrs. Boyd. I would ask all

members to make them welcome.

MRS. WALLACE: In the

gallery later today I'm expecting seven students from the Lake Cowichan

Senior Secondary School who are very interested in the political

process. They will be in the gallery from 11 to 1, along with their

teacher Val Colleberg. They are also going to join me for lunch later.

They are keenly interested in what goes on here, so I hope we give them

a good impression.

Introduction of Bills

HOME PURCHASE ASSISTANCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

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

a bill intituled Home Purchase Assistance Amendment Act, 1982.

Bill 46 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.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Committee on Bill 47.

TRAFFIC VICTIMS INDEMNITY

FUND REPEAL ACT

The House in committee on Bill 47; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. HALL:

The minister in charge of the bill assured us that he'd have some

information for us in joint committee stage regarding the numbers of

claims against uninsured motorists at the present time. I hope the

minister wasn't letting this slide through.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

No, Mr. Chairman, I assured the member that I would attempt to get that

information as quickly as possible. We contacted ICBC management late

last night and I hope to have that material, although I haven't

received a response to it as yet. The member wished to know what sort

of numbers were involved in uninsured motorists and claims against the

corporation. I may have that information momentarily, but if not I

don't think that issue would do anything to change the intent of this

piece of legislation, which is to repeal the Traffic Victims Indemnity

Fund Act. As the member is aware, since 1974 ICBC has had the

responsibility to provide coverage for the victims of uninsured

motorists. I hope it will be here momentarily.

MR. HALL: Sir, are you going to wait momentarily for that information? Perhaps you would guide the second member for Surrey.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee has to continue, hon. member. Although debate is allowed, we must proceed.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Chairman, I'm sure the member appreciates that it was late

yesterday. It should not change the intent of repealing this piece of

legislation. If I cannot get that material here, I'm sure we could

canvass it under my estimates as minister responsible for ICBC, if the

member would accept that.

MR. HALL: I think it's

satisfactory, Mr. Chairman, to get that information from the minister

during discussion on his estimates — when and if we get to his

estimates.

However, this fund — and we're supporting this

bill clearly places this responsibility squarely on the shoulders of

ICBC now, and does away with the old statute. I think it would be good

for us all to demonstrate publicly our faith in the corporation by

supporting this

section 2. I'm joining with the minister in agreeing

with him that ICBC is here to stay; and I'm citing his comments

yesterday afternoon. I know that he'll have that information for us

during his estimates, and

[ Page 7846 ]

that

the fund is in good shape; ICBC is in good shape. It received a little

money in 1976 — sent it back straight away the same day, showing it

didn't need it. It's not quite the story the minister gave us on second

reading. Nevertheless we support this section, Mr. Chairman.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Section 2 approved unanimously on a division.

Mr. Howard requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Sections 3 to 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

Bill 47, Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund Repeal Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Committee on Bill 36.

FINANCE STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

The House in committee on Bill 36; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 8 inclusive approved.

section 9.

MRS. WALLACE:

I have a question here, Mr. Chairman. It seems that the amendment is

going to take the cost of operation of the Racing Commission out of the

parimutuel betting, as I read it. How was that commission funded

previously?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, previously

it was in the estimates of the hon. Attorney-General. The purpose of

this

section is simply to amend the purpose of the tax levied to

improve horse racing in the province, to include the operation of the

B.C. Racing Commission. It is effective April 1, 1982, so it is not as

far-reaching as the member might otherwise think.

MRS. WALLACE: The minister asked me to repeat my question. I'm going to ask him to repeat his answer. I didn't quite get that.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, this simply amends the purpose of the

tax levied to improve horse racing in the province, to include the operation

of the B.C. Racing Commission. It is effective as of April 1, 1982. That is

section 9 in its entirety.

MRS. WALLACE:

I rather thought that's what was said. Does that mean there will be

fewer dollars for the improvement of the horse-racing industry, or are

the total dollars increased?

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, it

deals only with the purpose of the tax levied. The question of more

money or less money is not dealt with in this section. It's not

relevant to the section.

Sections 9 to 13 inclusive approved.

section 14.

MR. LEVI:

What kind of problems is the minister's department having in respect to

hotel owners and the remitting of the tax? We have a very large

section

here on the penalties. What's going on there? Is he not able to get the

money, or has the system broken down? Perhaps he could be a little more

specific. Some of the penalties are pretty onerous. Has there been a

breakdown in this system?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the member is speaking of

section 14, but there are other sections that deal with this.

MR. LEVI: Yes, I'm sorry, it's later. It's

section 19.

Sections 14 to 18 inclusive approved.

section 19.

MR. LEVI:

There are some rather high penalties here. What is actually happening

that has caused this to be brought in? Is there a loss of revenue, a

breakdown in this system?

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, I

don't think it would be correct to say that the system has broken down.

We have had debate on other occasions in committee and in second

reading, in tact, on another bill or two that are examples of the same

thing. We are attempting to have a similarity in fines and penalties in

a number of tax statutes and that is what is occurring here. I think it

reflects more correctly the fact that while most tax collectors in the

private sector file on time and follow the rules, some do not. So in a

number of statutes, as the member and the committee would know, we have

increased the fines or penalties, and this is simply another example of

that.

MR. LEVI: If a company is fined, is the fine

included as a cost of doing business? If it is written off as a cost of

doing business, what is really the effectiveness of improving the

fines? I know I'm seeking information he may not have. If in fact you

can charge off this kind of payment, which is a fine, as a cost of

doing business, what is really the effect of increasing the fines?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

The member observed that he's seeking information I cannot give, or he

assumed that, and that is indeed the case. I cannot answer that

question. Certainly in this case and in a number of others we are

increasing

[ Page 7847 ]

the

fines. I am afraid I cannot help on what happens after that in terms of

the cost of doing business. Nonetheless, we looked in very general

terms at a number of fines and penalties which had been left untouched

over a good number of years. That is why, on a number of occasions,

they are being seen in this House this session.

Sections 19 to 24 inclusive approved.

section 25.

MRS. WALLACE:

I would just like to ask the minister for the thinking behind changing

the word "encumbrance" to "lien" relative to land tax permits. What is

the purpose of this amendment?

HON. MR. CURTIS: In

reference to

section 25, the amendment deletes the reference to an

encumbrance and substitutes the more specific definition of a lien.

This removes the danger of the loss of the province's security on a

property on which taxes have been deferred, when that property is sold

at a tax sale and the encumbrance is therefore lost. A lien would not

be cancelled by tax sale. That is a refinement which would be called

into play on very few occasions, but the public, having advanced the

money, should be able to recover it.

Sections 25 and 26 approved.

section 27.

MRS. WALLACE:

I just have a quick question to the minister on the second part of this

contravention of

section 14. Why is there no minimum fine in this

instance? The minister seems to be prone to minimum fines and there is

no minimum in this.

HON. MR. CURTIS: It appears that this is one we missed in terms of minimum fines. However, we can look forward to catching it next year.

Sections 27 to 31 inclusive approved.

section 32.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper with respect to this section. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 32 as amended approved.

Section 33 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill

36, Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1982, reported complete with

amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Committee on Bill 6.

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

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

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 6, Assessment Amendment Act, 1982, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Committee on Bill 14, Mr. Speaker.

FAMILY RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

The House in committee on Bill 14; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MS. BROWN:

I have a question to the Attorney-General on

section 2(l)(b). Where the

person involved is a child, and that child is over the age of 12, what

happens then in terms of their legal counsel?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

In all circumstances where it is essential that the child be

represented, necessary steps will be taken by the Attorney-General's

ministry to ensure that that is the case.

MR. BARBER:

I wonder if the Attorney-General could advise us what he considers

essential, and what mechanism exists in order to ascertain whether

those steps should be taken.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That

is the responsibility of the family law division of the ministry. I

know the questions which have been posed in this respect arise from a

guideline memorandum which has been sent out. It should be clearly

understood that the reason was that reference to the family law

division with respect to such matters had not previously been made.

MR. BARBER:

I don't have the guidelines at hand, and I wonder if the minister could

summarize what is considered to be an essential issue that would

require the family law division to step in, offer, and in fact provide

legal counsel.

[ Page 7848 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

The guidelines do not set those out, but the director of the family law

division and his staff will be in a position to assess the need for

counsel in any particular case.

MR. BARBER: How is it

actually drawn to their attention that there might be such need? Who

advises them, on the basis of which criteria, and through which

particular system of administration does that occur?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

When a request is made, either through a family counsellor or by the

court with respect to the need for counsel in the particular case.

MR. BARBER:

If the child himself or herself should feel the need for legal

representation, would such a request be considered? Would it be

considered seriously? And if so, how would said request be handled by

the ministry?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That would depend upon the individual circumstances, and all requests will be dealt with seriously.

MS. BROWN:

That was an interesting response to the member's question. I want to

follow it up with an example. It has to do with the case of a child who

was born in 1977, so we're dealing with someone under the age of 12 in

a contested custody case in supreme court.

The child has

been in an extremely precarious position, because she was born with

fetal alcohol syndrome to two very immature parents. After a lengthy

custody report was prepared by the family court counsellor, the

recommendation was made that the child be placed under the Ministry of

Human Resources. This matter went before the justice of the supreme

court, and he made a consent order giving custody to the father. One

week later, the child was apprehended by Human Resources because the

child had been sexually abused by the father. At this point, the

provincial court decided to appoint an advocate to speak in support of

the child when the matter came before provincial court. The request for

an advocate was refused by the family law section, who said that the

Attorney-General's ministry is no longer appointing advocates under a

family and children's services matter. Presumably they did not rule

that the sexual abuse of a child five years of age was an important or

essential enough matter to appoint a family advocate on that child's

behalf.

We need to know what the guidelines are. How was the

decision made that the sexual abuse of a five-year-old child by her

father was not essential in terms of having an advocate to represent

her in family court?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The member is speaking on matters which are not covered by this particular

section of the bill.

MS. BROWN:

The first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) raised the question of the

guidelines as to what is essential. I'm merely giving an example of

what, certainly in our opinion, was essential, but which the family law

section decided wasn't essential. I'm just asking the Attorney-General

to give us some guidance in terms of what is considered essential and

what isn't.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm not able to assist

the member in this regard, because the decisions with respect to that

matter depend on a particular case and the circumstances surrounding

that case. Those decisions are made by qualified lawyers in the family

law division of the ministry.

