1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 13, 1974

Morning Sitting

[ Page

3987 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Landlord and Tenant Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 155). Hon.

Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 3987

Oral questions

Study of plus-minus method of sewage control. Mr. McClelland

— 3987

Completion date on Purcell report. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3988

Cabinet appointment rumour. Mr. Wallace — 3988

Cost-sharing formula for historic site land. Mrs. Jordan — 3988

Deferred tax interest rate. Mr. Gardom — 3989

Shortage of ICBC adjusters. Mr. Fraser — 3989

Saanich housing project. Mr. Curtis — 3989

Announcement on Jericho Hill School. Mr. McClelland — 3990

Announcements about Tilbury Island development. Mr. D.A.

Anderson — 3990

Procedure in naming new ferries. Mr. Wallace — 3990

Cost of physical exams for elderly drivers. Mrs. Jordan — 3991

An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter (Bill 50).

Committee stage — 3991

section 4.

Mr. Chabot — 3991

Mr. Cummings — 3991

section 29.

Mr. Chabot — 3992

section 48.

Mr. Gardom — 3992

Report and third reading — 3993

An Act to Amend the British Columbia School Trustees

Association Incorporation Act (Bill 51).

Committee, report and third reading — 3993

Assessment Act (Bill 151 ). Committee stage.

Amendment to

section 1.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3993

Amendment to

section 24.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3993

Mr. Curtis — 3993

Amendment to

section 28.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3994

Amendment to

section 29.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3994

Amendment to

section 35.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3994

section 37.

Mr. Curtis 3994

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3994

Amendment to

section 41.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3994

section 41 as amended.

Mr. McClelland — 3994

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3994

Mr. Curtis — 3994

Amendment to

section 43.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3995

Amendment to

section 45.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3995

Amendment to

section 60.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3996

Amendment to

section 66.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3996

Report stage — 3996

Protection of Children Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 154).

Committee stage.

section 2.

Mr. Wallace — 3996

Hon. Mr. Levi — 3996

Report and third reading — 3997

Public Officials and Employees Disclosure Act (Bill 85).

Committee stage.

Amendments to

section 1.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3997

Mr. Fraser — 3997

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3997

Mr. Curtis — 3997

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3998

Mr. Gardom — 3998

Amendments to

section 2.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3999

Mr. McClelland — 3999

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3999

Amendments to

section 3.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3999

Mr. McClelland — 3999

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4000

Amendments to

section 4.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4000

Mr. Wallace — 4000

Mrs. Jordan — 4002

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4004

Mr. McClelland — 4004

Mr. Gardom — 4005

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4006

Mr. Phillips — 4006

Hon. Mr. Lea — 4008

Mr. Curtis — 4009

Mr. Wallace — 4010

Division on the amendment — 4011

Amendment to

section 6.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4011

Amendments to

section 7.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4011

Amendments to

section 8.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4011

Amendments to

section 9.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4012

Mr. Gardom — 4012

section 9 as amended.

Mr. McClelland — 4013

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4013

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4013

Amendment to

section 10.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4014

Amendment to

section 11.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4014

Division on third reading — 4014

Interpretation Act (Bill 153). Committee stage.

section 6.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4014

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4014

section 4 1.

Mr. Chabot — 4014

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4015

Report and third reading — 4015

Strata Titles Act (Bill 141). Committee stage.

Amendment to

section 1.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 4015

Amendment to

section 3.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 4015

Amendments to

section 4.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 4015

Amendment to

section 5.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 4015

section 10.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4015

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 4015

Amendments to

section 11.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 4016

Amendments to

section 13.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 4016

Amendment to

section 17.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 4016

Amendments to

section 22.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 4016

Amendments to

section 24.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 4016

Amendments to

section 26.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 4017

Amendments to

section 39.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 4017

Amendment to

section 50.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 4017

Amendment to

section 51.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 4017

Amendment to

section 52.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 4017

section 54.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4017

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 4017

section 60.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4018

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 4018

Amendment to

section 66.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 4018

Amendment to first schedule.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 4018

Report stage — 4018

Forest Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 117). Committee stage.

section 9.

Mr. Gibson — 4018

Hon. R.A. Williams — 4018

Mr. Smith— 4019

Division on

section 9.

section 15.

Mr. Smith— 4020

Hon. R.A. Williams — 4020

section 23.

Mr. Smith — 4020

Hon. R.A. Williams — 4021

section 25.

Mr. Smith — 4021

Hon. R.A. Williams — 4021

section 27.

Mr. Smith — 4021

Hon. R.A. Williams — 4021

section 32.

Mr. Smith — 4021

Hon. R.A. Williams — 4021

section 35.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4022

Hon. R.A. Williams — 4022

section 41.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4022

Hon. R.A. Williams — 4023

Report and third reading — 4023

Mineral Royalties Act (Bill 31 ). Second reading.

Mr. Gibson — 4023

Mr. Smith — 4037

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4040

Division on second reading — 4042

Motions

Motions and adjourned debates on motions.

On motion 32.

Mr. Chabot — 4043

Presenting petitions

Mrs.Webster — 4048

THURSDAY, JUNE 13, 1974

The House met at 11:30 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the

House to welcome a very special guest today, accompanied by a

friend of his. He is Father Toulouse, who said the prayer

today. Father Toulouse was one of my professors at Seattle

University. If you have any criticisms at all of me, I want you

to bring it to his attention today. Father Toulouse is up from

Seattle with Father O'Brien. I would ask the House to welcome

them.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker,

this morning I have great pleasure to first welcome a group of

students from the Hope C.E. Barry School — a group of Grade 7

students that will be visiting with us a little later.

I am sorry that the Member for South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett)

is again not in his place, because I have a further pleasure

and that is….

Interjections.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Do I have the floor, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The controversy starts later.

Would the Hon. Minister reserve any of his political statements

to another time?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to

welcome a group of 50 students from the City of Kelowna in the

South Okanagan riding, and their teacher, Mr. Stockley. One of

the students, Andy Barker, last night caught a 15-pound

salmon, and young Tommy Rowles is down with them, too. I ask

you to welcome them.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines): Mr. Speaker, on a

point of privilege, and for the records, I was subjected this

morning to a wonderful surprise breakfast in honour of my 25th

anniversary as a Member of this Legislature.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Wait till you get the bill.

(Laughter.)

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I don't know what it really indicates, but

it was a great pleasure to me and a great surprise. It was a

very sentimental moment when I came into the parliamentary

restaurant and found everybody there to give me that

surprise.

In the 25 years that I've been here I've seen a great many changes, especially

in the responsibilities of the Members of the Legislature and the problems of

government. Yet looking back over the 25 years it seems only yesterday when

I gave my maiden speech from that side of the House.

I was presented with something that I'm sure that I will

cherish for the rest of my life, and I am passing it around for

everyone to see during the sitting.

I want to thank you all once again.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Yes,

Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place uncovered, according to standing orders, and

draw to your attention this hat that was presented to me last night at a banquet

of the original ferry employees who have been working for the B.C. Ferries since

they started in 1960. They dubbed me Admiral of the Fleet. I told them it was

okay for the Premier to give me the responsibility for the ferries, it was okay

for this House to pass the money, but when they make me admiral that's a real

honour.

I assured them on behalf of this House that it was the

objective of all of us in this House to make this proud fleet

an even better fleet in the future. So I am now Admiral of the

Fleet officially by the people who operate the ferries.

I want to assure the Second Member for Point Grey (Mr.

Gardom) that this new honour is not a prelude to moving to B.C.

House in London. (Laughter.)

Introduction of bills.

LANDLORD AND TENANT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mr. Macdonald presents a message from His Honour the

Administrator: a bill intituled Landlord and Tenant Amendment

Act, 1974.

Bill 155 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

STUDY OF PLUS-MINUS

METHOD OF SEWAGE CONTROL

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): A question, Mr. Speaker, to

the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources: could the

Minister indicate whether the Pollution Control Board has now

initiated a study of the plus-minus method of sewage control

that's in operation in Metchosin?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources):

I am not aware of that study. There has been continuing work with the plus-minus

[ Page

3988 ]

man, Mr. Jones, and so on. I haven't dealt with the question

since it came up in the House with respect to the inaccurate

earlier speech from the Member for Langley (Mr.

McClelland).

MR. McCLELLAND: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: would the

Minister tell us whether a Dr. Ellis, who was formerly with

Environment Canada, is now with B.C. Hydro investigating the

alternate uses of Hat Creek coal deposits? If so, has he made

any preliminary reports?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, Dr. Ellis is heading a task

force within B.C. Hydro which is looking at all of the earlier

assumptions of the former energy commission and the tenure

plans of B.C. Hydro. As part of that process they are, of

course, looking at Hat Creek coal and I'm sure will have some

recommendations in the near future regarding….

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member that that

was more like a caboose on a different track than a

supplementary.

MR. McCLELLAND: No, it isn't, Mr. Speaker — it's on exactly

the same subject. And I have another supplementary on the very

same subject. I'd like to ask the Minister: since the Pollution

Control Board is apparently going to issue a permit to Richmond

Meat Packing to install a plus-minus system of sewage control

for which 240 tons of coal will have to be imported from

Alberta, is the government giving any consideration to making

Hat Creek coal available for this kind of system?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, that would be a matter for the

board of directors of B.C. Hydro. Mr. Speaker, the coal is

owned by B.C. Hydro.

COMPLETION DATE

ON PURCELL REPORT

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Same Minister, Mr. Speaker:

may I ask him whether the report on the Purcell region of the

Kootenays is being completed and whether or not this report

will be made public?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask the Minister a supplementary:

what date may we expect this report to be made public?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: A date hasn't been set, Mr. Speaker.

RUMOUR OF POSSIBLE

CABINET APPOINTMENT

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, could I ask the

Premier what action he is taking to track down the cabinet leak

regarding the appointment of the Member for Fort George (Mr.

Nunweiler) to the cabinet?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I've been apprised of this

rumour that's been circulating, and it's nothing more than a

rumour. But if you wish me to comment on rumours…. I want to

know what's going on with that group over there, and the

meetings that you are holding. Will you give us a public

statement on that?

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I'm concerned that you are losing

identity as separate political groups. I'd like to hear some

answers on these rumours over there.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: is the Premier

stating that the cabinet leak is false?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm not stating anything on rumours. I'm

asking you if you are prepared to comment upon rumours about

yourself, that's all. I mean if we want to exchange rumours, I

suggest a little recess and we iron out the problems you're

having.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're the one who is in trouble.

(Laughter.)

COST-SHARING FORMULA

FOR HISTORIC SITE LAND

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Speaking of trouble, Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to address my question to the Hon. Minister

of Finance. The heritage advisory boards in British Columbia

are in extreme trouble and in danger of being disbanded because

the government has made no provision for compensation to those

who own the land that is declared a heritage site. In fact, the

changes that were brought in this year only led to an almost

confiscation of this property. I'd like to know if the Minister

of Finance is going to work or is working on a formula to

cost-sharing so that people who own

[ Page 3989 ]

land that is declared of historical value will receive fair

compensation.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Member, I wish to inform you that I

intend to take that question as notice.