MS. BROWN: I would like

to make a very humble suggestion to the Attorney-General. It would

probably help the family law

section if there were some direction

coming from the Attorney-General's ministry. If he does take that

humble recommendation and decides to act on it, would he keep in mind a

case such as the one that I've just outlined to him of a five-year-old

child who is going to have to go through the provincial court procedure

without a family advocate as a result of the decision being made that

this was not an essential case, and that therefore this child was not

entitled to someone to speak on her behalf before the provincial court.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I wish to assure the member that cases of this kind — the ones she

raised yesterday — have been referred to the family law division for

their careful examination. I have instructed that a copy of the

member's remarks appearing in the Hansard Blues be sent to the family law division in order that they might be guided by the concerns the member has expressed.

MR. LEVI:

I want to make reference to this

section in respect to the great deal

of befuddlement that has gone on in this area for quite some time. The

Attorney-General isn't any different from his predecessor. I remind him

that if he paid some attention to the attempt of a previous government

to do something about this total matter.... I have in mind the Berger

commission on family and children's law. If attention had been paid to

that very lengthy study, which involved literally thousands of people,

we wouldn't be in the kind of mess we're in today.

In the

minister's discussions with his federal colleagues, have they ever

raised again the question of the desirability of getting out of the

nonsense of trying to enforce maintenance orders in this way, and going

to the income tax system? I can recall raising this years ago at a

federal-provincial conference, and saying that the logical way to

collect maintenance — because you're only going to collect the

maintenance from people who are working.... If the spouse isn't

working, you're not going to get the money anyway. We looked very

seriously at seeing about having the thing come off income tax in that

way. It would save a great deal of bureaucratic apparatus, which is

always set up.

After all, the government has been here for

some six and a half years and has just started to address the question.

There is no way, in my opinion, that you're going to have any success

in doing this hunt-and-chase process, regardless of how much you change

the law for collecting maintenance, in an inexpensive way. We do not

want to be spending $2 to collect $1. My experience in looking into

this thing is that it's a terrible tragedy the way we spend taxpayers'

money trying to get money. Certainly we have to get the money back.

After all, if a person responsible for maintenance is working, that

person should pay.

The main thing is that there has to be an

entirely different mechanism. The logical mechanism is the income tax

system. Let's try to get together with the Minister of Finance in

Ottawa and say: "Look, let's change the income tax system in

[ Page 7849 ]

small way so we can use it as a tax and get the money back." This

business of building an enormous apparatus, which is not always very

successful.... Mind you, we're presumably collecting 70 or 80 percent

of maintenance orders now. Perhaps the minister would comment on that.

For instance, there was a project in Surrey which did extremely well at

maintenance orders. It was a kind of one-man show that was very

effective. I would ask the Attorney-General whether they shouldn't look

much more strongly at utilizing the income tax system as a mechanism

for collection. We go through this process quite often. We try to

change the bureaucracy, change the organization, but we still have the

problem. Perhaps the minister would like to comment about the income

tax system.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The issue raised by

the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam is an appropriate one for

consideration. It is being considered by the Ministry of the

Attorney-General and the Ministry of Human Resources, with respect to

this whole question of maintenance. As a matter of fact, the

proposition put this morning by that member and the proposition put

yesterday by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) clearly

identify the two approaches to this problem. The member for

Burnaby-Edmonds quoted from the United Way report, in which they took a

particular direction, and the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam has

taken the other alternative. The issue is: which of the two is

appropriate?

The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam says

that you can only collect maintenance from people who are working.

Well, you only collect income tax from people who are working too — on

taxable income. As it is developing in this province, the difficulty of

maintenance enforcement is with the single parent, with or without a

child, who is without means by reason of the refusal of the spouse to

make appropriate contribution and who is thrust on the social

assistance program in order to maintain himself or herself. Therefore

the government's income tax and other revenue sources become utilized

for that purpose. It's a matter of one's philosophy, whether or not you

are going to insist that a spouse who is able to contribute and should

contribute to the maintenance and support of the other partner to the

marriage and any children of the marriage should be obliged to do so.

With all of this, you have to take into account how far one should go

in developing an organization of lawyers and enforcement agents and the

like to go around and try to collect this money. This is one of the

problems which has been given a great deal of attention. It will

continue to receive a great deal of attention.

It isn't only

the problems associated with the collection process. When orders need

to be varied, the whole process of going back to the courts — the time

it takes, the amount of moneys.... It costs about $500 a day to run a

courtroom; it doesn't matter who's there or what the issue is. The

rising cost of these proceedings is something that we are taking into

account in building upon the program in Surrey, to which the member

made reference.

As I mentioned yesterday, we've had pilot

projects going on the concept of automatically enforcing maintenance

orders. We are still developing.... This year we hope to be able to

announce a program which will function provincewide in this regard. But

it's very expensive, because you get into computer technology with

regard to the monitoring of these orders and all the problems

associated with not only enforcement but also the variation of orders

from time to time.

My concern and that of my colleague the

Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) is that during all

this process the wife — and it's generally a wife — and her children

are the ones who suffer, because they're waiting for something to come

out of the bottom of the system, and it's not happening.

are very concerned about the drain on our finances in attempting to

make the existing system work, and we are trying to develop one which

will accommodate the two poles of opinion which have been expressed

here. In some respects I support the position taken by the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam; some of my colleagues would support the

position taken by the United Way in their report. Somehow or other,

we've got to meld these two ideas to make sure that efficient uses of

resources are ensured so that the person in need is the one who is the

beneficiary.

MR. LEVI: I would suggest to the

minister that in the whole system of government, particularly with

respect to where Human Resources and law enforcement meet, we badly

need a kind of triage system whereby we decide — and they're not easy

decisions — what we're going to spend on the hunt-and-chase to pick up

money — and it's usually $2 to get $1 — versus the other problems that

exist within, say, Human Resources. The trouble is that as you build

the systems you build incredible vested interests. You build computers.

There are computer operators who have systems they want to design,

lawyers who have their end of the thing, family advocates an social

workers. The problem is that having viewed the field.... I think that

is where the triage system has to come in. It has to be a hard-nosed

ministerial statement in which somebody says "enough." We have to say

to the public: "It is not practical." It doesn't matter what the

opinion out there is. When somebody says, "Nobody should get away

without supporting their former spouse or their children," that is very

nice, if we can say that.

Unfortunately, we have people in

our society who are completely without any sense of social

responsibility. In the past we have spent enormous sums of money trying

to make them do something that has never happened. What perpetuates

this are the kinds of systems that we move into. This kind of thing is

implicit in this bill. It really is a terrible waste of money. Some

years ago my successor as Minister of Human Resources made a great

to-do about how he was going to chase the husbands and wives who

weren't paying the maintenance. He thought he'd discovered America. We

all went through that, and we know how futile it is. It makes good

press copy, but it doesn't accomplish a darned thing.

Ministers

have to look at what is being foisted on them by the people who work in

the system. Then we have to put before us what is called presenting the

problem in relation to the case. I don't know how we can justify.... As

the minister just said. It costs $500 to operate a court for a day. It

may be that some of the cases might be involving a shoplifting case in

which somebody took $25 worth of food. It is going to cost us $500 to

deal with $25 worth of food and then we have to look at the individual

involved. There is something very wrong with a lot of that system. In

this one I see us getting deeper into the mire. This is not an ultimate

solution. That is why I raised the issue of the income tax. We are

strongly in the grip of these incredible systems that people.... I

don't suggest they dreamed them up. They are

[ Page 7850 ]

trained,

and they've developed this kind of thing. It used to shatter me when

people came in. I didn't understand half of what they were saying. It

is very costly and does not produce the end product. The sad part about

it is that the money would have been far better off directed to the

children affected, and to heck with the business of trying to chase an

errant, irresponsible spouse. We have to make those decisions

sometimes. The fact that we keep altering penalties doesn't necessarily

make it work.

We are not making any changes here that are

really going to be any better than what exists today. That is the sad

part about this legislation.

MS. BROWN: Just to

continue with that, I disagree with the Attorney-General that there is

any contradiction between the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam and

myself. These two recommendations are not mutually exclusive. As a

matter of fact, they are completely interrelated with each other.

The

United Way recommendation was for automatic monitoring. You must have

the automatic monitoring in order to pick up the people who are

employed and paying income tax and also to find out when those people

lose their jobs or cease to work and are no longer paying income tax.

Most people don't remain unemployed for the duration of their lifetime,

and a large number of people who work go through periods of

unemployment. The only way you can really be sure of what is happening

to a person is through the whole business of automatic monitoring. I

wouldn't want to leave the Attorney-General with the impression that

you can't have the one without the other. I think that you certainly

need them both.

There is one other thing I should have done

earlier. Yesterday, in closing the debate, the minister mentioned that

during the period from 1972-1975 the New Democratic Party government

erased all the enforcement procedures involved in terms of enforcing

maintenance orders. Of course, he had the last word, so it was

impossible to respond to it at that time. I just want to say that that

was a pretty bizarre statement. There were a lot of discussions going

on in terms of the ideas which were just mentioned by the member for

Maillardville about going to the income tax system, but the machinery

was never dismantled. As a matter of fact, the Berger commission heard

a number of briefs and brought recommendations on the family, the court

and the community into place on June 15, 1974, with three pilot

projects dealing with the unified family court concept — one in

Richmond, one in Delta and one in Surrey. Based on what came out of

those pilot projects were 66 recommendations.

One of the

recommendations which is being dismantled now had to do with the

institution of family advocates — that it was a very useful concept and

should continue. The other was that the superintendent of child welfare

should continue to have the right to appoint counsel under the Family

and Child Service Act, or the Protection of Children Act, as it was

known at that particular time; and that has now been dismantled. But I

think that the statement made by the minister, that the enforcement

machinery for maintenance was dismantled, was incorrect and should be

challenged and certainly should be corrected, because there was a lot

of discussion going on, but the enforcement machinery was still there,

and the pilot projects to try to make things better proved to be quite

successful. Our concern is that some of the results of those pilot

projects are being eroded or dismantled at this time.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Chairman, I don't want to leave any false impression with respect

to my remarks concerning the positions taken by the member for Burnaby

Edmonds (Ms. Brown) and the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam, (Mr.

Levi). I'm not saying that they are in conflict; I'm simply saying that

they are approaching the problem from the two positions which everyone

has identified. But the member must recognize that the position she

takes with regard to monitoring, which is part of the automatic

enforcement process, recognizes the existence of an enforcement

process. And the position taken by the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam is: stop that altogether; don't go out and try

to chase individuals, because you'll waste money which you could better

direct to the needs of the people who should be the beneficiaries of

the system.

So there are the two sides. You haven't

recognized that for us to go ahead and to institute an effective

monitoring process — and I mentioned this yesterday — you are today

talking about a very expensive, computerized process so that we know

every order that is made. We currently do not. We insist that every

person who is entitled to an order get an order; that is not the case

today. We have immediate notice every time there is a default by

someone, and then you go out and try to make them pay. Now that's the

system; if you don't have the system, you don't need monitoring. You

have to understand — and I say this to the hon. member for Burnaby

Edmonds — that you don't need to monitor orders if you're not going to

have to enforce the orders. The order means nothing unless you want to

make it purely voluntary, and if it's voluntary you don't need

monitoring either. The only reason you have to monitor an order is so

you can know that Mr. X has been obliged by the court to pay so much

money per month to his wife for her support and that of the child, and

to ensure that he does it every month. That's all you monitor for,

unless you just want to keep statistics because it would be exciting.

No, it's part of the enforcement process.

Attorney-General I am very concerned about what the present system

costs us, and whether we cannot better direct the money in some other

way. Well, it's the argument that goes on; automatic enforcement is

shown as one route. Using gross statistics — the number of maintenance

orders, average amount awarded, amount which is not being paid.... If

you can collect it all, you can produce figures of millions of dollars

that we're losing — provided first of all that you can collect the

money that isn't being paid, and secondly that the costs of collection

are not greater than the amount you recover. If the latter is the case,

the exercise is useless, and all that we're doing is supporting a

system of lawyers, court clerks, enforcement officers, collection

agents and the like — and they all get paid — but the woman with the

child who is the intended beneficiary of the program gets nothing out

of it. That's not very productive, and the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam makes that point. If you want to have us

monitor, please sit down with your colleague and say you also have to

have enforcement, or why waste the money monitoring?

MS. BROWN:

How do you kick the income tax system into place without monitoring?

How do you do that? Everyone files income tax. How do you kick it into

place in terms of support unless you know that there is an order out

for support, Mr. Chairman? You can go through the monitoring thing, and

when you look at the person's income tax you'll find they do not pay

taxes, because either their income is so

[ Page 7851 ]

low

that they do not pay taxes, or they're unemployed. And so the

enforcement step doesn't come into play. But a person can file income

taxes and unless there is some registration that there is an order

against that person, how do you know to make the deductions? They're

not mutually exclusive; they work together.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Well, Mr. Chairman, the income tax is only one source of revenue which

is available to the Crown. There are many others. You don't have to use

the income tax; the money comes from consolidated revenue. Unless, of

course, you're arguing for a process whereby a husband who pays

maintenance to his wife is entitled to deduct that as an expense, you

don't need to monitor it for income tax purposes.

MS. BROWN: That happens now anyway.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

What the member is saying is that income tax is one way in which you

can gain revenue. If you're suggesting that that person who has a

maintenance order and doesn't pay should pay a different rate of tax

than somebody else, then maybe you could use monitoring, but I'm afraid

that we would then build up another complex structure with regard to

income tax collection which would make our present enforcement efforts

pale into insignificance.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr.

Chairman, I have just a few brief comments. The member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) referred to my point of view with

respect to this particular section. I support it, and I think it is

long overdue. I can recall, in response again to the remarks made by

the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam, when he mentioned that I was

very keen on this when I was the Minister of Human Resources.... I can

assure you that it is in part because of the attitude that he expressed

in his comments a little earlier and the attitude which was very

prevalent during the time that he was Minister of Human Resources. The

approach in practically each and every office throughout the province

was that somehow — because I'm sure they were directed by the minister

— you simply paid out the welfare; you didn't attempt to collect from

the errant spouse. He used this example in support of his argument: why

should we spend $500 to collect $20...

MS. BROWN: Why are you bringing politics into this? We're debating a serious issue.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

...why should we spend $500 to collect for a $25 shoplifting charge?

Well, frankly, I suppose if we took the attitude, Mr. Chairman, that we

shouldn't spend money to bring people to task for breaking the law, be

it for shoplifting or whatever, pretty soon we would have a country

that is totally lawless. We cannot proceed, as the NDP is continually

suggesting, to ignore these sorts of things and to allow people to

carry on, forgetting about family, child and mother, because somehow

the state will provide.

Mr. Chairman, I'm personally aware

of many instances where people simply have fought going onto welfare.

They didn't want welfare, even though perhaps it was available to them

because they were a deserted mother with one, two or more children. The

opportunity for welfare was there, but they didn't want to go on

welfare. They resisted it because it was not the thing that they wanted

for their family or that they had ever thought would occur to them.

They had otherwise led a life which provided reasonably well, because

perhaps a wife and husband worked together at it. If the husband, as

was the case in the example that I have been most involved with, leaves

and does not provide any assistance or support whatsoever for the

mother and the child, or children, then I think there is an obligation

for us in society to do whatever we can to assure that assistance is

given by the person responsible for the mother and the children.

one particular instance, a friend of ours — a person that I've given

some support to — has been to court 18 times to try and collect from

her errant husband, who worked for the government at a salary well in

excess of $25,000 and refused to pay his wife and child, after 14 or 15

years of marriage, $300 per month. She went to court 18 times because

she didn't want to go on welfare. This sort of provision in law would

have been a tremendous help to her, because for over two years this

great lady and her child suffered tremendous mental anguish in

attempting to keep off welfare and to bring her husband to carry out

his responsibility to wife and family. That member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam says that she should not have been in court, or

the provision oughtn't be there to assist this particular woman through

the method proposed in law by the Attorney-General, because somehow

welfare would, or should, provide.

This lady did not want

welfare; she fought it. Without anything at all, she fought it for two

or three years. Today it still hasn't been settled. I guess it's two

years now. She has taken in a couple of elderly people and is providing

for them in her home. She has still resisted welfare. I say that that

guy working for government at well in excess of $25,000 per year should

be made to pay that $300 at least, and that we should do whatever we

can to assure that those payments are made regularly, promptly, even if

it means deducting it right at the source when he gets his paycheque

from government.

I've received letters from other people.

One lady in particular is using her babysitting moneys to try to fight,

with the assistance of legal aid, the fact that her husband is refusing

to give maintenance. A lot of people, particularly women, are going

through this; and the courts are not much help. Unless you have an

excellent lawyer who is prepared to forgo the collection of fees,

you're really stuck, really stymied. Hundreds and thousands of women

out there need some help, and I'm very disappointed that the NDP would

not come out in full support of this attempt, particularly the member

for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi), who was himself Minister of

Human Resources and should be well aware that thousands in British

Columbia, especially women, suffer because there isn't an automatic

enforcement process.

I strongly urge all members to

reconsider and to support this particular

section — including the NDP.

Think of all those women, children and families out there that need

this help.

MR. BARBER: We voted for the bill.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Chairman, that minister is misleading the House. We spoke and voted

in support of the legislation. You are deliberately misleading the

House.

[ Page 7852 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is unparliamentary. I'll have to ask the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds to withdraw "deliberately misleading."

MS. BROWN: Yes, I withdraw it, despite the fact that that's what he was doing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the member please give an unqualified withdrawal.

MS. BROWN: It is unqualified, despite the fact....

MR. LEVI:

We just heard from the uninformed intellectual wing of the Social

Credit Party. First of all, he doesn't even know what's going on in

here. Nobody is opposed to the bill. We're attempting to have a

reasoned discussion about what could work better than what's in here.

That's what we were doing until he got up and threw that big shovel of

whatever he usually carries on it into the debate. They were ludicrous

statements. He was minister for three or four years; he made great

braggadocio about what he would do, and he did nothing. What's he

talking about?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I heard you.

MR. LEVI: No, you don't listen. That's the trouble with you. You've got something between your ears to stop you from listening.

We're

trying to examine the effectiveness of the expenditure of public

dollars. The minister cites the example of a public servant earning

$25,000 who wouldn't pay his wife. He knew about that case. I knew

about cases like that. We don't have the rack. We don't practise

auto-da-fe here. I once spoke to the legal officials about obligations

of debts, in that the first thing that should be paid is not the bank

loans, but the maintenance orders. I cited the Al Ferry case in this

House. We cited the Baker case, in which there were 79 court

appearances. I pleaded with the previous Attorney-General to try

another system. I even suggested to him that the thing be arbitrated

because they practically wiped out the unified family court philosophy.

What

the previous speaker doesn't seem to understand is this. He thinks he

can make a virtue out of saying that as long as the public know we're

chasing somebody who won't do anything, we look good. But what you

don't look good at, and what we're saying in this debate, is when you

build a complex, costly system and it doesn't deliver the goods. That's

what we're offering in terms of criticism in this section. He comes

here with his right-wing, stupid ideas about how he might apply. He was

minister for four years and didn't apply anything. Maximize the

expenditure of public money; that's what we're saying here. We voted

for the bill; anything to move towards a resolution.

What

we're pointing out here is that we're building a tougher, more

expensive system that will not get the money, which we could be putting

somewhere else. It will go to lawyers. There's no virtue in that, as

far as I'm concerned, in the human resources area. There's no virtue in

putting it in computers. People want it in their mouths and hands. That

was my approach. I wasn't going to spend, as the previous minister did,

a million dollars to go and hunt some fraud people. They were no more

successful than we were, and we didn't spend a million dollars. So

what's he talking about?

Understand that what we're getting

into here is a very costly system that will not deliver at the end. And

the people we're supposed to be trying to help, children and spouses,

will not have the assistance because the money goes into another system.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It won't cost anywhere near his $100 million overrun, I can assure you.

MR. LEVI: That's what we didn't need to hear from that minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Will the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) and the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam (Ms. Levi) please come to order.

MR. BARBER:

I'd like to return to a topic that we were on when this particular

debate began. It's the question of guidelines. It's the question of

whether the family law division and its agents and representatives in

the field are in fact going to be well, adequately and currently enough

informed to administer the law, and specifically the provision of

adequate services.

As the Attorney-General might be aware, I

worked for five years on a project in Victoria called Cool Aid. It is a

project that still exists, and it helps a lot of disturbed kids. A

great many of them we had some success with; with a few we had none at

all. I worked with a lot of kids in the project itself. It won

British Commonwealth. It was a very successful youth project. One of

the issues that came to us again and again was the sometime inability

of the system, based on a kind of sub-system of human discretion alone,

to exercise discretion in a fair-minded way. I don't think good

intentions are enough. The minister clearly has good intentions and has

said, by way of illustration of that, that he would, for instance, be

sending a copy of my colleague from Burnaby Edmonds' (Ms. Brown'

s) remarks to persons in the family law division.