MRS. JORDAN: Do we get more rumours?

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: Do you take it as notice and then act on

it?

DEFERRED TAX INTEREST RATE

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, a

question to the Hon. Premier and Minister of Finance. Under his

name, a large advertisement has appeared in all the papers in

the province yesterday concerning property tax benefits. It

states: "The interest rate is a modest 8 per cent per year."

That is not true, Mr. Premier.

I would draw to your attention the provisions of Bill 16,

section 9: "…interest thereon compounded annually at 8 per

cent per annum." And over the 10-year period, Mr. Premier, the

interest increases from 8 per cent to 16 per cent on simple

interest, and that's not a modest 8 per cent per year but

exactly double that.

I'd ask the Hon. Premier if he is prepared to forthwith

correct this misleading advertising and furnish examples in his

advertisements of the interest charges as they would be called

for under the Mortgage Brokers Act of this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech in

the form of a question from the Member, and I want to point out

that the 8 per cent compounded is normal. And we wouldn't have

to be that high if the federal government would change the

national Bank Act to stop the banks from the making such high

profits.

I appreciate the Member drawing the ad to the attention of

the Members of this House. I urge all British Columbians to

take advantage of this magnificent programme instituted by this

government.

MR. GARDOM: Supplementary to the Hon. Premier: is the

Premier prepared to waive Crown immunity under the Mortgage

Brokers Act ? If he did, the government could be prosecuted for

misleading advertisement.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think that's rhetorical.

MR. GARDOM: This is not a modest 8 per cent per year, and

the Premier should inform the people of this province that in

10 years that would hit 16.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think that's a speech.

INSUFFICIENT ADJUSTERS

IN SOME SECTORS OF B.C.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I asked the Minister of Transport

and Communications the other day about the lack of adjusters in

different areas in British Columbia — Mackenzie, McBride, Fort

St. James and Vanderhoof. I would like to know now if he has

had time to look into it and what he has done about it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As to the question, at the present time,

an adjuster from Prince George makes a trip to Mackenzie on

Monday for the first working day of each week. An adjuster from

the same office makes a trip to the area west of Prince George

on each Tuesday, visiting such places as Vanderhoof, Fort St.

James and Endako.

The claims volume in Vanderhoof itself is about 70 per cent

of that for the complete western area, and possibly warrants a

second visit during the week.

Commencing this week an adjuster will also visit Vanderhoof

on a Friday. There is very little claims volume out in McBride.

For example, there have only been 47 claims over a three-month

period. During the last two weeks there have been two property

damage claims and 17 windshield claims. These claims are

handled by mail and/or telephone.

If claims are reported which require immediate attention,

their adjuster is dispatched to the area irrespective of the

day of the week.

The service now being given is more extensive than that

provided by the private insurers, as independent adjusters who

handled their losses in these areas usually made a trip once

every two weeks.

We intend to monitor the situation very closely and provide

resident adjusters as required.

MR. FRASER: Thank you.

SAANICH HOUSING PROJECT

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): To the Minister

of Housing: The mayor of Saanich has indicated, through the

press, reported impatience over provincial government

inactivity on a major housing scheme in the Roy Road area of

the municipality.

I understand there is a difference of opinion

[ Page 3990 ]

between the Department of Housing and Saanich with respect

to densities and the overall development. I wonder if the

Minister could indicate: has a meeting been requested or held

with Saanich municipal officials specifically to explore some

of the differences and the possibility of compromise in order

that the project may proceed?

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Mr. Member, I was

surprised that the new mayor, unlike the former mayor, chose to

communicate with me through the media. There is a liaison

person in my department, Mr. Jack Williams, for that particular

project — that was agreed upon at a meeting that took place

some time ago.

I believe that Ker Priestman, although I wouldn't swear to

the engineering firm, has been assigned to prepare some

specifications for the project, and it's my intention to get in

touch with Mayor Lum directly.

MR. CURTIS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, very briefly: is the

provincial Department of Housing firmly committed to

high-density multi-family development in that scheme?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I believe that some preliminary proposals

were suggested there and that it had quite a variety of things.

Now, what is considered high-density? I really think that

something in the order of eight units per acre is perhaps

realistic in terms of minimum densities today, in view of the

availability of land that remains in the urban areas.

MR. CURTIS: We can take it from the Minister then that there

is a degree of flexibility with respect to this proposal as far

as the province is concerned.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: That's true.

JERICHO HILL SCHOOL

MR. McCLELLAND: To the Education Minister: I understood

yesterday that she has promised an announcement today about

Jericho Hill School for the Deaf. Could the Minister also tell

us whether or not she will ensure that her Deputy or Mr. Walsh,

or both, will be in attendance at a meeting of the parents at

Jericho Hill on Friday night, as has been requested on a number

of occasions?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): I'm pleased to

mention to the House that I am intending to announce this

afternoon that there will be a public inquiry, a one-man public

inquiry, set up into the operation of the Jericho Hill

School.

As to the attendance of the parents' meeting — I don't think it's necessary

for two officials to attend that meeting. At the moment we are discussing if

someone should go. I understand there is another meeting on Monday night also,

where someone will be in attendance.

ANNOUNCEMENTS ABOUT

TILBURY ISLAND DEVELOPMENT

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the Minister of Industrial

Development, Trade and Commerce: may I ask him whether he

intends to make public the Land Commission's alternative

proposals for the Tilbury Island industrial site, in particular

where these proposals differ with the recommendations of the

environmental and land use committee of the cabinet?

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce):

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated when we announced the proposal, I would deal, as

any other person in this province, with the Land Commission on a fair and equitable

basis. That has been done and announcements will be made in due course.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I take the Minister's reply to

indicate that the Land Commission will have the same power as

to veto over this proposal, as it has over other proposals for

industrial development in farm areas elsewhere in the Province,

areas which might be held by private interests?

HON. MR. LAUK: There is no question of any veto on the part

of the Land Commission. There is the procedure set out within

the Land Commission Act with respect to that procedure. My

department and my officials are proceeding in accordance with

that procedure, as anyone else in the province would.

PROCEDURE IN NAMING

NEW FERRIES

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the admiral of

fleets a simple question: as the fleet continues to enlarge and

with the acquisition of the latest new vessel, could he tell

the House what procedure there is in choosing a new name for

the new vessels?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There is the same procedure as in the

past. You look at the names; you look at municipalities that

are in the area of the sea coast, and you name them after

those.

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I'm very interested

in that answer. I wonder if the

[ Page 3991 ]

Minister or the admiral could tell the House if, in his

deliberations recently, the title "Queen of Oak Bay" was

considered. (Laughter.) That's a serious question, Mr. Speaker.

I want to know that at least it was given consideration — unfavourable consideration, but consideration.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The answer is yes. But Oak Bay is a small

municipality and this is a jumbo ship. We thought we'd need a

larger municipality. (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: Waffle, waffle, waffle.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): A supplementary question

to the Minister: have you considered the community within my

constituency called Skookumchuck as well? (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Queen of Kinbasket.

MRS. JORDAN: Just listening to the Member for Oak Bay and

the Minister, Mr. Speaker, did you ever hear that nursery rhyme

— "Rub-a-dub, two admirals in a tub"?

MR. SPEAKER: That question is improper.

COST OF PHYSICAL EXAMS

FOR ELDERLY DRIVERS

MRS. JORDAN: My question is directed to the Hon. Minister of

Health. In view of the fact that senior citizens are being

required on an increasing basis to have more frequent physical

examinations to secure their driver's licences, and these exams

cost $10 and are not covered by B.C. Hospital Insurance, has

the Minister come to a conclusion that B.C. Hospital Insurance

could cover this cost for them?

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance):

Mr. Speaker, it wouldn't be Hospital Insurance expenditure if in fact we went

that route.

MRS. JORDAN: B.C. Medical.

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes, it would be B.C. Medical. I must say we

are considering that along with a number of other areas where

there's requirement for a physical examination. Beyond that

we're doing a study at the present time on just how necessary

or how good it would be to go to the point of providing free

testing for anybody. It's a bit of a problem and we just have

to overcome one or two areas. But we're certainly

considering.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Private bills, Mr. Speaker.

Committee on Bill 50.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE VANCOUVER CHARTER

The House in committee on Bill 50; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

section 4.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River):

Section 4, Mr. Chairman,

is one which will repeal

section 8. I was wondering if the

chairman carrying the bill (Mr. Cummings) could tell me what

the substance is of the

section that is being repealed.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Actually your

party never bothered to come to the committee at all so I was

wondering why you want to know about

section 4.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, as a Member of this House I

believe I have the right to ask questions without being

insulted by that Member for Vancouver – Little Mountain. I asked

a very simple question. I hope he can answer a simple

question.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): All he ever does is insult

people!

MR. CUMMINGS: I just stated that his party never ever came

to the committee meetings. Is that an insult?

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, this is a

section that might be

repealing a very substantive

section in the Vancouver Charter.

The chairman, I'm sure, must recognize which

section is being

repealed and if, in the wisdom of the committee, there was

justification for this withdrawal, and just what

section 8 is.

I'm not asking the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water

Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) who was not on the committee;

I'm asking the chairman who was carrying this bill. It doesn't

matter. I'm not asking him whether the Members of my party were

at the committee meetings. I'm asking just if he could explain

to me just what the

section is that's being repealed and the

reasons for its repeal.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 4 pass?

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, are we going to get an answer on

this

section 4?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. While the Hon.

[ Page 3992 ]

Member may ask a question, he may not demand an answer.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, I'm certainly not demanding. I'm not one to

demand answers. I just thought the Member wanted to harass me a

little bit this morning when he gave his original answer. After

having let loose with those words against me and my party,

maybe now he wants to answer the question on the repeal of

section 8 and its substance.

Section 4 approved.

MR. CHABOT: No answers from "open government."

Sections 5 to 28 inclusive approved.

section 29.

MR. CHABOT: I wonder if we could get an explanation as to

why it's necessary to strike out the word "five" in the third

line of subsection (1) and substitute the word "eight." I

wonder why it was necessary that these changes be implemented

at this time. I'm led to believe that the original procedure

was adequate and that there was no need for this change. I'm

wondering if the chairman could explain to me the necessity for

this change.

Section 29 approved.

MR. CHABOT: No answers.

Sections 30 to 47 inclusive approved.

section 48.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I can also speak to

49 at the same time because they're companion sections.

One thing that I do wish the Hon. Premier had done…. I

wasn't in the House for about three minutes this morning so he

may have done it then. It would be a good thing if all of the

Members were fully aware of the order of business today. This

bill did catch me particularly by surprise and I'd very much

like to thank my colleague from Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) for

maintaining the debate for a few moments because I would like

to….

Interjections.