When I asked him before whether or not there were

guidelines as to what constituted an essential need for legal

representation for those children over the age of 12 and asked him to

quote from the guidelines, the Attorney-General said he couldn't

because they didn't exist. If I misheard, please correct me, but I took

notes, and I believe that's what he said. Again, I don't think good

intentions are adequate for good public policy. The minister will not

be here forever, nor will the individuals who are shortly going to be

reading the comments by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

The

problem of good intentions is the problem of human change and human

attitude. I'm one of those who thinks a more nearly ideal system is

that which would combine the written expression of policy in a way that

is instantly comprehensible to people who read it; in a way that can be

changed, clearly and credibly, when change is required; and, at the

same time, in a way that allows human discretion to be exercised in

favour of individual human beings who have need. That's the kind of

discretion and the sort of human judgment that helps. To rely

exclusively on human discretion, I think, is a mistake. Some people

have better days than others. They wake up with headaches. They wake up

with bad memories of the night before, or whatever. I had a lot of

uncomfortable and unpleasant dealings with public servants

[ Page 7853 ]

occasionally — who were simply not in a mood to exercise fair-minded

and humane discretion in the issue that we would present to them when I

worked at Cool Aid in Victoria.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

The

minister has said that there are no guidelines, and I wonder if he

would be prepared to reconsider. I wonder if he would be prepared to

put guidelines in writing, in such a form (

a) that is amendable upon

experience and the changes that experience inevitably would produce in

those guidelines; and (

b) that still allows flexibility in favour of

the individual kid when that flexibility can clearly be justified.

don't like public policy that relies basically on word of mouth; I

don't like public policy that relies on good intentions alone. I can't

support public policy that can be as undefined and potentially

ill-administered as is one that has no written expression. In a sense,

if it is not written, it doesn't exist. In a sense, if it's not in

writing, it can't be used. The people in Victoria, the people who read

this debate, the people who may still be around six months from now and

remember this debate, might well be in a position to act on the impulse

of it and to do so in a fair-minded way. That's good, but it's not good

enough. Because in the field a year or two years from now — or in the

field tomorrow, for people who don't read about any of these

discussions and who don't understand the particular sensibility of

approach that the Attorney-General has brought to bear — people will

not be informed enough to administer this policy.

We've

expressed on other occasions our concern about the general and rather

arbitrary cutoff of 12 years of age, which is no magic age for any

human being. Some are or are not mature at that point, and everyone

knows that. Obviously, if you're going to name any figure, I suppose

that's as good as any other. Maybe no figure should have been named in

the first place; rather, guidelines that relate to human need should be

the expression of policy.

However, the government has said

that 12 years is the cutoff, and beyond that, a level of discretion

will be exercised on the question of, as he put it, "what constitutes

an essential need for representation." I wonder if the Attorney-General

would be prepared to consider whether both guidelines in writing for

the clear administration of policy and for the further option for

individual discretion in the case of, and in favour of, the human need

actually at stake might not be a better policy.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I'd like the first member for Victoria to know that I am in accord with

his position concerning statements of public policy. When I responded

earlier to his contribution to this debate, I prefaced my remarks by

saying that we were dealing — I and the member for Burnaby-Edmonds —

with matters associated with certain guideline statements from the

ministry, which don't apply to this section.

This

section

applies to adults, in the sense of a spouse or the person involved —

or, if the child's maintenance is involved, the person or parent having

custody of the child. So there is always an adult involved in this

particular proceeding. I was talking about a matter that the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds had raised yesterday. I was probably at that moment out

of order, but now I'm back in order.

Let me say this to the

first member for Victoria with regard to the desirability of

guidelines: I can't produce the guidelines, because they don't exist.

The reason they don't exist today is that up until very recently — the

past few weeks — we have functioned on the system that family advocacy

lawyers are available on demand, with no questions asked. If you need a

lawyer, you get one. We are trying to bring that system under some

better management than has heretofore existed. If we don't, the

alarming rate of increase in the cost of that system may burden it to

such an extent that it begins to collapse. If it begins to collapse

there are a number of options available to us. One of them is to stop

using the private bar in family law and build another bureaucracy of

lawyers into the ministry. I am not in favour of that kind of move, so

we have established these guidelines that the member of Burnaby-Edmonds

is expressing concern about. I understand her concern. It never

happened before. Out of those will come, at my request, the kind of

public policy statement that the first member for Victoria referred to

in his remarks. I think it is very essential. I also think it is very

essential, as he has said — it would be a necessary part of it — that

in spite of how specific you may be there must still be an area for

responsible discretion. That has to be the case with regard to any

activity involving government and the citizen. It is impossible to

design the words to fit every conceivable case, and therefore someone

with wisdom and good judgment has got to be able to exercise the

discretion. You can always quarrel as to whether that is done. That is

why we have people like the ombudsman who goes in and says: "You

weren't very wise in the way in which you exercised the discretion you

were given." We have these countervailing protective units.

What

we are doing in this ministry with regard to this particular problem

is, for the first time, being able to develop the kind of policy

guidelines that the member has referred to. While that doesn't deal

with this particular

section of this bill, I just want the members not

to be under any doubts that that is where we are headed with regard to

this matter. I expect the guidelines will be produced as soon as we

have some weeks of experience. If we find that what has already been

issued fails in some respects and therefore must be modified, out of

that will come — by a process of distillation, I guess — what can be

sort of a long-range statement itself, always subject to modification

and amendment.

I don't think you can develop guidelines in

an area of this kind in any other way. I wouldn't want to sit down and

write them. I don't think any individual would, and I wouldn't want to

hire anybody to do it because you always leave something out. In an

area of this kind, with changing social problems coming to bear upon

this aspect, those guidelines must be modified, from time to time,

based on experience.

MS. BROWN: When I raised the

issue of the guidelines yesterday I was totally and completely in

order, because the guidelines specifically state that legal

representation is not permitted in cases of enforcement of maintenance

orders, which is what this bill is about.

I was puzzled by

the contradiction of a bill based on improving the enforcement of

maintenance orders and at the same time the Attorney-General's ministry

saying that legal counsel was not going to be made available to the

spouse — usually the woman, in this instance — who had to go into the

courts to deal with this enforcement.

The whole issue of the

guidelines, as it affects children over the age of 12, was totally in

order at that time, and I think it is still in order now. I appreciate

that the Attorney-General is monitoring the system. I hope he won't

take too long with

[ Page 7854 ]

his

monitoring, because in the meantime there are going to be women who are

going to show up in court to deal with the enforcement of maintenance

orders who are not going to have legal counsel there to assist them in

terms of dealing with the complexities of showing up in family court.

Every day I am getting examples of young children — usually girls over

the age of 12 — who have been sexually abused by one member of their

family or another — a father, an uncle or whatever — who are now being

denied the services of a child advocate, a lawyer, to counsel them,

advise them and speak on their behalf in the courts. While the

monitoring is going on these people are left unprotected. All I am

saying to the Attorney-General is that I hope he will move with great

speed, or even take a second look at the decision about the age of 12.

I've never been able to understand — and I've asked him a number of

times — why the age of 12, and I haven't got an answer to that.

Section 2 approved.

Section 3.

MS. BROWN:

We'll now deal with the

section we've been debating all along. I just

want to ask some questions.

Section 3 says that the Crown may accept an

assignment in writing of the rights of a person respecting an order.

There are, of course, going to be some instances where a woman may

decide she doesn't want to give the Crown this responsibility. What

happens to the woman in that case, if the spouse does not keep up his

maintenance payments and it becomes necessary to have an order of

enforcement and this woman does not have the financial backing to hire

a lawyer of her own?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yesterday I

said that the Ministry of Human Resources and the Ministry of the

Attorney-General were in the process of designing an enforcement

mechanism. It would be available for that woman as well, whether or not

she had assigned her rights to the Crown.

MS. BROWN:

Is the signing over of an order going to be a prerequisite which is

demanded of a woman in the event that she has to apply for income

assistance, for welfare, in the interim while she is waiting for the

back payments to get caught up and that kind of thing? When she goes to

apply for welfare, is it going to be demanded of her that she sign this

order?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It's not a question of the

order; it's assignment of the right to maintenance. Mr. Chairman, I

can't respond to that question because it would be within the knowledge

of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). I'm not aware

that it's going to be mandatory that anybody give an assignment of

their rights. That's why the

section is drawn in the permissive way —

that the Crown may accept an assignment. We know of instances where

women have no objection to an order being made against their husbands;

they just don't want to get involved in the trouble of going to court.

So the Crown says: "Fine. If you would like to assign your rights to

maintenance, then we will go and get the orders, and we will tend to

variations and enforcement." That, I understand, would be acceptable.

But I'm not aware that it is going to be a mandatory requirement of

Human Resources that before you can get social assistance you will in

fact have to give an assignment. They may attempt to encourage that in

a case where they believe that some recovery can be made in the

circumstances, but that's all I can say.

MS. BROWN:

The Attorney-General is quite correct. I should have put that question

to the Minister of Human Resources; but this is not her bill, and

that's the reason I didn't.

In the event a person has signed

over the right to the Crown, and the settlement is higher than what

that person would receive from income assistance.... For example, if

the person on income assistance were eligible for $600 a month and the

settlement was $700 a month.... When the spouse falls into arrears,

does the ministry guarantee to maintain the order as it is, or does the

section which says, "Vary the order," then come into effect, and does

the family find that it's getting the straight income assistance rate?

I'm worried about this

section about varying the order during the term

of the assignment.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: May I assure

the member that her concern is unnecessary. When we take an assignment

of the right, it's the total right — if they want to give it. The

Crown, on behalf of the individual, may apply for a maintenance order.

If enforcement is required, the Crown could enforce it. If the Crown

learns, as sometimes happens, that the circumstances of the person who

pays have changed so that he or she can in effect pay more, then the

Crown has the right to institute proceedings to vary the order so that

the amount required to be paid is in keeping with the income of the

person who is doing the paying, in exactly the same way as the woman

herself would. If the woman applied for a maintenance order and

received $200 a month because that was what the court determined was

all the husband could afford to pay, and his circumstances changed so

that he could pay more, then the woman could go and ask for a variation

of the order — or if there were changes in her circumstances which

necessitated further consideration. So the Crown is only taking those

same rights that the woman would have. It's not for the purpose of

making sure that she is kept to the level of income of social

assistance payments, in any respect. It's just so we have all the

rights that they do.

Of course, the proceedings to vary also

come from the other side. It may be that the paying husband goes to

court and says, "I want it varied because I can't afford it," or, "My

wife is now in receipt of income at a higher level than was the case

before, and therefore I shouldn't have to pay as much." We have to be

in the position where we can, if we have an assignment, appear in those

proceedings and contest the position taken by the husband.

MS. BROWN:

The problem is that as the system presently exists, because a woman in

receipt of income assistance with dependants is only allowed to earn an

additional $100 and then there are deductions from her income

assistance, the court has fallen into the habit of gearing maintenance

payments to this reality. In other words, they'll say, if you're on

income assistance: "Let's just make the payments $100 a month, because

anything over that will put you in the same boat anyway." The result of

this is that there are women who are reluctant to sign over their

rights to the Crown because they're afraid that they're going to find

it's much easier for the system to just hang in there at the income

assistance level, rather than going after as much money as is possible

for them

[ Page 7855 ]

get. That's the background for the question I asked. I'm hoping that

when the Attorney-General and Human Resources work it out, they will

take this into account, because there is going to be reluctance on the

part of those families that can get an order that will pay a bit more

than income assistance to sign over those rights to the Crown.

final question on this

section has to do with older women who are

childless wives. A number of legal counsel have indicated that this

group is the most difficult group to get any kind of maintenance

payments for. In some instances it could be simply that the kids have

grown up and left home. Suddenly the woman finds herself at the age of

49 or 50, but not yet 65 and eligible for the old-age pension, with

none of the skills demanded by the job market at this time and

desperately needing maintenance. If she goes on income assistance, she

is designated as employable, in which case her income assistance is

lower than it would otherwise be. I want to get an assurance from the

Attorney-General that if this particular group of women — it is a large

segment; I think that somewhere in the neighbourhood of over 5,000

women fit into this category — do sign their rights over to the Crown,

there will not be this tendency to just hang in at the income

assistance level.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I can assure the

member that the Ministry of Human Resources is anxious to see the

fullest enforcement of maintenance responsibilities. I am aware, from

talking with the minister and her deputy, that with assignments taken

under this provision, it is their intention that the person who has the

responsibility to pay pays all that that person can possibly be obliged

to pay under law.

I am aware of the matter of the $100

order. This is one of the problems with which my ministry and Human

Resources are currently wrestling. As the member know, in some other

jurisdictions they put in some minimums in order to avoid this

particular problem. We hope to be able to avoid that, and to be able to

make representations to the judges who make these orders that they

should not be influenced in any way by what the social assistance

program may be, that there should be a true order made based upon the

condition of the parties before the court.

Sections 3 to 9 inclusive approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, with leave of the House, I would like to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

We are very honoured today in having extremely distinguished visitors

to our province: Lord Cockfield, who is the Secretary of State for

Britain, and Lady Cockfield. I'd like all members to bid them an

especially warm welcome. Joined with them are Consul Rogan and Mrs.

Rogan from Vancouver and Mr. Rees, private secretary to Lord Cockfield.

This is the start of Lord Cockfield's visit to our country. He's going

to be here for about a week. I'm very happy to welcome them all to the

Pacific Northwest and this great weather we're having in Victoria.

MR. LORIMER: I would likewise ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. LORIMER:

We have in the precincts grade 4 students from Maywood School in

Burnaby. I would ask the assembly to bid them welcome. Unfortunately

they were an hour late due to the delays in the ferries today.

MRS. WALLACE: While we're into introductions, I wonder if I also might have leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MRS. WALLACE:

Numbered among the fourth estate we have an exceptional visitor to the

precincts today watching these proceedings. I would like the House to

welcome a reporter from the Cowichan Leader, Judith Belton.

section 10.

MS. BROWN:

I think that this

section deals with striking out sections 8 and 16 of

the GAIN legislation. No, I am sorry. It is

section 11 that I need.

Section 10 approved.

section 11.

MS. BROWN:

I think this deals with striking out sections 8 and 16 of the GAIN

legislation and substituting

section 8 of the GAIN act. Is that correct?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.

MS. BROWN:

Section 8 of the GAIN Act is the one dealing with the COLA clause. It

is going to index benefits. It is a

section which was introduced in

1979 as a proclamation

section and was never proclaimed. I understand

that in this bill now the income assistance which people receive for

basic food, clothing and shelter is going to be tied to the consumer

price index and is going to be indexed every year. If it is correct

that we are having a COLA clause then I want to speak in favour of this

section because we have been fighting for the proclamation of this

section for a long time. Not being a legal beagle. I m not sure whether

I've read the thing correctly or not, so before saying anything nice

about it I just want to check.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You want to check what? I think the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds should always be nice.

Section

11 of this bill is consequential upon the previous section. The GAIN

act dealt with a variety of sections.

Section 10 of this bill repealed

section 16. We are simply taking the numbers 8 and 16 out of

section 28

and putting 8 back, which is a legislative counsel style.

Section 8 of

the GAIN act — unproclaimed today — will remain in the GAIN act,

following the passage of this legislation, unproclaimed until such time

as the Lieutenant-Governor determines to make that proclamation. I

can't assist the hon. member because the GAIN legislation does not fall

under my ministry. We had to make this change in this particular bill

because of the earlier

section which we have now brought back into the

Family Relations Act, which is my responsibility.

[ Page 7856 ]

MS. BROWN: I would just like to express my profound disappointment that

section 8 of the GAIN act is not going to be proclaimed.

Sections 11 and 12 approved.

Title approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is a schedule, I believe.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

No, it is not a schedule. The convention on the civil aspects of

international child abduction is printed as part of the bill for the

assistance of the members. It is referred to in

section 1.

I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Bill 14, Family Relations Amendment Act, 1982, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

AGRICULTURE AND FOOD

(continued)

On vote 5: minister's office, $164,608.

MRS. WALLACE:

Mr. Chairman, no way shall vote 5 pass. We have a minister here who day

by day becomes less and less credible. The latest story, of course,

which hit the press just this morning, concerns his inability to

maintain in the agricultural land reserve some 5,800 hectares of land

in the Golden area. I've been following this for some time, Mr.

Chairman, and I've talked with the people involved. Do you know that

the majority of people who own that property don't want it out of the

reserve? The Land Commission made some very strong and thorough

recommendations relative to that piece of property, and here we have a

minister.... This is the man who should be standing up for the

agricultural land reserve; certainly that's his responsibility. But

what happens, Mr. Chairman? He sits back and lets the rest of the

cabinet overrule him, or else he goes along with them. No one ever

knows which way it is, because that minister and those meetings of ELUC

and the cabinet are secret meetings held without notice. Nobody knows

when they are. Unless one manages to ferret it out through some

inadvertent remark from someone, they're done without any public input.

Nobody knows who the witnesses are and who listens to them.

that particular instance a strong representation was made by local

people who were opposed to its coming out, but there was also a very

strong lobby by developers. As a matter of fact, most of the people who

were in favour of the exclusion didn't have land in the reserve in that

area, but there was a strong move to have that land taken out; there

was a lobby on the regional board. The regional board brought the

appeal, and behind closed doors the people who own that land, who have

farmed it for years and years and years were excluded. One of the

family farms in that area goes back to 1913, Mr. Chairman, and now,

without their consent, this minister has allowed the reversal of that

decision by the and Commission to retain the land in the reserve.

has no sense of commitment to the land reserve or to the agricultural

community that wants that land maintained. It is some of the best

agricultural land in that area, according to the studies done by the

Land Commission. They identified that of the total 5,800 hectares,

3,345 hectares should remain in that reserve because it was being

farmed. They said some could come out — the rockier areas, the steeper

areas. So there was an opportunity for the regional board to have the

development it wanted, but that wasn't good enough for that minister.

He was prepared to go along with this deal and take it all out, to

override the Land Commission once more.

We're getting a

little fed up on this side of the House, and the people of this

province are getting a little fed up, with these continual removals of

land, the complete undermining of the Land Commission. What's the point

in having a Land Commission if you're going to overrule it all the

time? You might as well do away with it. It's completely ridiculous.

have a petition here signed by about 25 or 30 people who are owners of

property in that Blaeberry area and who wanted it to stay in the land

reserve. What are they going to do? Will they now have to apply to have

it reinstated in the land reserve? They don't want to do anything but

farm it, but you, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, have decided

they can't farm it; we're going to take it out of the reserve. How can

you farm land in the middle of a trailer park, a camper site, with

dogs, kids from Calgary? That's what it's going to be. Those lands are

going to go to Albertans. Big oil money will come in there, buy that

property, bring in their mobile trailers, set up their camps, build

their cabins, and it's going to be impossible. They're going to ask for

sewers and water and all sorts of facilities. Those farmers who want to

stay there and farm in that area are going to be forced off their land

through the taxes and the cost. How can they afford to pay the taxes to

provide sewers and water? The member for North Peace River (Mr.

Brummet) says they don't have to sell. They're going to be forced to

sell through the economic pressure that will be put on them, and their

taxes will also probably go up. Economic pressure will force them out.

But

it's not just economic. I wonder if the member for North Peace River

has ever tried to farm among a bunch of trailers and kids and dogs and

horses and people running over the property destroying the crops. I've

been in that position, Mr. Chairman, and I know what it's like. That's

the situation that's going to develop up there. That's what this

minister is doing. That's one of the main reasons why we believe that

he is utterly irresponsible and uncommitted to the land reserve.

There's

another case coming up in the Vernon area. The Land Commission has

ruled absolutely and positively that that land should stay in the

reserve. And it's being appealed. Is that the next one we're going to

see? How do we know? When will it happen? Secretly, behind closed

doors. Nobody knows that it's out until we see the order-in-council.

That's what's going to happen.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I ask the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) and the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) to come to order.

[ Page 7857 ]

MRS. WALLACE:

At least the member for Vancouver East is saying some words that make

sense. I don't know what the member for Yale-Lillooet (Hon. Mr.

Waterland) is uttering over there; some kind of crackpot noises.

MRS. WALLACE:

The Thorlakson property at Okanagan Landing. I have a thick file on it,

with copies of letters to the minister, urging him not to go along with

the appeal. But what assurance is there that he won't? This is fine

agricultural land. Again, the Land Commission has said: okay, we'll

take part of it out, the part that would be a buffer zone, but this

other is good agricultural land. Not good enough; they want to appeal

it. And what will happen? Will there be any forewarning? Will there be

any chance for the multitude of people who are opposed to this to have

their say before ELUC? Not likely. It will be done secretly, behind

closed doors with no timetable, and a week later we'll find an

order-in-council saying it's been removed.

That's the

history of this government. That's how it operates. It's a shame and a

disgrace. There is no way that this minister is going to get his vote

until he gives us a firm commitment that there are going to be no more

of these secret removals from the land reserve, no more of this secret

stuff — whether it be a payoff for political friends under the new

section of the act, or whether it be....