MR. GARDOM: I didn't expect this one at all. I'm sorry, I

might have misunderstood you but I didn't anticipate that this

one was coming up.

However, dealing with sections 48 and 49 of the amendment to the Vancouver

Charter, Mr. Chairman, these are more dramatic changes in procedure than those

heretofore carried on in the City of Vancouver wherein the taxpayers in the

City of Vancouver in the past would have always have had to be approached for

the expenditure of funds contemplated under these sections.

The net effect of this

section is that the aldermen in the

City of Vancouver and the mayor are given carte blanche

authority without the consent or even an opportunity for an

expression of opinion of Vancouver taxpayers to borrow money

from a federal authority or from a provincial authority for the

uses indicated within these two sections. The uses indicated

are the redevelopment of the False Creek area or for the

creation of housing.

Now let me state one thing abundantly clearly and that is

that I personally am in favour of the development of the False

Creek area. There is a great deal of battling going on in the

City of Vancouver as to the kind of proposal that would be in

the best interests of all of the citizens, but I think there is

a general consensus that the False Creek area should be

developed. Secondly, like all Members of this House I am very

much in favour of the need to create housing.

The opposition I take to this

section as strenuously as I

can is that if the City of Vancouver chooses to go this route

without regard to the position taken by the taxpayers in the

city, I think that this is something that they should

themselves — the city fathers — have taken to the taxpayers in

the City of Vancouver on referendum to have them make up their

minds, as they wish to have this complete delegation of

authority to their city council without regard to the interests

of the taxpayer.

Any money that is borrowed from the federal or provincial

authority under the purposes of this statute for the

development of False Creek or for the development of housing

can well fall as an impost, and indeed will fall as an impost,

upon the Vancouver taxpayer. His rights to make a money

expenditure decision are emasculated by virtue of the

provisions of this statute. It is certainly, as far as I can

see, the death knell of the referendum process.

If the citizens of a community in the Province of British

Columbia decide that they wish to take this route, I say well

and good. If they wish to make that decision that this is to be

the proper route of the complete delegation of authority to

their elected representatives to borrow money for the purposes

of these projects, okay. I'm not quarrelling with that. But

that opportunity has not been given to them.

It is true that this amendment, which did not come in the

original bill, was advertised, at the insistence of this

speaker, in the papers and there was precious little response

to it. I received a couple of wires supporting the stand I have

taken here. I didn't receive any correspondence supporting the

stand

[ Page 3993 ]

initiated by city council which the government is apparently

prepared to rubber stamp today.

I think we are denuding the citizen of the opportunity to

have a voice in the expenditure of funds which can well become

his responsibility. It has been argued by some that these are

going to be self-liquidating projects. There is no certainty to

that, absolutely no certainty at all. If they are

self-liquidating, well and good; but these are public projects

and public projects have certainly had a history not only in

this province and this city but in this country of being far

from self-liquidating.

I feel very strongly that this

section is one that should be

opposed from the viewpoint that this is a decision that should

be made by the taxpayers in this area. That decision should not

be emasculated or abdicated by virtue of a decision of this

Legislature to the city council of the City of Vancouver.

Sections 48 to 50 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

MR. CUMMINGS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and

report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 50,

An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter , reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 51, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

BRITISH COLUMBIA SCHOOL TRUSTEES

ASSOCIATION INCORPORATION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 51; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Chairman, I move the

committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 51,

An Act to Amend the British Columbia School

Trustees' Association Incorporation Act , reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 151, Mr. Speaker.

ASSESSMENT ACT

The House in committee on Bill 151; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, just a moment to mention to

the House a word of very sincere appreciation to Mr. Percy

Wright who will be retiring this year and who has served the

people of British Columbia extremely well over the past 20

years. He has done an excellent job in bringing about this

legislation in a very complex field. Hopefully, this bill will

go a long way to start unraveling the problems we have. I would

like the House to express its very deep appreciation.

section 1.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I move the amendment standing in my name

on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Sections 2 to 23 inclusive approved.

section 24.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I move the amendment standing in my name

on the order paper. (See appendix.)

On the amendment to

section 24.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Chairman,

speaking on the amendment which has been proposed by the

Minister of Finance: is it correct that the purpose of this

amendment is to overcome the existing contradiction in

section

16 of Bill 147, Assessment Authority of British Columbia Act ,

which states that for the purposes of the authority the

government will provide an annual grant equivalent to the sum

produced by a levy of one-tenth of a mill on the total assessed

value of all taxable and tax exempt property in the

province?

It seems that without this amendment that would

[ Page 3994 ]

not be possible. Is that the purpose of the amendment?

Perhaps the Minister of Finance would indicate if that is the

case.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It is an incidental result of the conflict

you mentioned, Mr. Member, but that is not the only purpose. It

will probably solve the problem you raised.

Amendment approved.

Section 24 as amended approved.

Sections 25 to 27 inclusive approved.

section 28.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment

standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 28 as amended approved.

section 29.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment

standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 29 as amended approved.

Sections 30 to 34 inclusive approved.

section 35.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I move the amendment standing in my name

on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 35 as amended approved.

Section 36 approved.

section 37.

MR. CURTIS: On

section 37, I wonder if we could have some assurance

from the Minister of Finance that when this new Act and the accompanying legislation,

Bill 147, are given royal assent every effort will be made to ensure that members

of courts of revision are fully informed with respect to their powers and duties.

This

section deals with their powers.

I think from time to time in the recent past and earlier we

have encountered situations where members of the courts were

not properly prepared in order to deal with the cases which

were presented to them. Apart from the assurance, which may be

forthcoming from the Minister, I would urge upon him and his

department that this shortcoming in a number of instances be

corrected to the best possible extent.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm advised, Mr. Member, that it is

essentially a people's court in terms of an appeal. There is a

gap, though. Rather than training these people, I am advised

that it would be a welcome suggestion that borders on your

comments to have auxiliary competent people ready to advise on

technical problems. We will take that recommendation you have

made.

Section 37 approved.

Sections 38 to 40 inclusive approved.

section 41.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I move the amendment standing in my name.

(See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

section 41 as amended.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I would just like to ask the

Minister of Finance whether this doesn't preclude appointing

lay people to assessment appeal boards, given subsection (2) in

that section.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It doesn't preclude it, Mr. Member but the

desire is expressed that they should be qualified. But it does

not preclude lay people being named.

MR. CURTIS: Another observation on this section, Mr.

Chairman.

The Minister of Finance a few moments ago referred to this

as a people's court. This is an extension of that under this

section. Again, I would hope that the new organization will set

out clearly and concisely for the individuals who wish to

appeal through the court of revision and then along the line,

the mechanism — the time limits and so on, too often in the

past it has been stated in legalese (if I may use that

colloquialism) and from the outset the individual who has the

complaint with respect to his or her assessment should

understand where, when, how, he or she may go and how long he

or she has.

This is an extremely important point. The Minister is

concerned about the individual, from his many statements, and I

think this is one area where you can

[ Page 3995 ]

greatly assist the individual.

There is considerable confusion associated with the person

who suddenly is presented with a dramatic increase in

assessment or a change. They are confused. They are uncertain

as to how to go about it and what the mechanism is. They are

somewhat intimidated, I submit, by terms such as court of

revision, and assessment appeal board. It sounds very grand and

a little frightening.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I am advised that this would be an

excellent suggestion for the assessment authority itself to

include an explanation of mill rates, of assessments, and their

relationship with each other. As a matter of fact, most people

aren't MLAs and don't have an intimate knowledge of how mill

rates affect taxation, like most of us here do.

AN HON. MEMBER: Simple and compound interest.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, there are simple Members, and there

are compounded Members. The Member, through you, Mr. Chairman,

is getting the Liberal poll of 8 per cent confused with the

other factors.

Seriously, it is an excellent suggestion, and we will pass

on to the assessment authority the suggestion that an overall

booklet on taxation, including the details in very clear

language of what's involved should be made available either

through the municipal hall, or perhaps even mailed to every

homeowner from the assessment authority.

MR. CURTIS: With the tax notice.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, perhaps with the notice. It's a good

suggestion, Mr. Member.

MR. McCLELLAND: Just one or two more observations on that

section, Mr. Chairman. Is it the intention to set up more than

one assessment appeal board, and will they be regionalized? Is

that the intention?

I didn't prepare an amendment, but I would like the Minister

of Finance to consider perhaps a regulation under this

section

that no person may serve on two kinds of appeal boards, a court

of revision and an assessment appeal board. This has happened

in the past and, I believe, causes some conflicts.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That won't happen again.

MR. McCLELLAND: I just want to say again that I have a serious concern

about this business of loading the boards with professional people. There should

be lay people on those boards, and certainly there should be qualified people

as well, but there needs to be a balance of the two.

HON. MR. BARRETT: To the first question, yes, there will be

more than one regional office. I am advised that when the

authority is established they will be divided into regions so

that people can have more direct access. In terms of lay

people serving, there is a concern about becoming over professional. Once the authority is structured, it is hoped

that as time goes by there will be less and less interference

by the Legislature.

But there is a danger, when you establish such an authority,

that it does become remote from direct responses from people,

through their MLAs and to the Legislature. We would hope that

they would be concerned with that. There is a transition

period, an interim period, to establish this.

We recognize the danger, it's just like professional social

workers having all the say in that field, or doctors.

MR. McCLELLAND: Or in the finance field.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Or in the finance field? Well, a social

worker brings a little heart to the finance department.

(Laughter.) The point you have made is valid, and we will

certainly pass the observation on with support, to the people

involved.

MR. McCLELLAND: What about the conflict situation of persons

serving on two boards?

HON. MR. BARRETT: We're looking at that.

Section 41 as amended approved.

Section 42 approved.

section 43.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I move the amendment standing in my name

on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 43 as amended approved.

Section 44 approved.

section 45.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I move the amendment standing in my name

on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

[ Page 3996 ]

Section 45 as amended approved.

Sections 46 to 59 inclusive approved.

section 60.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I move the amendment standing in my name

on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 60 as amended approved.

Sections 61 to 65 inclusive approved.

section 66.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I move the amendment standing in my name

on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 66 as amended approved.

Sections 67 to 77 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I move the committee rise and report the

bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 151, Assessment Act , reported complete with amendments

to be considered at the next sitting of the House after

today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 154, Mr. Speaker.

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 154; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to ask some clarification

on the 8E entitled "Roster," particularly the last subsection (3) where it

says "the roster prepared shall not be used by the clerk of the court for selection

of names for a panel unless the roster has first been approved in writing by

the Attorney-General."

I just really wonder if the Minister could explain really

why the Attorney-General should have the final say in deciding

which persons who have been suggested for a roster to serve on

these panels. Why does the final ultimate power seem to reside

with the Attorney-General in effect to veto the names of

certain people?

Now the obvious reason for my question is that this is very

much a new venture and when I spoke in second reading I

applauded the idea of lay persons on panels. It's been made

quite clear that on any point of law the judge concerned would

be the person to make the decisions and that in fact there

would be no risk of lay people intruding into areas where

they're not versed.