MR. CHAIRMAN: All members of the committee are reminded that any imputation of dishonourable motives to another member is unparliamentary.

MRS. WALLACE:

I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I get a bit carried away when I talk about

this agricultural land reserve, because it's an area of highly

emotional concern to me. It's the future for our kids. It's the future

of British Columbia. We have to retain the capability of feeding

ourselves in the future. We can't just sell out our heritage for a mess

of pottage. That appears to be what's happening, and I'm emotionally

concerned. There are many, many instances, and I and other members of

this caucus shall be outlining them in the course of this debate.

the minister has any response to this, any remarks that he wants to

make, let him make them now, so we can understand what his position is.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

With regard to the application made by the regional district of

Columbia-Shuswap, in the area known as Blaeberry, the application dealt

with by the cabinet was for approximately 3,500 hectares, not 5,800. I

wanted to correct the member's comments.

Out of that plus or

minus 3,500 hectares, approximately 1,000 hectares are Crown land. The

balance is owned by various individuals. The member paints a picture of

taking prime farm land out of the reserve and says that we have done

this terrible deed.

First of all, I want to say that public

hearings were held in the regional district. After hearing from some of

the people in the area who farm, they amended the area requested for

exclusion by the regional district by some 400 hectares. After hearing

the comments made at the public hearings, they adjusted their map and

said, "Well, if the person is, in effect, farming at the present time

and expresses concern that in the block application their land will

come out, we will amend our request," and that's what they did.

[Mr. Richmond in the chair.]

Mr.

Chairman, the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) makes mention

of the emotional aspect of the agricultural land reserve, and she's

dead right. It is a very emotional issue, because government has placed

a further restriction on the freedom of the individual. We have placed

another regulation on the individual who owns property in fee simple.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I will, Mr. Chairman, allow the opposition to have their comments

across the floor. I will not ask for withdrawals or anything else,

because I consider the source from which they come.

Mr.

Chairman, I want to indicate that not only is it emotional, because of

the people who own the land, but it is also very political. As minister

responsible for the agricultural land reserve, I've seen in the past

few years a constant attack, the constant inference that it's political

payoff. I'm getting a little tired of it. I figure it's about time that

we identified this agricultural land reserve for what it was originally

intended to be, which was a socialist move to control land in the

province of British Columbia. I want to say that the news media

coverage — and particularly that of an individual by the name of

Malcolm Turnbull, whom I have no particular affection for — tends to

play with agriculture. He seems to hold himself out as a spokesperson

for that industry in the news media. I had a discussion with the

gentleman yesterday when he called me, and I gave him what I thought

was factual information, only to read in the newspaper the comments

today, about which I am further exercised. Responsible reporting is

sort of overlooked, and it gets to be a "political" issue in the news

media.

Mr. Chairman, I want to point out a few things, and

then of course will carry on debating this issue for as long as the

opposition wants.

It is the determination of the people who

own the land whether they wish to farm it or not, the same as they did

prior to the agricultural land reserves coming into existence. The

member for Cowichan-Malahat mentioned somebody having farmed there

since 1913. I want to tell you that the agricultural land reserves

haven't been around since 1913, and that person's family, the former

owners, or the persons who are there at the present time have made a

decision to farm. Isn't it nice in the free country that we live in

that you can make the decision to farm or not to farm. When you look at

some of the classifications — and I will not be drawn into a deep

debate on classifications.... The vast percentage of this land ranges,

on the Canada Land Inventory, from class 5 to class 7. You don't grow

carrots, etc., on that type of land. The majority of it is used either

for pasture, forage or grazing a few cattle.

Mr. Chairman,

in regard to the application itself, it is not made by whom the second

member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) would like to imply. The

application is not made by a developer. The application is made by a

government duly elected by the people of the area, and don't you forget

it. You want to imply that this is a developer that is getting to the

regional district. Therefore, in my opinion, you attack the regional

district directors in that area and say they've been bought. That's

what you re saying. This is a government that

[ Page 7858 ]

has come forward to a senior government requesting an exclusion.

I said earlier, before the land reserves were in place it was a

commitment of the property-owner to determine what he would do with it.

With this exclusion of those lands which are held in fee simple by

individuals, it would continue to be their personal commitment as to

whether or not they wish to farm it. They own the land; they have title

to it. In a free democracy when you have title to land you can

determine what you wish to do with it. If you wish to farm you may

farm. If the opposition were government they would attempt, more and

more as time went on, to control the land base of this province and the

ownership of land in the long run. I would only say that the people

involved in farming in that area — most of it was to do with grazing

and forage — can continue to do so. The regional district deleted those

who expressed concern from their application for exclusion, taking into

consideration the comments those persons made at the hearings.

The

member for Cowichan-Malahat talks about the impact of trailers, dogs

and kids on agricultural activity. I have been in two places that I can

refer to, one being China, which happens to have the third-largest land

base in the world with the largest population in the world. Canada has

the second largest land base in the world, with 26 million or 27

million people. There is a tremendous amount of agricultural activity

in places like China. I could refer you to places like Holland, where

industry, residential properties and agricultural endeavours exist side

by side. They live in harmony. Don't hide behind the argument that the

kids, dogs, cars, etc. are going to have an impact on grazing lands in

that particular area.

I am going to say to this committee,

as I said when I started, that I am getting a little exercised

regarding this political attack — I am looking for a better word — or

political use of the legislation on agricultural land reserves by the

opposition, who, as I said at the beginning of my estimates, in their

time released class 1 and class 2 land and put it into an industrial

park. I gave them specific references. Don't stand up shiny-bright

clean and say that you would never do this. You did it, and you brought

in the legislation. We just inherited it. If you felt that strongly —

those of you who were in office between 1972 and 1975 — you would have

resigned over this issue because it would have offended you so strongly.

minister responsible for this agricultural land reserve and this

legislation, I think that the time has come to seriously address just

where we are going with this legislation. I have attempted, since I

have been the minister responsible, to seriously address the question

by "fine-tuning," only to be attacked from time to time for the lack of

fine-tuning and for the opposition over exclusions that have been taken

out. These attacks have all been politically motivated. I think it is

time for me, as the minister responsible, to take a look at what is

truly agricultural land in this province. I believe we should preserve

that true agricultural land, but I will not get hung up on keeping in

gravel pits, class 5, 6 and 7 land, because of the political abuse, in

my opinion, that the opposition makes over this legislation. That is my

commitment here today. If the member for Cowichan-Malahat wants a

commitment, there it is, because I am going to take a long, hard look

at this legislation and bring forward changes that will better reflect

agricultural land in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The

Chair would just like to remind members that occasional interjections

can be tolerated if a member is sitting in his own seat.

MR. MACDONALD:

I keep being amazed when this minister stands up. I have to pinch

myself to remind me that he is the Minister of Agriculture. He is not

the minister of housing and land development; he is not the minister of

industry. The man who is talking about these vast tracts coming out of

our agricultural land reserve over the wishes of the Land Commission is

the minister of agriculture. I find it absolutely unbelievable. Instead

of fighting so that the people of this province will not be dependent

upon non-existent Mexican or Californian exports in 20 or 30 years'

time — they're going to run out — the Minister of Agriculture is giving

away land out of the farm reserve that the Land Commission has judged

to be good farmland. I can't understand how anybody in this province

can believe that this man is for farming. He is against farming. He is

against agriculture.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair]

The

minister is all over the lot when he comes to the Gloucester estates,

where a Chilean consortium is making out of the hide of the people of

British Columbia heaven knows how many hundreds of millions of dollars.

When it comes to them, he's got a bunch of reasons why he overruled the

Land Commission. When he comes to Spetifore, he has other reasons. And

yet, every once in a while, this minister who is all over the lot in

the debate, says that soil capability is the decision and judgment of

the Agricultural Land Commission. He doesn't observe that. Now he comes

into this Legislature and says, "Oh, they didn't understand this. Some

of it was five and six. Some of it was pasturage up near Golden. What's

wrong with pasturage? Are you Minister of Agriculture or not? Are you

Minister of Industry? Are you Minister of Housing? Are you Minister of

Tourism and Ski-lifts? Just what are we talking about in this province

in terms of preserving the land?

His speech today indicates

right where he is: philosophically, he's a Genghis Khan as far as the

Agricultural Land Commission is concerned. He doesn't like it. He

doesn't respect it. He says it was a socialist plan to take over all

the land of the province, or some claptrap like that. He pays

lipservice to it while with his other hand he's giving it away,

shovelling the land out. Time after time, it turns up that it's a

wealthy Socred developer who has contributed to the Socred campaign

funds who goes off with the loot. I say that without fear of

contradiction.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Will the committee please come to order.

MR. MACDONALD: He complains about some of the things we say in this Legislature. Why don't you sue the Vancouver Province ?

Because he wanted to get out and make a real mint on them, he allowed

the Spetifore lands to fall into disarray as agricultural lands. He

stopped farming them. When they come out on January 16, 1981, theVancouver Province talked about "the farmland — in that case 523 acres, including optioned land — "owned by George

[ Page 7859 ]

Spetifore, Socred supporter, who helped finance Deputy Speaker Walter Davidson's 1975 and 1979 election campaigns."

That's the Province

talking about an accumulating conflict of interest where the member for

Delta (Mr. Davidson) is in thick with Jim Anderson as a partner in

terms of Sun Mask Petroleum, in thick in terms of the takeover of

Inland Natural Gas, in thick in terms of getting the Spetifore land out

of the agricultural land reserve, and we sit here with that conflict of

interest, and we say: Bandage our eyes, and don't believe what we see.

Don't believe what we hear. Don't believe what we know." How can we?

What in the heck is going on in this province of British Columbia?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

I'll ask the committee to please come to order. I'll ask the hon.

member now speaking to be relevant. We are discussing the estimates of

the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Debate in Committee of Supply

must concern itself primarily with the administrative actions of the

minister. Please proceed.

MR. MACDONALD: All right.

I'll come back to that, and I'll ask the minister what he knows about

the intervention of the hon. member for Delta in terms of getting

Spetifore lands out of the reserve. Nothing?

Mr. Chairman, let me say this. One November 24, 1977, it was reported in the Province

that Spetifore and Sons — and to the Minister of Agriculture this is a

big joke — had this potato chip business, and they did get a $250,000

forgivable loan for it, and so forth. But they couldn't make a go of

that. The Minister of Agriculture said that Spetifore should apply to

have his land withdrawn from the agricultural land reserve. Here's a

man who is responsible for protection of the farmland of the province

of British Columbia. At a later stage, he is also going to be judge,

under the Agricultural Land Commission Act, Socred-amended to allow

those loopholes of appeal.

Don't forget that. He mentioned

the legislation earlier. We were proud of the original legislation;

we’re not proud of how you amended it; we're not proud of what you're

doing with it — not in the slightest. I opposed those amendments. We

all opposed those amendments. You politicized the act to allow your

friends to find loopholes and get their land out of the agricultural

land reserve. It was done behind closed doors, without anybody opposed

to the application being allowed to know when it was going to come up.

You won't even produce transcripts of the ELUC meetings. One leaked out

in the Gloucester case, when the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr.

McClelland) made that fiery speech supporting the exclusion, with

Ainslie Loretto active in the campaign; then when it came to the vote,

he refused.... That was a leaked transcript. Mostly, it's darkness and

night; and that's where corruption lies. You can't blame people for

being suspicious when, time after time, land which has been declared to

be agricultural in its soil capability is being taken out of the

reserve by hundreds of acres; and every time it turns out to be some

Socred developer.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are there any NDP developers?

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, there are.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Will the committee please come to order. The hon. second member for

Vancouver East is taking his place in debate and will not be

interrupted.

MR. MACDONALD: I don't mind the odd

interruption, Mr. Chairman. I must admit that I feel quite strongly on

this issue. I helped draft the original legislation. I agree that we

bombed out. Then we worked very hard over about three weeks to redraft

the legislation. It was good, and it was nonpolitical.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, it was. There had to be a very limited appeal.

Now

you have this incredible situation where a disappointed developer, like

Gloucester, comes to the Minister of Agriculture arid says: "May I have

leave to appeal against the unanimous decision of the Land Commission

that my land has soil capability for agriculture?" And the minister of

Agriculture signs that little paper and gives him leave to appeal; not

the minister of industry or tourism or housing, but the Minister of

Agriculture. I think he should resign. I think that man should not be

holding that job. I don't think he's for agriculture in this province,

I think it's a joke.

MR. SEGARTY: That's what you said about Vogel.

MR. MACDONALD: I will defend everything I said, at another time. Let's leave that for another debate. I take nothing back.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. I'll ask the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) and the

member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) to please come to order.

MR. MACDONALD:

You have the amazing situation of the Minister of Agriculture telling

George Spetifore in November 1977: "Why don't you apply to get these

acres out of the agricultural land reserve?" The Minister of

Agriculture, when sitting on the ELUC committee — which he did in 1981

on the same application — was a judge who had the verdict in favour of

his political friends in his pocket before the application was even

made. In fact. he suggested that the application be made. And you think

we can have confidence in that man as Minister of Agriculture in the

province of B.C.? Impossible!

When the Spetifore thing....

You know, we're not talking about small change. I know Jim Anderson

said before the Utilities Commission that the projected housing

development would reap $400 million from this farming property. Those

figures are puffed a little bit, I know that his profit was $190

million. He is puffing it, because he's a part of taking over Inland

Natural Gas without putting up a nickel of his own — not one red cent —

and he's going to get the whole thing. It's incredible, but he'll get

it, because he has already bypassed several important departments of

government unless he's stopped.

Anyway, before that.... Let me tell you what happened when ELUC met. On July 15, 1980, at the Laurel Point

[ Page 7860 ]

Inn,

as the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) has pointed out with

some of the details, the people who were going to appear before ELUC on

behalf of the Spetifore property had a huddle in the Laurel Point Inn.

The meeting was arranged. It was a Delta application.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Don't tell me I don't know that, Mr. Minister. I do, and it was the Socreds on the Delta council.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You're against everybody.

MR. MACDONALD:

I'm against political councils dismantling the Land Commission. That's

what the land thing was for: to prevent these municipal politicians

from wheeling and dealing with land and getting it out until we had no

farmland left in the province of British Columbia. Why is the act

there? To prevent precisely what I'm talking about.

So they

met on July 15. It was arranged through the secretary of the hon.

member for Delta (Mr. Davidson). It was called so that there wouldn't

be anybody prowling around the Laurel Point Inn. It said: "No

announcement. Closed meeting." Don't put on the bulletin board that

Delta council has a semi-official meeting in terms of legitimate public

business. They had some of their real estate guys from Delta there who

are not on the Delta city council — guys like Bill Sullivan, for

example, who got a neighbourhood pub by the same closed door appeal

procedure that the Socreds favour so much.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are on the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture.

MR. MACDONALD: All right. Bill Sullivan was there. Why

was he there? Tell us that, Mr. Minister. Tell us you didn't know

anything about that meeting with Boyd Ferris, their lawyer, in the

chair, behind closed doors. They rehearsed the lines they would present

to the minister in the ELUC committee the next day. They went over

their lines like trained seals. "How long will you take? Should we tell

him this or tell him that? Should we keep this under the rug?" None of

the people who objected to the land coming out of the reserve had any

reason to know there was going to be an ELUC meeting the next day; but

the developers, the Socred friends, knew. The Socred friends gathered

behind closed doors, and then when the thing happened they sent the

bill to the legislative building, to the member for Delta's (Mr.

Davidson'

s) office. The next day the member for Delta didn't appear

before ELUC because it was too obvious. But he had written to the

chairman of the ELUC committee at that time — who was the Minister of

Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) — on behalf of Spetifore. Did the public

know that? No, they did not. Did the public know ELUC was going to

meet? No, they did not. Did ELUC give any reasons as to why they

released all this money into private hands? No, they did not. Closed

kangaroo justice on behalf of friends is what we are talking about, Mr.

Minister of Agriculture. I say that that procedure is absolutely

unthinkable.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Step outside the door

and state the case and the amount — who got paid. Stand the flak. You

don't dare do it. You're a disgrace to the law profession.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I will ask the Minister of Agriculture and Food........

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD:

Listen to this carefully, Mr. Minister of Agriculture. "This farm,

owned by George Spitifore, a Socred supporter who helped finance Deputy

Speaker Walter Davidson's 1975 and 1979 campaigns...." Go and sue the Province .

Everybody knows there is a conflict of interest. When a member of this

Legislature quietly supports an exclusion that is going to result in

hundreds of millions of dollars of profit to somebody — behind closed

doors, without anybody knowing about it — and is involved in business

with one of the people, Jim Anderson, who ends up with the land, that

is not right. That is a conflict-of-interest situation, and I have no

hesitation in saying it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members

of the committee, I must remind the committee that we are under the

estimates of the Minister of Agriculture. We discuss and debate the

administrative actions of that ministry and not other members of this

committee or of this Legislative Assembly. Relevancy must be

maintained. The Ministry of Agriculture's estimates, vote 5.

MR. MACDONALD:

Let the Minister of Agriculture and Food stand up and tell us that he

didn't know about this huddle in the Laurel Point Inn before they came

to get the boys with all their lines. You were had by that group, or

you knew all about it. When the ELUC meeting took place the next day,

it lasted....

Let's say who was there on ELUC for the

Spetifore lands, July 16, 1980. The Minister of Lands, Parks and

Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) and the Minister of Transportation and

Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), who incidentally walked out of the meeting

after six or seven minutes.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD:

He did. Was he disgusted with what was going on? The Minister of

Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) was in the chair. The Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), the

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), and so forth.

There were two or three other ministers as well. The meeting lasted

from 8:15 to 8:40 a.m. I make that 25 minutes to take 500-odd acres of

agricultural land assessed at, so far as the public's taxation is

concerned, $800,000, and to convert it into land out of the reserve,

which the developers say is now worth, in terms of housing, a gross of

$400 million.

This was done in 25 minutes behind closed

doors. Of course there were objectors, but they didn't know about the

meeting. There was one little guy from the Agricultural Land Commission

— Jay Simon, I think his name is. He was intimidated by all these big

guys. What was Bill Sullivan doing in all this? Who is Bill Sullivan?

Why should he be at the meeting in Laurel Point Inn and why should he

be in the meeting of ELUC? He's just a big real estate guy. He got a

neighbourhood pub — I think it's theSundowner — from this

[ Page 7861 ]

government

by the same kind of closed-door appeal procedure that I'm talking

about. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Hyndman) knows all about that.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Under the Socreds in 1976.

what are these Socred real estate developers doing before ELUC, when

the general public doesn't even know the meeting's taking place? Tell

us that, Mr. Minister of Agriculture. You remember he was there. You

were there. This procedure is simply incredible where you have this

kind of justice involving so much money. I happen to believe — and I'm

not Social Credit; I don't think money grows on trees.... To use an

analogy — the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot)

will know what I'm talking about — our economy is a little bit like a

poker game. If the Gloucester boys make $300 million or $400

million.... Is that too high an estimate? I don't think it is, when you

really think about it. And if Anderson and Spetifore make a couple of

hundred million in terms of the Spetifore land, that comes out of the

economy. Around the poker table — which is all of the people of British

Columbia — when somebody wins that kind of money, other people lose it.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD:

You think it's funny, eh, to have this kind of ripoff going on in the

province of British Columbia. I've never seen such a man. And this guy,

the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), he just hoots like an

owl. Hoot, hoot, hoot. Sure. You all know what's going on in this

province. But you try to pass it off and you joke about it and so forth.

Look,

when some people make that kind of money, other people lose it. And the

people who lose it are the ordinary people of the province of British

Columbia.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace),

our agriculture critic, has expressed lack of confidence in this

minister. I certainly join in that. When you get up I want you to

answer specifically why you would give a hint to George Spetifore in

1977 that he should apply to have his land taken out of the reserve.

Then you were the judge who let it out a few years later. Why? As

Minister of Agriculture, why did you do that? Will you give us the

transcript? Will you see that we get the transcript of the Spetifore

thing? It was leaked in the Gloucester case, but the public don't know

what went on — except what I've given you. I know some of it that went

on. Will you stop this business about meetings behind closed doors

where nobody knows they're even going to take place, when you're

dealing with public rights worth hundreds of millions of dollars? Will

you stop that kind of nonsense? As Minister of Agriculture, will you

try to protect the land instead of giving it away? What are you trying

to do, make your job lighter, so there'll be no agricultural land and

we'll be dependent on foreign foodstuffs? That foreign food is giving

out.