But on the other hand I think it introduces an implication here that

somehow or other the Attorney-General's department could veto people of

very great potential to serve in this new area of public service. I

wonder if there's some unseen reason that isn't obvious as to why this

was put in the bill?

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): The Unified

Family Court Act is administered by the Attorney-General. The

other thing is that the nature of the project isn't one where

we're looking at a number of mechanisms. We have agreed that we

will not make any major changes to any legislation affecting

family and children until we have the reports back from the

commission, the Berger Commission. So that there certainly will

be input from the department.

As I said in the beginning, the Unified Family Court Act is

administered by the Attorney-General. It seems appropriate that that's

where it is. But as we get recommendations back from the commission, of course, then we will be looking.

As we said, for the purpose of the commission the

investigation of family and children's law is to see whether we

need to rewrite the whole thing. This is just a mechanism for

them at the moment. I have no anxiety about having input into

the selection of the panel; that's not the problem at all.

We have within the courts a number of people from the field

who are working very closely. I can assure the Member that

there is no problem there. We will certainly wait to see how it

works when we get the recommendations — which will, of course,

come before the House anyway.

Section 2 approved.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

Title approved.

[ Page 3997 ]

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and

report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

Bill 154, Protection of Children Amendment Act, 1974 ,

reported complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, committee

on Bill 85.

PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND

EMPLOYEES DISCLOSURE ACT

The House in committee on Bill 85; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

section 1.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Chairman, I move

the amendments in my name on the order paper to

section 1. (See

appendix.) I think the Hon. Members have received an unofficial

copy with these amendments incorporated to make it easier for

the committee.

On the amendments.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I don't know, Mr. Chairman,

whether the Minister said anything on that. Could he describe

what provincial employees and what municipal employees will

have to disclose? Are you saying here that they all must?

Certainly there must be a level of cut-off — say, a truck

driver in a municipality: does he have to disclose?

Where is the cut-off? Who will and who won't have to

disclose?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, we leave that to the

municipal council. We say that a municipal employee — down at

the bottom of that first page — is a person, et cetera, who is

designated by the council to be a municipal employee. I would

expect that municipal managers should be designated, but even

that decision is up to the council. A truck driver should not

be designated.

MR. FRASER: Well, Mr. Chairman, the municipalities, you know…they're all employees. Maybe they'll interpret this that

all their staff must file disclosure. I don't think that's the

intent of this bill.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, it's not the intent.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): We're dealing

with all the amendments to

section 1 now, Mr. Chairman, are

we?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, there's an addition to line

9: "…money or other property entrusted to or received by

a provincial official, municipal official, public employee or

municipal employee in trust for another person."

AN HON. MEMBER: Right.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Is the Hon. Attorney-General prepared to

indicate that the holding of a share or shares in a company in

trust would qualify under this amendment in the category of a

debt which need not be disclosed?

Let me give you a clear example, one which affects me and my

profession, the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr.

Gardom) and perhaps others here in this assembly, and certainly

in municipal councils, who may, in the course of their

responsibilities, hold a share or shares of a company in trust

for some other person.

Could we have a clear indication as to whether or not that

holding of a share, which is not beneficially owned, need be

disclosed or whether it is exempted under this legislation,

under this amendment?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, we always felt that it was

exempted where the property you held was not your own in any

sense but something that you held because you were an executor

of an estate or a lawyer with trust money entrusted to you — property that's held for somebody else like that. It was never

the intention of the Act to encompass that kind of property as

being something that should be disclosed. It didn't belong to

the official. But to make it clear, we've added this

section.

Amendments approved.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to

section 1

standing in my name on the order paper, page 22 of orders of

the day for today.

"Section 1 line 30: to amend the definition of 'municipal

official' appearing in

section 1 by adding the following words

after the word 'Act' in the 30th line: 'or a member of the

board of directors of a regional resources board or a community

resources board constituted under the Community Resources Act .'"

Briefly, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that as community

resource boards gain increasing strength and experience in the

Province of British Columbia under legislation which has passed

through this session, it is important that they be considered

in the same respect as Members of this Legislature, designated

public employees and municipal officials.

[ Page 3998 ]

They will be making decisions which affect individuals and

their community. I move the amendment.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I'm not disagreeing with

the intent of the amendment. We've considered the point and we

do feel that under the definition of public employee, which is

very broad, it encompasses these people where they make that

kind of decision-making power.

That's the definition on page 2 under public employee:

"employed by or appointed to a board, agency, or commission

where such employment or appointment requires, under

an Act, an

order or approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council; or a

member of a board, agency, or commission established under an

Act."

Just under

an Act; the community resource boards are

established under

an Act. We do feel they can be

designated.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, in his heart of hearts, I think,

the Attorney-General would not really mind accepting this if it

had been suggested perhaps by someone else. But surely it isn't

appropriate under public employee. Whether it is broad or not,

I imagine, could be debated for some time. But they are not

public employees in that sense. They are officials, more

correctly. They are elected. I submit that they do fit into the

general description of municipal official as I indicated a few

moments ago.

Perhaps we're arguing just where it should go. I would be

very, very pleased to have the Attorney-General accept this

amendment.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I can't accept it, but I'm

not disagreeing. I think we'll watch the thing over a year and

see. If there's any defect in our language that we don't

embrace sufficient people, we'll be glad to look at that

again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Just before we vote, I would

ask the Hon. Members to send up a signed copy of the amendment

before we vote on it. But in this case we'll vote on it.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: If it's on the order paper, we're all

right.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's on the order paper.

Amendment negatived.

MR. GARDOM: I just wanted to add one word to

section 1 and thank the

Attorney-General for his explanation and assurance in response to my friend

from West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) concerning money or other

property that is held in trust and not by way of beneficial interest.

I would just like to make this statement so it is abundantly

clear for all of the public officials who could be affected by

the

interpretation of this section.

Under the former Companies Act , as the Attorney-General well

knows, you have to have two shareholders in order to

incorporate a company. It was the usual and convenient method

of incorporation of companies that the initial shareholders

would usually be the incorporating individual who was a lawyer

and maybe his secretary. Then the shares were rather quickly

transferred from them to the true owners, the beneficial owners

of the company.

But in many instances, it was desirous, to take a

hypothetical case — which is the only thing I'm permitted to do

as a practising solicitor — say, Joe's Bakery…. We

incorporate Joe's Bakery and it becomes Joe's Bakery Limited.

Joe would request, Mr. Attorney-General, that he receive nine

shares….

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Do I have the ear of the Attorney-General?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes.

MR. GARDOM: He would request that he have nine shares in his

name and the other share would remain in the name of his

solicitor, for the beneficial interest of Joe; but then they

would be the two shareholders. You have given the explanation

to the House. Under these circumstances, there is not any

necessity for that share to be disclosed by a public

official.

I just wanted to make it abundantly clear, because this is

very common practice and has been common practice in B.C. for

years. It's just a question of convenience for shareholders and

company.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I agree with the explanation as long as,

say, the solicitor in that case has no beneficial interest.

MR. GARDOM: That's right.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: He may vote the things in terms of

organization of a company in a purely formal way. I wouldn't

think that voting of the share — even that — would constitute

any kind of beneficial ownership. He's holding it for

somebody else.

[ Page 3999 ]

MR. GARDOM: Right,

section 1 as amended approved.

section 2.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments to

section 2 standing in my name on the Order paper. (See

appendix.)

On the amendments.

MR. McCLELLAND: Just as a follow-up, perhaps, to the

amendment which the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr.

Curtis) put in earlier, would the Attorney-General assure us

here, under this amendment to subsection (1) and amendment to

section 2, that people like those people who are now going to

be directly elected to resource boards and regional resource

boards and school boards are covered under that? Any other

people who are going to be elected directly by the public in

any future changes that the government may make, are they

covered under this section? Will they be required to make the

same kinds of disclosures as other elected people?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, no, only those elected

people who are embraced in this Act. We've taken out

improvement districts, for example. Since they are elected,

since they are not covered by the Act, they are not covered. If

it is desirable to extend this further, it can be done at a

later session, but it is just what the Act says.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, we've just passed a bill

recently in this House making the powers of these kinds of

resource boards pretty far-reaching in the community, both with

respect to the spending of public money and with respect to the

kind of obligations they will have to the community. I see that

as these people expand their duties and take away some of the

duties of the present municipal councils, they may be in as a

severe conflict-of-interest situation as a municipal official

may find himself in — or more severe, as the Member says. I

think it would be a tragic mistake for the government not to

include that right now rather than waiting for a future

time.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the fact that they are

elected does not mean that they cannot also be designated as

public officials under the….

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, will they?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I would think anyone making important

decisions should be designated.

That's my feeling. I haven't got a commitment to give at the

present time because the designation in that case would be by

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. My feeling is that they

should be designated if they have that decision-making

power.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I understand the

Attorney-General's explanation, but the obligation to disclose

on the basis of a candidate is as a candidate for election as a

provincial official or a municipal official. But the right to

designate is not in either of those two categories but in

respect to a public employee. Therefore, if the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, in its wisdom, decides to

designate members of resource boards as being persons who must

make a disclosure, they still do not fall into the category of

individuals who must disclose at the time they stand for

election. It seems to me that the people in any elected

position should be included in either the provision of

provincial official or municipal official, or else they can run

for elected office without having to make any prior disclosure.

Only if they win do they have to disclose, and then only if

designated.

Amendment approved.

Section 2 as amended approved.

section 3.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments to

section 3 standing in my name on the order paper. (See

appendix.)

On the amendments.

MR. McCLELLAND: I just wanted to make the point that this

section was probably the one

section that caused most of the

problems among all of the municipal people of this province.

When the Attorney-General stood in the House the other day and

facetiously announced that his amendments were going to make

the bill stronger — and they do in a couple of instances — this

is the

section that makes the bill palatable now to the people

of this province who are in positions on municipal councils

particularly.

I wish to say that it is too bad that the Attorney-General

had to go off half-cocked in the first place and bring in a bad

bill, but it is fortunate that he has had the good sense to

recognize his mistakes and make some of these changes. I would

like to thank him for it. I think it has set at ease the minds

of all of, the public officials and municipal employees in this

province. It is a good amendment, one that should have been in

the bill originally.

[ Page 4000 ]

Amendments approved.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, there is another amendment

I wish to hand in. It is simply worded. It is an amendment to

include after the words "municipal official" — "municipal

employee, public employee." It is in

section 3, line 48. It's

an amendment to add after the word "official," the words

"municipal employee." If you don't want to take time to count

it out, if you look at page 4 and see down there where the type

comes out to the edge, in the middle, "…the written

disclosure made under

section 2 by the Provincial official,

municipal official, 'municipal employee,' public employee…." It should always have been there. It's a stenographic

error.

Amendment approved.

Section 3 as amended approved.

section 4.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment

standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

MR. CURTIS: Point of order. Is the Attorney-General handing

you written, signed amendments, as you indicated earlier — I'm

not speaking of the last one — but as you indicated earlier

when I was proposing my amendment? You said nothing, which is

fairly commonplace these days. Do we have one rule for that

side and another rule for this side?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On the point made by the Member

for Saanich and the Islands, technically speaking, all

amendments should be signed and handed in at the time they are

moved. However, we have been relaxing this rule for both sides.

I'm requiring it only for those which do not appear on the

order paper.

MR. CURTIS: I think it would have been appropriate for you,

Mr. Chairman, to have spoken out and indicated that that was

the case at the time rather than having to have it drawn to

your attention.

On the amendment.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak against

section 4 and against the amendment. This is the area of this

bill which we, in this party, believe is not fair to public

employees and elected officials. Later on I hope to move the

amendment which is on the order paper in my name.

The part about this

section and, in fact, the part about the bill which I have

uneasy feelings is that the implication seems to be that elected officials are

guilty until proven innocent. This seems to me to be a complete reversal of

accepted traditional approaches to the rights and freedoms of individuals in

our society. Not only are we talking about disclosure, but also the amendments

which the Minister has brought into

section 4. They involve all kinds of permission,

in fact encouragement, to publish the disclosure documents in every corner of

the province — publish in the Gazettes and to government agents as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

may designate. In other words, the cabinet, by its choice, on disclosure day,

can choose to take full-page ads in all the newspapers across the province,

if it so chooses. This is the power which this bill is taking in

section 4 under

these amendments.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's a public document.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, in second reading I acknowledged

that it is perfectly reasonable that disclosure information by

people holding the kind of positions that we hold — a position

of privilege and power and confidential information — indeed,

to make a disclosure document available by us as part of our

responsibility of being an elected official, I accept. But I

don't accept a complete and total lack of responsibility on the

part of the citizens who are entitled to the disclosure

document. And I certainly reject this concept that the cabinet,

for whatever reason, and regarding whatever person or persons

who are elected or employed, can, in fact, spread the

information of the disclosure document to the extent that is

included in the amendments to

section 4.

I just happen to believe that honour and honesty and respect

for politicians is very desirable, but there is a two-way

street in this whole situation. It just isn't fair, in my view,

that we as elected people should be totally at the whim and

fancy and curiosity of any citizen who takes it into his or her

mind to inquire into my particular privacy in this regard. I've

already admitted that a certain measure of privacy is lost when

you accept the kinds of positions we are talking about. I

acknowledge that and accept it. But I don't think the pendulum

has to swing right over to the other side of the….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would point out to the Hon.

Member that he is tending to discuss the principle of the

bill.

MR. WALLACE: No, I'm discussing the amendment. I beg to differ, Mr.

Chairman. Let me read to you what

section 4, as amended, reads — particularly

referring on page 21, the orders of the day, June 13, line 12.

[ Page

4001 ]

"The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may direct the Clerk of

the Legislative Assembly of the province to publish in the

Gazette , or send to such government agents as the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may designate, every written

disclosure filed by a provincial official."

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's

section 7.

MR. WALLACE: I beg your pardon?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's

section 7. We're on

section

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the Hon. Member is discussing

something contained in

section 7.

MR. WALLACE: I'm sorry; it is

section 7. I'll get to that in

section 7. Part of what I'm talking about in

section 4 in terms

of what the bill now does can perhaps be better debated when I

introduce my amendment to

section 4. I apologize for confusing

it with

section 7.

Amendments approved.

section 4 as amended.

MR. WALLACE: I would like to move the amendment standing in

my name on the order paper to

section 4. (See appendix.)

Section 4 without amendment, as I said earlier, places no

responsibility whatsoever on the individual in society seeking

to invade the privacy of the elected or employed officials as

we are talking about. It is my very strong feeling that, while

disclosure of the nature that we have discussed in second

reading is acceptable, I think the degree to which the pendulum

swings in this bill in regard to a complete invasion of the

person's privacy is, I believe, completely unnecessary.

I think any citizen in society is entitled to find out what

my disclosure document contains. I feel, on the other hand,

that should not be the kind of information to be sought out

unless there is some reason. It's all very well to say that

individuals in our position may have conflicts of interest

which we fail to reveal in the course of debate where we have

authority to influence the debate or to pass legislation to our

advantage. This is really most important; the information

should be available to any citizen who wonders if the Member

for Oak Bay, for example, has shares in this property or that

property which may be in the process of being acquired by the

Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley), who spends a lot

of time acquiring property these days.

To be able to know that, I think, is perfectly reasonable. But to show at least

some simple reason why that should be known by the inquiring citizen, I think,

is equally fair and honest.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You'll be able to read it in the Oak Bay

Leader anyway so why should they file an affidavit?

MR. WALLACE: This approach, as I said earlier, is completely

uncontrolled or unconditional. I don't think it is fair that

the citizen who has perhaps nothing more to do some day can

walk in and spend an hour or two reading all the disclosure

documents for every Member in this House for no particular

reason other than sheer curiosity.

It also leaves the feeling, in my view, that we're all

guilty until proven innocent. The idea is that somehow or

other, unless these disclosure documents are not only filed but

available to be seen at any time and with no conditions

attached, the intent of disclosure is not realized.

I feel the amendment I am moving only asks one or two simple

things, Mr. Chairman. It suggests, I think, a measure of fair

play and justice to which we as elected officials are

entitled.

First of all, it is always a principle of law, as the

Attorney-General knows, traditional for centuries, that a

person should be able to face his accuser or know who the

accuser is. The Attorney-General needn't shrug or grimace. If

somebody wants to look at my disclosure document directly or

indirectly, it implies that he or she has some suspicion as to

the fact that I am not honest.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: He is an accuser. Anybody who invades my

privacy is an accuser. If somebody wants to know what's in the

document, they should have a reason.

Maybe the point the Attorney-General has made so plain from

his position is that he thinks that being a nosy parker in

itself is a justification to invade my privacy and his privacy.

That's exactly what you've just said. You're either a nosy

parker or an accuser; you can't be both.

If you're not just a nosy parker and you want to see these

disclosure documents, although it isn't said, it is implying

that you have some reason to believe this man or woman is in

some way being dishonest or is abusing his position of power,

privilege and authority as an elected official. It's got to be

one or the other.

All I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, in my amendment is that I

think anyone is entitled to accuse me of anything if they want

to, but with some reason. Our whole traditional system of

justice for centuries is that a person can accuse another in

one way or

[ Page 4002 ]

another but he has to take some responsibility for that

accusation. I can't even call the admiral of the fleet a fool

unless I either withdraw it or try and prove that he is a fool.

When you accuse somebody….

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: But seriously, Mr. Chairman, this particular

issue or aspect of this bill really strikes at the heart of

justification for this bill. I've accepted the justification

for the bill, provided there is some responsibility placed on

the individual seeking the information and some recognition of

the fact that that person surely has to have some modicum of

reason as to why he wants to see it. If he doesn't have some

modicum of reason in an accusatory sense, then indeed he's

simply being curious and mischievous and a nosy parker. I don't

think, in running for public office, I or any one of us in this

chamber should be subjected to that kind of action from nosy

parkers.

On the other hand, there is the other side of this premise.

If it is something more than just curiosity and the person is,

in fact, implying that I or whomever he's inquiring about is

guilty of some misconduct, then I think he should put his name

to the inquiry. If he wants to see the disclosure document he

should at least put his name to it. I think it is only again in

the tradition of justice that the person whose document is

under consideration should also be made aware of the person who

is asking to see it.

I don't think there is anything but just a continuation of

tradition in that concept. That is what the amendment suggests.

I would like to make it very plain to the Attorney-General that

in asking for a reason I'm not suggesting there should be any

judgment of the reason when it's given. I don't mean that the

reason should have to meet any standards or qualifications.

Just simply say, "I want to know the Attorney-General's assets

because…." and because it happens to be Wednesday the

25th and it's his birthday, well, that's fine.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: The final part of the amendment just bears out the third

aspect of this particular issue. If someone does act in a frivolous way or simply

for a nosy parker reason, or worse still…. Here's a point that I'm amazed

has not been emphasized more. What if someone seeks the disclosure information

for their personal gain? There may be reasons why my next door neighbour wants

to know what my assets are or the companies with which I'm associated. All the

onus seems to be on me to prove my innocence, as though I am guilty, but the

person who is looking at my disclosure document may be wanting to do that for

his personal gain.

All I'm saying in this amendment is that the inquiring

person should identify himself, give a reason, and be

accountable. That's all I'm saying. I'm sure the Minister as a

lawyer knows very well, a hundred times better than I do, that

when you make accusations you have to be accountable for your

accusations.

All I'm saying in the third part of the amendment is that

people having given a reason, and having accused or implied

accusation and then shown to have done so in a frivolous way or

for their own personal, financial gain, are guilty of an

offence and subject to the same process of law as is the

elected official who fails to disclose.

I think these are points which really are not asking very

much; they're simply putting the whole issue of disclosure into

a sense of balance. It certainly extends, in my view, to the

elected officials a measure of fair play and justice which is

nothing new. It simply would be providing for each of us and

for everybody covered by this bill the kind of justice they

have as an ordinary citizen outside this House.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I listened with great

interest to the former speaker's presentation. I concur with it

fully. I would hope that the Minister would accept this

amendment for this reason.

I don't intend to repeat the point he has made so

eloquently.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, obviously we have to repeat things over

and over and over again before we get any semblance of

understanding from the Attorney-General of this department on

some very serious matters.

I want to bring up two points from the family point of view,

but I do so with some hesitation. I think, in a debate such as

this, on a subject such as this, in the world in which we are

living, that it must be brought forward.

We are all aware that within 24 hours of the disclosure date

every public official and his or her assets in the Province of

British Columbia will, in general, be public knowledge. My two

concerns there are not on a personal basis, because I don't

have that many assets and I don't mind disclosing them to

anyone who wants to see them if, as the Member says, he is

willing to give his reason and he is willing to leave his

name.

What does concern me is the children of public officials in

the Province of British Columbia. I think we all know, if not

from experience in our own family, then certainly from seeing

other families and certainly from examining children in their

activities,

[ Page 4003 ]

that children can be very kind and they can be very cruel

without meaning to be cruel. I also believe that many people

know that children of people who serve in the community in many

aspects, and certainly children of public officials and

politicians, can at times have a very difficult time, depending

on the political climate of the time.

I believe that there is a great opportunity by this type of

frivolous disclosure for the children of public officials and

politicians to take an unnecessary ribbing or, perhaps, some

very serious criticism from other children, which isn't meant

that way but may emanate from table conversation in the home

with their parents. It may emanate from comments made by a few

unthinking people in the life they lead, whether it's in the

classroom or a club.

The people out there are just as human as anywhere else. A

casual comment at the supper table by one parent about a mayor

or an alderman or alderwoman or Member of the Legislature…. "Man, look at

the companies he owns!" — because it doesn't list what they own — "They're rich. I wonder why they didn't give more to this charity." Or:

"Why don't they do this?"

Just that simple comment may be expressed at school the next

day by that child, probably innocently, against the child of

this family. This is picked up in the school and carried on.

Perhaps, as I say, a teacher, quite innocently, might think the

same thing and some sort of an inference pops out in the

school.

I really believe that there is a great danger here that

these disadvantages that children of many public officials face

— and there are many advantages but there are some

disadvantages — can be greatly enhanced by this. This is a

pretty traumatic experience for a child who may be on a

10-cent-a-week allowance and whose parents may choose to live

in a very modest fashion for very real reasons. For this child

to find himself or herself in this position where their

classmates are taunting them, perhaps with no malicious intent

but just the way children act….

I also think there is another even more serious

consideration. We have been most fortunate that it has not

happened in British Columbia or in the majority of the areas of

Canada. But the world around us is in a period of turmoil where

there are irresponsible people acting. They are indulging in

hijacking; they are indulging in more criminal activities,

crime and robbery; and they are indulging in kidnapping.

I think, by this type of overall public disclosure without

reason, without record, that if we have no serious kidnappers

in British Columbia — and I sincerely hope we don't — we may

have people who are bordering on a very thin line between

responsible action and irresponsible action for health

reasons. This may manifest itself in an unwarranted and, perhaps, in

an unplanned attack on a member of the family of a public

official, to whom they might be directed through this type of

disclosure.

I don't suggest that by recording who is examining these

facts you would necessarily stop this sort of thing. I do

suggest that there would then be a record on file so that if a

tragedy such as this did happen, there would at least be a

possible avenue through which the proper authorities could gain

some inkling as to who might be involved.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: That's just my point; you're right on.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: But if you accept this amendment, as I

understand it, Mr. Attorney-General, the newspapers will have

to state an acceptable reason for printing that

information.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The public has a right to know. That's

all they have to say.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, I assume that this wouldn't be an

accepted reason; I assume that there would have to be a….

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: People would have to show just cause. We're not

in public life to make money for the newspapers; we're in

public life to serve the people. The purpose of this bill and

the

section that the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) was

seeking to amend is to exhibit fair play to the public and to

protect the public interest.

I really don't believe that the publishing of everyone's

assets in the newspapers is going to protect the public

interest. I do accept that the right of an individual for a

just reason, as suggested in this amendment, through a proper

performance, to examine a person's assets is quite

acceptable.

It disturbs me, during this debate and not only on this

amendment, that the Attorney-General has either exhibited a

dishearteningly frivolous attitude in this House or an attitude

and words, which I won't repeat but are on the record, which,

to say the least, are far in excess of acceptable from any

Attorney-General of any jurisdiction. This is a very disturbing

point. Why will the Attorney-General not listen to reasonable

and responsible suggestions?

Surely the Attorney-General must be concerned about some of

the points other speakers have brought out and this point I

have brought out in relation to

[ Page 4004 ]

the families of people in public office. I am sure that if

the Attorney-General canvasses many, many people who have

served in public office, in retrospect they will say to you:

"At the time I didn't think it was difficult for my children

but, in fact, there were times."

I'm sure that if the Attorney-General had children in

primary grades or high school at this time, on two or three

bills he has brought into this House and possibly this bill, he

would find that the debate of this House and the disclosures

made in this House regarding this bill could very easily have

an effect on his children.

That's fine. That's part of being in the family of a public

figure. But the type of disclosure you are seeking to allow to

be released indiscriminately in the newspapers or to anyone who

has the curiosity or to anyone who might wish to profit,

whether it is in a business sense or the sense that I have

mentioned, through illegal action such as a possible

kidnapping, is dangerous. I think, Mr. Attorney-General, that

you have the responsibility to those children and to those

families.

I would urge you again to carry on with the bill. We all

believe in public disclosure; we all believe in the right of

anyone with a reasonable reason — or who might possibly suspect

the activities of any public official — to examine the records

to either support or discharge that reason. We don't believe in

the right to subject families to unnecessary risks through

irrational disclosure or unnecessary harassment.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to repeat

because this was the debate, and I'm not saying it wasn't a

good debate, yesterday. It's the basic principle of the bill

that these shall be public documents. That's the principle;

that's what the opposition voted for.

We don't disclose quantum of richness in this bill. We don't

believe there should be affidavits to be signed by people who

want to look at a public document — and we think it should be a

public document — or reasons given because the reasons could be

frivolous or misleading; there is no way of checking up on

them.

So this is really the bill and really, in effect, you're

trying to have reverse disclosure. You're going to say, "We'll

disclose, but you watch out, you little voter who comes in and

looks at my record, you might be in trouble yourself. I regard

you as the person accusing me." The Member has practically said

this. "Watch your step. I've got nothing to hide." If you've

got nothing to hide, nobody can take advantage for personal

gain of your return. If it's fair, of course they can't. The

release of fair information subjects nobody to any kind of

blackmail or harassment as long as it's fair, truthful

information.

MR. WALLACE: That's not what I said and you know it.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: This is the result of what you've been

saying, that you'd make these people accusers. You want the

voter put in an accusatory role before he can look at public

documents. That's what you're saying. Why don't you have the

courage to vote against the bill? If you're against the

principle of open disclosure in a public document, oppose the

principle of this bill. That's what you should do.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We had this debate. There's a basic

division. I don't want to get into an argument and debate

within the Social Credit caucus because I kind of suspect that

some of them are really against this bill. I'll have a glass of

water, but we cannot accept the amendment.

MR. McCLELLAND: We've heard a typical example of distortion,

again by the Attorney-General. Mr. Chairman, I think it's an

excellent amendment put forward by the Conservative leader, and

may this one action make him deserve that additional windfall

he's going to get from the government.

It is a good amendment, Mr. Chairman, and we'd like to support it. I don't see why, if a person in a position of

elected office at the provincial level is willing to put

everything up front, then why shouldn't anyone who wants to use

that information put it right up front along with him, sign his

name on the dotted line? What's wrong with that, Mr.

Attorney-General? What's wrong with giving reasons for wanting

access to the kind of disclosures that are going to be made

available?

The concern is not really about making those disclosures

public, but it's the availability of abuses that it will cause,

the fact that it's open to so much misinterpretation. Why not

disclosure for some kind of cause? There's nothing wrong with

that. You've gone half-way, Mr. Attorney-General, by exempting

municipal employees and public employees from the full

disclosure, so why can't you go the rest of the way and make

the same kind of legislation available for provincial

officials?

There isn't any doubt that the people in this House accept

the concept of a loss of privacy once they become elected

officials. Nevertheless, even they've lost that sense of

privacy….

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order! The Hon.

[ Page 4005 ]

Member for Langley has the floor. I would ask the Hon.

Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) and the Member for North

Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) not to carry on a dialogue while a

Member has the floor. Would the Hon. Member continue?

MR. WALLACE: Watch your blood pressure!

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that the

Members of this House accept the fact that once they become

elected, they lose a certain degree of privacy, in fact, maybe

all their privacy, I don't know. Nevertheless, they shouldn't

lose the right to be treated in the same manner as every other

citizen is treated with regard to fairness. It's with that kind

of thing in mind we say there should be cause given for anyone

who wants to use the kind of disclosures that will be given.

Are you going to amend the Municipal Act to destroy the

oath, for instance, of the Municipal Act ? Is it not any longer

going to be necessary that an alderman gives an oath of office?

You know, when he takes office on a municipal council he says

and swears on oath:

"That I have not, nor will I have while holding office, any

interests, directly or indirectly, in any contract or service

connected with the said municipality; that I have not, by

myself or any other person, knowingly employed any bribery,

corruption or intimidation; that I am not disqualified from

holding office; that I will faithfully perform the duties of

that office…"

and that I will not ever perform my duties in such a manner

that they'll put me in any kind of conflict-of-interest

situation. Are we going to destroy that oath and throw it out?

Mr. Chairman, each time we establish, each time we reinforce

the attitude that politicians are dishonest, that government is

and government officials, both elected and appointed.

HON. MR. HALL: You've been doing it all session.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, that kind of attitude….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Why don't you call

the Provincial Secretary to order?

Interjections.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's right. You have suggested that all the cabinet

Members over here are liars.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Members on

the government side not to interrupt the Member for

Langley.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, there is certainly nothing

wrong in the attempts by the official opposition, or anyone

else, to get the government to level with the people of British

Columbia. The day they start to level with the people of

British Columbia, that's the day we'll praise you for it. But

until you do, we'll continue to try to get at the facts and the

truth which you insist on holding from us.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member for

Langley confine his remarks to the amendment, please.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, we're reinforcing that kind of

attitude that there is a lack of honesty among public

officials. All we ask is that you go all the way. You've made

only half disclosure for public employees and municipal

employees. Take it a little further in this

section and make

the same kind of full restriction available to provincial

officials as well. You know, those public employees, Mr.

Chairman, have far more access to conflict-of-interest

situations than any provincial elected official does, far more

access. So why have you given them the benefit of the doubt and

not carried it a little further?

It's a good amendment and I think the Attorney-General

should have a change of heart and stand up and accept that

amendment from the Conservative leader.

MR. GARDOM: I have had a discussion with the Member for Oak

Bay (Mr. Wallace), and I have suggested an amendment to his

amendment which I'm happy to say, in the spirit of great

cooperation, he's thoroughly prepared to accept, and it would

come in as his amendment. I've handed a copy of this to the

Clerk. I've also handed a copy to the Hon. Attorney-General.

Just for the record, I would like to read it into the

record.

Essentially what it does is take out the request in the

first amendment of the Member for Oak Bay for the need for an

affidavit. It would read this way:

"For the purposes of

section 4(

l) a request shall be in

writing, bear the witness' signature and address of the

applicant for inspection of a file of written disclosure, and

specify the reasons for the application.

"Any person in respect of whom a written disclosure is

filed, may, by request to the disclosure clerk, with whom his

written

[ Page 4006 ]

disclosure is filed, inspect the said request of those persons

who have inspected his written disclosure."

Then carrying on as it appears in the order paper, page 22,

with the additional amendment to

section 4, as proposed by the

member for Oak Bay, which just housekeeps the first two

sections that he's proposed.

I think there is really very great value to the position

that has been taken by the Member for Oak Bay. It's true the

Attorney-General has said and will say that people can read

these things in the daily papers, and I agree with that. And

they can read them in the Gazette ; I agree with that, too. They

don't, of course, have to go ahead and apply for any reasons to

do that.

I would say the newspapers have to apply and if there are

some people in the community who, through mental or any other

kind of peculiarity, as the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs.

Jordan) stated, decided to harass elected representatives or

public officials, at least there will be some check and

balance.

I don't think it's an unfair recommendation. With all

respect, I don't think there's really need for heated debate on

the part of the Attorney-General or on the part of the Members

of the official opposition who responded to your debate.

I think we had a very genuine representation by the Member

for Oak Bay. I think it's solidly backed in fact and in reason.

On the basis of it, as the suggested amendment which he is

moving….

Are you accepting this as an amendment?

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Therefore, this is now the Member for Oak Bay's

amended amendment. Let's call it that, Mr. Chairman; he's

accepted it as such.

I would thoroughly support it and I think there's good

reason to support that, Mr. Attorney-General. You're doing a

better job for all elected representatives, for all public

officials and municipal officers in the province if you do

that.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Just one other short word. People

harassing other people is a valid point, but I think the Member

for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) made this point:

doesn't the revelation of your basic holdings relieve

publicly-elected people from a lot of unjustified suspicion and

harassment?

This session people have said that people have been trading

inside on companies. I won't even mention Dunhill. Can-Cel I

did mention. I think, from my own point of view, if I file a

disclosure statement showing I've had no connection with those

companies, that is a little example of where you relieve

suspicion.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It may be a bad example. Maybe it is.

But I don't think it leads to harassment; I think it leads to

clearing the air. I think the effect of the amendment, well

intentioned as it is by the Hon. Member, would be to draw the

blinds down by discouraging people and putting obstacles in the

way of seeing public documents. I don't think it is

necessary.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I feel the

whole purpose of making this deal public, as I've said before,

is to keep independent businessmen out of politics. By having

their assets published and available to anyone in the community

without even….

AN HON. MEMBER: You're talking about yourself.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, no, I'm not speaking for myself, Mr.

Chairman; I'm speaking for the people in the future who will

stay out of politics because of this bill.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon.

Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) that we are dealing

with the amendment in the name of the Member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace) which deals with the procedure for access to these

documents.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's exactly what I am talking about. There

should be procedure, a means whereby this is not available to

anyone who wants it. That's exactly what I am talking about,

Mr. Chairman.

We are talking about opening up your assets to the public

while at the same time the government continues day after day

to hide their dealings, which are the public's business, from

the public. I mention the Gottesman contract where there were

allegations of misdealings. I mention appraisals on the Dunhill

property.

AN HON. MEMBER: That has nothing to do with the amendment to

the amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: It certainly has something to do with the

amendment.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member continue,

please.

[ Page 4007 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: I thought the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr.

Cocke) wanted to talk. He's yapping over there. I thought maybe

he wanted to say something, When we ask for this information, even with a signed

affidavit and in this Legislature, we can't get the information

we want. The government goes around buying property and we

don't know what we are paying for it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member is moving away

from the point of the amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: Look, Mr. Chairman, I am pointing out why

there should be a method where this information is not

available to everyone. I'm merely pointing out that the

government wants to have every person who runs for elected

office make their assets and their dealings available to

everybody without any cause. I'm drawing a parallel where, by

the same token, the government hides its dealings under the

table and won't make them available to the taxpayers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The point the Hon. Member is

making is not relevant to this section. I would ask the Hon.

Member to confine his remarks to the section.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's very relevant, Mr. Chairman. The whole

purpose of this Act is to keep people in business out of

politics. You don't want them in politics; you don't want their

experience.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're voting for a bill like that?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm voting for the principle of

disclosure.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: I didn't say "kept secret." Don't twist the

facts around, Mr. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall). It's

not going to be kept secret. If a person who has just cause to

look at it can see it, that is not keeping it secret.

You've got two standards over there: one for your own

socialist, doctrinaire government….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member confine his remarks to

the amendment? Would the Hon. Members not interrupt the person

who has the floor?

MR. PHILLIPS: If you really wanted to stop conflict of

interest you would bring in conflict-of-interest legislation.

But the Attorney-General put the whole thing out when he said the

whole purpose of this bill is disclosure to make public not

really your business holdings but your land holdings.

As I said during debate on Bill 42, the government intends

to take over all of the land in British Columbia. I still stand

by that statement. This is just one more move in that

direction.

It was mentioned that if this information is available to

everyone, it is certainly available to teenage children. Today

we have teenage children who can break and enter, the next day

go on probation and the next night go out and do the same

thing. They are protected by the socialist government. If some

of these teenage children, by some way or another, take out a

personal vendetta….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Point of order…. In the course of

being out of order. Nevertheless, the Member did say that this

government protects children who break and enter and then go

out and do the same thing again. I think the Hon. Member should

withdraw that.

HON. MR. HALL: He doesn't know what he is saying.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to

withdraw any imputation that the government tolerates or allows

illegal action on the part of the young.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll withdraw my statement but I won't

withdraw that the government tolerates and allows it, Mr.

Chairman. No way will I withdraw it because the government does

tolerate and allow it.

HON. MR. HALL: I ask you to take the Member's words down and

call the Speaker and report those words to the Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: You say we tolerate and allow breaking and

entering, eh?

MR. PHILLIPS: You're tolerating and allowing it, yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The words are that the

government is accused of "tolerating and allowing breaking and

entering by teenagers."

Before we proceed with the request of the Hon. Provincial

Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall), I would ask the Member for South

Peace River (Mr. Phillips) to stand in his place and to

withdraw unconditionally any imputation that there is any

improper action on the part of the government in the words that

he stated, namely tolerating or allowing teenagers to break

and

[ Page 4008 ]

enter in the Province of British Columbia.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll withdraw unconditionally, Mr. Chairman.

But you know as well as I know what is happening today.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would just ask the Hon.

Member to withdraw.

MR. PHILLIPS: I did withdraw. I withdrew

unconditionally.

AN HON. MEMBER: Be fair! Don't be so bloody politically

biased.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will accept the fact that the Hon. Member

has withdrawn unconditionally. Would the Hon. Member proceed

with the amendment?

MR. PHILLIPS: This information will be available to these

teenage children, some of whom are breaking and entering one

night, going out on probation the next day, and turning around

the next night and doing the same thing. It is being

tolerated.

AN HON. MEMBER: By whom?

MR. PHILLIPS: It is being tolerated by the government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I asked the Hon. Member to

withdraw any imputation that the government is tolerating

criminal action on the part of teenagers. The Hon. Member

stated that he unconditionally withdrew and then proceeded to

make the same remark again.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll withdraw that it is being tolerated by

the government. It is certainly being tolerated by the system,

Mr. Chairman. It's happening so it is being tolerated by

somebody.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I asked the Hon. Member to confine his remarks

to the amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: If you would quit interrupting me, I'm making

my whole point. If one of these teenagers has a personal

vendetta against some elected official — and he may not know

all of the holdings of that elected official — he can certainly

go and, according to this Act without this amendment, get this

information and carry on and destroy the property because he

now has full disclosure of exactly what it is without any

cause.

It doesn't say that a criminal can't get this information. It doesn't say that

a teenager who is on probation can't get this information. Anybody can get it.

This could very well happen because we are allowing teenagers today in this

society to run around in this manner.

I definitely support the Member for Oak Bay's amendment,

that there should be some necessity, some reason for the person

who wants this information, to get it.

What really frightens me, Mr. Chairman, the fact that the

Attorney-General won't accept this bill, is the

Attorney-General's attitude toward this bill and toward all

legislation. It was a despicable display he put on in this

House the other day.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to

confine his remarks to the amendment.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes. And you probably were.

As I say again, I'm not speaking for myself; I'm certainly

not afraid to make any disclosure. But if this information is

available to anybody without cause, I'm telling you right here

and now, Mr. Chairman, we're going to be in deep trouble. The

reason we're going to be in deep trouble is because there will

be no businessmen with any business experience entering

politics from now on to run the big business of government and

to lend their experience to running the finances of the

taxpayers.

That really is what this bill is all about in the first

place. It's not a conflict-of-interest bill with any teeth

whatsoever in it. It's simply to get people to disclose and

make public all the land that they hold. That's the real intent

and purpose of the bill. And this amendment, if the government

were really sincere in what they are doing, and were interested

in not keeping people out of politics, then they would accept

this amendment.

But this bill, along with all of the other legislation this

government tables….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to

confine his remarks to the amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I've finished what I wanted to say, Mr.

Chairman.

But I want to leave this last comment, and I'll say it once

again. The real intent of this bill, as it now stands without

the amendment, is to keep business people out of politics.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): I'd like to speak

against the amendment because I believe the intent of the bill

is to get good people in politics, and I believe this bill

would help do that.

I think we have to examine what's really being said here.

Should the disclosures be made public or should

[ Page 4009 ]

they be held in secret and only made public under certain

circumstances? What they are really saying is that if possibly

a good investigative reporter happens to stumble across

something that may appear to be in conflict of interest with an

elected official, then you go to the secretly-held envelope and

look in it to see if there has been a conflict of interest.

Or if an elected official happens to stumble across one of

his colleagues doing something that he feels may be in conflict

of interest, and the public will only find out if that happens,

then you go the secret envelope.

I don't think that's good enough, Mr. Chairman. The people

have a right to know exactly where you stand at all times. They

shouldn't have to go through a whole rigmarole of procedures to

find out exactly what you represent.

MR. PHILLIPS: Signing your name — is that a whole rigmarole?

Signing your name?

HON. MR. LEA: For instance, two bills that are going through

this legislative session now — one, the rental stabilization

Act…. So you get all the elected officials from around the

province commenting on the Acts that go through this House. I

feel that if an elected official of a regional district or

municipality, or anyone in this House, has something to say,

people should know exactly where they stand.

For instance, if an alderman in one of the communities in

the province happens to own vast holdings of rental units, and

he comments either for or against the bill that's going through

the House, the people have a right to know where that person

stands.

MR. WALLACE: If he feels that, he should show reason.

HON. MR. LEA: The reason is that he's making a comment and

people have a right to know exactly what that person represents

in his commercial interests. They have a right to know without

having to go through a rigmarole. Everybody should know.

Bill 31 — shouldn't everyone have a right to know where an

elected official stands in terms of what he owns in mining

interests if he makes a statement around Bill 31? Of course

they should know, and they should know automatically.

MR. WALLACE: Not automatically.

HON. MR. LEA: Automatically.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Why not?

HON. MR. LEA: Why not is exactly right, Mr. Attorney-General. Why not?

If we're going to have an open society and an open government, an open democracy,

then people have a right to know what we have as elected officials. They have

a right to know where we stand, who we represent and why.

That is why I oppose this amendment.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I cannot associate myself with

some of the remarks which have been made in support of the

amended amendment because I think, indeed, a couple of speakers

strayed from the point. I would be less than honest with myself

if I did not make that clear.

I feel that the Attorney-General is happy to miss the point

of the amended amendment; that he cannot see precisely what has

been stated by the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) and the

Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) and others

who have attempted to explain it to him — that there should be

some onus on the individual who inquires of the holdings of an

elected person; some onus to avoid rumour-mongering, to avoid

maliciousness, or to avoid simply a curiosity with respect to

what in individual has or may not have.

I think at this point perhaps the Member for Oak Bay and I

differ slightly. I think that the press, and I use it in its

broad context, its broad sense, would be able to fully state

their reason for publishing the holdings of elected officials.

Obviously, not every Member of a municipal council's holdings

in British Columbia would appear in every newspaper. Not every

school trustee's holdings would appear in every newspaper or be

dealt with at length in the other media, the electronic

media.

But when an individual in a particular community seeks out

information with respect to an elected official, then he or she

should be at least prepared to put his or her name on the line

indicating that I, Joe Smith, want to know what Pete Brown

holds in this municipality. It is as simple as that. All the….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Supposing they read it in the B.C.

Gazette ?

MR. CURTIS: Well, I have to ask then, Mr. Chairman, through

you, to the Attorney-General, how many people do read the B.C.

Gazette ? What is its circulation? The Minister raised it, Mr.

Chairman. I did not. The B.C. Gazette is not the hottest

selling item in British Columbia, let's face it.

But there should be a degree of responsibility placed upon

the individual who is making a specific inquiry about an

elected individual.

All the interjections and comments and quips from the other

side with respect to "why didn't you vote against the bill?" — I support disclosure. How many times do I have to say it, Mr.

Chairman, through you to the Attorney-General? I support it. I

supported it when you introduced it. I support it now!

[ Page 4010 ]

Interjection.

MR. CURTIS: Of course I am supporting now. But there is no

suggestion of secrecy, Mr. Chairman, none whatsoever. The

Member for Delta (Mr. Liden) insists on distorting that point.

No suggestion of secrecy, but of responsibility on the part of

the individual making the inquiry. And that Member knows

precisely the point that I'm trying to make. He knows the point

I'm trying to make.

I am not opposed to disclosure in any way, shape or form.

But there should be the requirement for the individual who

wants to go for a particular individual in public office, then

he should be prepared for his or her name on the line. And it

is indeed as simple as that.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Do you support the affidavit?

MR. CURTIS: I have been speaking on the amended amendment,

which does not….

Interjection.

MR. CURTIS: No, you've not read the amendment, the altered

amendment. Correct, Mr. Attorney-General? The Attorney-General

nods his head, correct. Thank you.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to just make a final few

comments on the amended amendment.

The Attorney-General should know, and I just repeat what the

amended amendment says:

"For the purposes of

section 4(

l) a request shall be

in writing bearing the witnessed signature and address of the applicant

for inspection of a filed written disclosure and specifying the reasons

for the application."

I won't repeat the second part. The Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) read it; it just continues to

leave out the word affidavit.

The Attorney-General made a point, in replying earlier in

this debate, of the legalized nature of an affidavit and that

it brought the whole thing into much more of an adversary

focus, and I discussed that with the Member for Vancouver –Point

Grey and I thought that the Attorney-General's observation was

a valid one.

So, all we are asking in the amended amendment is that the

person just sign their name and address….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: And give reasons.

MR. WALLACE: And give reasons.

The point that I was trying to make and certainly…. I noticed the Minister

of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) has left before I had a chance to comment on his

remarks, as I will do in a moment.

I tried to make the point clear, Mr. Chairman, that in

giving reasons the reasons are not subject to any predetermined

qualifications as to number or size or personality or

otherwise. It's simply to give a reason.

The Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea), for example, said

that we're debating Bill 31 and every citizen in British

Columbia has the right to know what the Member for Oak Bay does

or does not hold in the way of mining stock. I agree. I agree

entirely. But to suggest that there is anything secret or any

rigmarole, which was the word he used…. I think the

rigmarole, would involve signing your name and saying: "Because

the Member for Oak Bay is debating Bill 31 I believe I'm

entitled to know his holdings." Exactly. I couldn't emphasize

that more strongly. But all the person has to do, in my view,

by this amended amendment is just put his name to a request

that he thinks it's right that because I am debating that bill

and trying to influence its passage or otherwise through this

House he should know whether or not I have any holdings in

mind.

I think that his observation is absolutely valid, except

that he used the words that the disclosure document is going to

be kept secret and there would be a whole rigmarole by the

citizens to find out. Now I don't know how you define the words

"whole rigmarole," Mr. Chairman, but in this amended amendment

we've taken out the word "affidavit," which certainly

implies a measure of complexity. But a written request signed

with the reason seems to me to be asking very little indeed of

the individual who, whether the Minister admits it or not, is

doing so for one of two motives. He has a genuine motive in

that he thinks that I might be trying to favour my own

financial assets by either opposing or favouring Bill 31, or

any other bill for that matter. Or if he doesn't have that

basic genuine motive then the other motive is simply one of

curiosity.

The only point I am trying to make, Mr. Chairman, and I've

obviously failed, is that the degree to which we sacrifice our

privacy in my view should not be justified solely on the basis

of the curiosity of an individual in society. I just say that

if that's the philosophy of the government, then in their good

intentions of supporting the principle of disclosure they have

let the pendulum swing much too far. Surely there should be a

reasonable balance in society.

As the Highways Minister pointed out in the example he

chose, certainly everybody in British Columbia who wants to

know my mineral holdings — which I may say at this point are nil

— is entitled to know what mineral holdings I hold or any

Member holds. All I'm saying is that because that is an

absolutely valid attitude by the citizens they should certainly

have only the minimal obstruction, if that's

[ Page 4011 ]

the word the Minister wants to use — not secrecy, but the

minimal obstruction of simply signing their name and saying why

they want disclosure.

I think it's unfortunate also, and I'd like to have the

chance, Mr. Chairman, in speaking to the amended amendment, to

correct what the Attorney-General said in his response, which

was that I am opposing the principle of this bill if I try to

bring in such an amendment. With respect, I am admitting, I am

stating, and repeating very clearly that it is a question not

of the principle of disclosure per se but the degree to which

this

section unnecessarily invades the privacy of an elected

individual. To be concerned about

section 4 or to try to bring

in this amendment, certainly, I think, shows that all we're

trying to do is give a fair measure of justice and

consideration to the individual who indeed is sacrificing some

of his privacy by serving in public office.

As I said during second reading, this bill actually may well

be challenged in court as to being unconstitutional in terms of

the Canadian Bill of Rights , which in paragraph 1 guarantees

equality of treatment to every citizen.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Similar to what was upheld by the United

States Supreme Court….

MR. WALLACE: We're living in Canada, Mr. Attorney-General;

we're not living in the United States.

I made the point in second reading that this aspect of the

Canadian Bill of Rights gave me a great deal of thought and

concern when I was deciding how I should vote on this debate. I

made the decision that the loss of the rights which the elected

individual is suffering in this bill is something that I'm

prepared to accept.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Was it a caucus decision?

MR. WALLACE: Well, we consider that this is such an

important bill that it's a free vote and should, in fact, be a

free vote for every party in this House.

It is one of these issues where it is important enough in

terms of its relationship to individual rights and freedoms

that the whole question of partisan party politics doesn't

matter a hoot to me in this particular bill. I think each

person should vote as he sees fit and I would hope that each

member in the government votes particularly on this amendment

in that regard. I think it's a minimal request we are making to

restore a fair measure of justice to the elected officials and

individuals. I certainly hope the Minister would reconsider the

amended amendment where the word "affidavit" is not included — simply "a written request with a reason."

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS-13

Chabot

Smith

Jordan

Fraser

Phillips

Richter

McClelland

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Gibson

Wallace

Curtis

NAYS — 33

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Lea

Radford

Lauk

Nicolson

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

MR. WALLACE: I would ask you to report the division on the amendment

to the Speaker, Mr. Chairman.

Section 4 as amended approved.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the amendment to

section 6. (See

appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 6 as amended approved.

section 7.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the amendments to

section 7.

(See appendix.)

Amendments approved.

Section 7 as amended approved.

section 8.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the amendments to

section 8. (See appendix.)

Amendments approved.

[ Page 4012 ]

Section 8 as amended approved.

section 9.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the amendments to

section 9. (See

appendix.)

On the amendments.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, on

section 9 as amended

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I believe the Hon. Second

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) has an amendment;

and usually we take the amendment first.

MR. GARDOM: Is that satisfactory with you? Okay.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: He's a nice fellow — more than I can say for

you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member please address the

Chair?

MR. GARDOM: I shall indeed, Mr. Chairman; it's a pleasure to

address you today, indeed it is.

AN HON. MEMBER: I think you need your lunch.

MR. GARDOM: I just had a lunch break, and it wasn't as

pleasantly fortified as my breakfast break, unfortunately.

(Laughter.)

Mr. Chairman, I would like to move as an amendment to

section 9 — if I could just find my Act here — the amendment

which I've handed in to the table — to add in the first one

after the word "application," the words: "with the

consent of the Attorney-General." So

section 9, as the

Attorney-General has now amended it, would read: "9

(1) Where

the Supreme Court, upon application, with consent of the

Attorney-General, is of the opinion that a provincial

official, municipal official, or public employee…" or

municipal employee or municipal employees, and so forth and so

on. Now the purpose of the amendment, Mr. Chairman, is to lessen

the opportunity for mischievous and frivolous applications

which, although perhaps baseless in fact, could prove to be

unnecessarily expensive and unnecessarily harmful to the

individuals involved. These proceedings are of a quasi-criminal

nature and they could be very, very unfairly initiated and

without foundation by any of those unfortunate people who might

have possessed improper motives.

I've also put in an amendment to add as subsection (5) to

the bill these words: "The cost of an application under this

section shall follow the event."

Now that essentially is a codification of the law as it now

prevails. But I think it's a very wise thing to have that built

into this section. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the two

proposals, the two amendments, that I have proposed to this

subsection would at least be some deterrent to those kinds of

actions that I've been talking about by those people who may

possess improper motives.

The first one would put a responsibility upon the office of

the Attorney-General which is not a new or different

responsibility at all, but which is one that is part and parcel

of the very high function and high responsibility of that

office which has to be, and has been, exercised

scrupulously.

We all know that the office of the Attorney-General is one

different and traditionally different than any other office in

government. He is the chief law-enforcement officer, and he has

to enforce the law without fear or favour or partiality. I

would move these two amendments.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I have put these amendments

separately. Is that agreed?

MR. GARDOM: That is satisfactory with me, yes.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: On the first amendment, there is no

intention on my part or the government's part that anybody

should be inhibited from taking what, with respect, I think is

a civil proceeding to recover the damages. Nevertheless, as the

Member points out, it might be frivolous, groundless or

harassing in nature without any substance to it at all. On that

basis I think that something of that kind could be examined in

a preliminary way by the officers in my department. If the

person has a prima facie case at all, it should be allowed to

go ahead. But I accept the amendment, and I appreciate the Hon.

Member bringing this point up.

First amendment approved.

On the second amendment to

section 9.

MR. GARDOM: I have no intention of reiterating that which

I've already stated. But, Mr. Attorney-General, it is a

codification of the law as is now practised in the Province of

British Columbia that costs normally follow the event. However,

there are discretions open to the court. I would say that in a

statute such as this costs should follow the event.

If there is a successful application against a public

official, public emp