So I say that this minister should not be Minister of

Agriculture. He's the minister against agriculture. We need somebody in

there who will stand up for the Agricultural Land Reserve Act, which is

good legislation. Take the politics out of it, and put a minister in

charge who believes in the preservation of farmland in British Columbia.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I am the Minister of Agriculture, and the Minister of Agriculture deals

with those people who are involved in farming. Your legislation, if you

had had your way in the beginning, was to involve state ownership of

land and state control of land — that's where you come from. I'll stack

my record as Minister of Agriculture against your government's record

in regard to the growth of the agricultural industry in this province.

What other province has an agricultural land reserve, Mr. Member? The

only one that comes close is Quebec, and at least they have done

something that you people wouldn't even think of when you brought the

legislation in. They only identify those parts of Quebec which are

prime agricultural land. They do not drop the blanket, as I said the

other day, over the whole province, including classes 5, 6 and 7.

You

talk about hints: "What hint did you give Mr. Spetifore?" I can only

tell you that if I did mention anything to Spetifore, it was as

minister responsible, that one of the processes you go through is an

appeal process. What's wrong with that? You're a lawyer. You of all

people would deny the right of appeal to people involved with

agricultural land. You should be the one member opposite who would

stand up and fully support the concept of the right of appeal. When you

talk about ELUC and opening the hearings to the public, you know as

well as I do that when the application is heard, the parties involved

are all represented there, and they can bring people they have with

them — their agrologists, etc. — to comment on the agricultural

capability or lack of capability.

Mr. Chairman, I'm just

going to touch on a few things. As the second member for Vancouver East

(Mr. Macdonald) likes to imply Social Credit involvement in regard to

decisions.... What about the Gloucester Properties issue, when the

local NDP constituency organization president, an alderman, voted in

favour of the exclusion? If you are as sincere as you would like us to

believe, I would assume that the president of the NDP in British

Columbia would immediately ask that woman to resign, because you

couldn't live with that type of compromise. You made such an eloquent

statement in your argument. I’m just saying, perform! Don't come in

here and give us all these great statements about how righteous you

are, when your own people are for an exclusion from time to time.

could go back and give the history of Mr. Spetifore, who was approached

by the NDP and who donated to the NDP. Then the NDP executive in Delta

hopped from one foot to the other for two weeks and finally said: "Oh,

oh. We might get caught. Let's give him back his cheque." I can

remember those comments that were made.

To speak of the

Spetifore land.... I should call it what it really is — the Delta

application. The Greater Vancouver Regional District did a tour. There

was a committee which reported the following:

"This application from the Delta council is for the exclusion of 523 acres in south Delta for urban uses and for redesignation."

The committee also notes:

"Three hundred and three acres east of Boundary Bay Road

are also applied for redesignation to park, and some 230 acres of the foreshore

are being dedicated to the regional district for regional park. This dedication

would be subject to the release of the ALR lands and approval of the planned

designation for urban development on 610 acres of Boundary Bay."

[ Page 7862 ]

The

committee formed the opinion, following the bus tour, that the subject

property is marginal farmland and recommended approval of the ALR

exclusion. That is a committee of the GVRD. If you look back in

history, you'll find that the GVRD supported the application for

exclusion. The land was excluded and then the GVRD changed its mind,

and the land still sits zoned as agricultural under the GVRD. Mr.

Chairman, the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) has

referred to the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) in regard to his

involvement. Never mind that an MLA has a responsibility to represent

his constituents. He works for his constituents and, I guess, as an MLA

he gets contributions to his campaign funds the same way Mr. Spetifore

donated to the NDP — approached by the NDP and he responded. So I don't

think, Mr. Second Member for Vancouver East, that your argument holds

water. You imply a lot of things, but you never state the actual facts.

You know as well as I do that NDP supporters contribute to campaign

funds for their candidates, and they do so if they're Social Credit

supporters as well. So don't try to imply something that isn't there.

top of that, I have a copy of a letter which mentioned that Mr. Boyd

Ferris — and this is from the corporation of Delta — was requested by

the corporation of Delta to act as spokesman at the hearing. So why was

he there? He was requested to be there by the corporation of the city

of Delta. As a lawyer, I'm sure if you were requested — and I don't

know if you would charge a fee or not — you would appear.

Let

me give you one last thing, because you talked about the Social Credit

supporters and what they're going to get. I can recall a lawyer — a

former mayor of a northern community who is now an NDP candidate — who

acted on behalf of a native band with regard to a claim against the

government and charged $5 million, only to have it cut back to $3

million. Is that a small contribution, a small payment? Tremendous!

Represents the natives, charges $5 million, if I recall my facts — and

I stand to be corrected — and settles for $3 million. Don't be so

pious, Mr. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I advise the minister that we're straying from vote 5.

The hon. member for Omineca on vote 5.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Sit down. You've had your say.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll ask the hon. member for Omineca to be courteous.

MR. KEMPF:

Mr. Chairman, it's interesting to hear about those millionaire

socialists. I know it's late in the day as far as our time here in the

House is concerned, and I wish to change the subject. But before I do

so, it's interesting to listen to the debate that's going on here this

morning in regard to the agricultural land reserve and the Land

Commission. I was amused when the second member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Macdonald) talked about taking the politics out of the issue. I want no

one in this province to think the agricultural land reserve was brought

in by the NDP for any other reason. It was purely, and without

question, a political move. It was a move to control land in the

province of British Columbia, and let no one disbelieve that. That's

been proven to me time and time again since I've been a member of this

House, and before I became a member of this House.

I was

happy to hear some of the remarks made by the minister today. At this

point I would like to suggest, to make the story just a little shorter,

that I'm firmly on record in this House as supporting good agricultural

land in this province. I think it should be in a reserve for the future

production of food in this province. Yes, I believe that. Don't think

the idea came from the NDP. It didn't come from them at all. You only

need to go back in the record to find that. The minister said it's up

to the individual to farm or not to farm. I would suggest that this is

not true. There are literally thousands of hectares of land within the

agricultural land reserve of this province that will never make a farm,

never be farmed, never grow anything, and that's an absolute shame.

It's

interesting to listen to the slick, city lawyers as to what they think

they know about land. That second member for Vancouver East has never

so much as hit a cabbage in his life. The only head of cabbage he knows

is the one he sees in the mirror.

The agricultural land

reserve was brought in as a tool to control land in this province. I am

sorry that the members on this side of the House have not had the guts

in the last six-plus years to do something about it; it is long

overdue. We talk about fine-tuning....

MR. BARBER: Do what?

MR. KEMPF:

Take land out of the land reserve that shouldn't have been put in there

in the first place. Have you ever been north of Cache Creek?

MR. BARBER: Many times. Which classes of land do you want removed?

MR. KEMPF:

You wouldn't know what is in the bulk of this province and the problems

that people face because of that reserve. We talk about Indian land

claims. The NDP brought in the agricultural land reserve, with no

thought whatsoever to making sure the true agricultural land was in a

reserve. They used the Canada land inventory map to just blanket the

whole province and because of that we have a problem with white land

claims in this province. Pioneers out there put their life's savings in

a piece of land, hoping it would be of benefit to them when they grew

old, only to find that it's behind the boundaries of an agricultural

land reserve. It doesn't matter whether it will ever grow anything.

That is beside the point. It is behind the boundaries of an

agricultural land reserve, frozen for eternity, and that is wrong.

Every time this subject comes up in this House I intend to get up and

say that it's wrong, because it is wrong.

We talk about

fine-tuning. I would ask the minister when it's going to start. We

certainly need fine-tuning. We certainly need to take out of the land

reserve those thousands of hectares that will never make farms. There

is no doubt about that. There is a definite need for fine-tuning.

About

two years ago I started asking the Agricultural Land Commission to take

a very close look at an area just out of my home town of Houston —

along highway 16, north and east of Houston. It's an area where homes

proliferate. It's an area with soil that will never grow so much as a

blade of grass.

MRS. WALLACE: Are you sure?

MR. KEMPF: Yes, I am sure, Madam Member.

[ Page 7863 ]

It's

an area bounded by gravel pits. I ask that that area be looked at very

seriously, because there are people locked within that area. The land

is within the agricultural land reserve, and it couldn't support a cow

or anything as far as agriculture is concerned. Take a look at taking

that particular area out. We talk about fine-tuning, Mr. Minister, but

we're not practising what we're preaching, because there never has been

a look taken at that area in two years. Those people are still having

problems because of that land being locked within an agricultural land

reserve where it should not be.

But that's not what I was

going to talk about this morning. I have some brief questions for the

minister in regard to another very serious situation facing

agriculturalists, particularly cattlemen, throughout the north and

north central part of this province. It's the problem of wolf

predation. It's a very serious problem, one that three consecutive

governments in this province have been unwilling to face. It's a

problem with many ranchers, not only in my constituency. It's a problem

that must be addressed. I'm sorry the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard)

isn't here today, because I'd like to know what his feelings are in

regard to the problem of wolf predation which many ranchers face in his

constituency.

There have been many losses to the cattlemen

in the north and north-central part of this province. Regardless of

what wildlife biologists have said, thousands of dollars....

MR. HANSON: Fuzzy-wuzzies.

MR. KEMPF:

You wouldn't know, Mr. Member, because you're still wet behind the

ears, and have never been off the rock! That member wouldn't know. Tell

him to go and pile his bones! What does he know about what goes on in

the rural parts of this province? He sits in this House and claims that

he knows something about land. He knows nothing!

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. No personal allusions, please. Please address the chair

and the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

MR. KEMPF: They laugh about wolf predation. I'll tell you, there

is one rancher in the Kispiox Valley — he is in the constituency of the member

for Skeena (Mr. Howard) — who, in the last year, has lost $85,000 worth of cattle

to wolves. It has put him out of business.

MR. BARBER: Another NDP plot!

MR. KEMPF:

I never said that, Mr. First Member for Victoria, not at all. You

wouldn't know a wolf if it bit you in the leg, and you talk about

wolves. We have experts on everything sitting here on the rock, gazing

out into the Pacific.

With $85,000 worth of losses in a year, that man had to sell the remainder of his herd.

don't know whether the minister wants to cut my throat or whether he

wants me to stop. I know the hour is late. I would like to go on all

afternoon, but we've got rules and we can't do that.

Just before closing I want to show, in living colour, some of the problems that the cattlemen have in my constituency.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No exhibits, please. Order, please.

MR. KEMPF:

Sorry. I won't exhibit any of the problems that the agriculturalists

and the cattlemen face in my constituency because of wolf predation.

The

time is short. I haven't got enough time today so I'm going to move the

committee rise, report great progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. McClelland moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:57 p.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

36 The Hon. H. A. Curtis to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 36)

intituled Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1982 to amend as follows:

SECTION 32 (1) , by striking out "section 13" and substituting "section

121".

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1982,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada