1981 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JUNE 23, 1981

Morning Sitting

[ Page

6341 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Social Service Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1981 (Bill 26). Committee stage.

Third reading –– 6341

Real Estate Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 23). Second reading.

Mr. Levi –– 6341

Mr. Macdonald –– 6342

Mr. Cocke –– 6342

Mr. Leggatt –– 6342

Mr. King –– 6343

Hon. Mr. Hyndman –– 6343

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Attorney-General estimates. (Hon. Mr. Williams)

On vote 22: minister's office –– 6346

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Kempf

Mr. King

TUESDAY, JUNE 23, 1981

The House met at 10 a.m.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 26, Mr. Speaker.

SOCIAL SERVICE TAX

AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 2), 1981

The House in committee on Bill 26; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 to 19 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 26, Social Service Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1981, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 23.

REAL ESTATE AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

(continued)

MR. LEVI:

One of the things I think we should point out at the very beginning is

that this flipping bill doesn't do anything for flipping at all. The

word "flipping" is used there as an adjective in the first sense. I

listened to what the minister said yesterday and to what he said prior

to introducing the bill. The major problem with flipping is that people

have been making a great deal of money getting hold of property, and

some of them were real estate agents. I don't see anything in this bill

that is going to prevent the kind of flipping sales that have been

going on until today, even when this bill is passed and when the actual

conditions of the bill come into operation by September.

The

present legislation requires that real estate agents make a declaration

in writing. It was not a very good system. There was no enforcement of

that requirement. The only time any enforcement appeared to happen was

when somebody complained — then some questions were asked about whether

a declaration been made by an agent. Now we've got the example of the

minister coming in with a new reporting form, in red, with heavy print.

And in this particular situation any real estate agent or the firm to

which he belongs or any person in that firm, registered agent or not,

would have to make this declaration; then one copy would wind up going

to the superintendent of real estate — who is a very busy individual,

because he has to look after being the superintendent of brokers as

well. They would then look at it. It's possibly tantamount to insider

trading reports.

I would ask the minister to enlighten us as

to what actually happens when a real estate agent reports, as

recommended in this bill, the particular transaction goes through and

he is found at fault. As I understand it, he can be disciplined if

there is enough evidence, but the transaction stands. That certainly

becomes a problem. It does not really protect the purchaser, which is

really what this whole real estate licensing agency is all about. The

person who has to be most protected is the individual who is purchasing

or selling property, and that's where the agent is acting in one way or

the other. In this case, of course, we're looking at the agent acting

on his own behalf. That's a problem, and I don't think this bill gets

at the problem of flipping whatsoever. It may be that the minister's

intent is that it will be a deterrent and that somehow, if agents know

that when they start buying property for their own purposes and they

have to make this declaration, maybe they won't do it. On the other

hand, maybe they will. It does not meet the intention. However, I think

I should say right off the bat that if we're moving toward some kind of

legislation, obviously we have to support it. The minister has had a

number of months in which to put this thing together, and he would have

been far better advised to put the bill out earlier and have the public

and the real estate industry take a real hard look at what he was

attempting to do, because I think he's falling far short of what he

really wants to achieve.

I'll give you an example. One

section of the bill deals with commissions — commissions have to be

declared in the declaration. I'd like to read the minister a statement

made by Mr. Alf Buttress, chairman of the Real Estate Council of

British Columbia, in the bulletin they put out in April. He's talking

about the role of agents or licensees. Let me just read this into the

record. "There is a view, which I share, that these people are not

agents or licensees; they are investors." He's talking about the

clients when they are investing. "There is no place in real estate for

such people as licensees, because not only do they fail to serve the

customer, but they also serve to bring our vocation into disrepute." He

was saying this shortly after the minister made some observations about

the flipping that was going on in the community. He's talking about the

role of the real estate agent. He goes on to say: "If any licensee

wishes to make the majority of his livelihood by real estate

speculation, his real estate licence should be surrendered." If you're

going to be a speculator you're in the wrong business. Then he goes on:

"That would place him in the same position as an unlicensed speculator

and any other member of the general public in seeking out what are

considered to be good buys." I suppose he gets the best of both worlds

if he's a licensee; he's got inside knowledge. It goes on: "More

importantly, no vendor would be in a position, as is sometimes now the

case, of paying a commission or part thereof to a licensee who may be

acting in his own best interest rather than the vendor's, in order to

purchase for himself." Then he finally says: "How a licensee can, in

good conscience, participate in a commission when purchasing for

himself is beyond my comprehension."

The minister has a

section in the bill which points out that in the declaration he must

talk about the commission. I would recommend to the minister that he

take a look at that

section and take a look at what Mr. Buttress has to

say, because he's very specific about it. On top of having a person

with a licence who has become a speculator, you don't reward him with

the possibility, in this case, of also receiving a commission. We are

talking now only in respect to the flipping.

[ Page 6342 ]

The

minister has not convinced us that this is in any way going to stop

flipping. It is not. It is simply going to enable a report to be made

up to the superintendent, after the fact, that something took place —

and there's the question of a declaration. If the purchaser has got a

bad deal or has been involved in this kind of thing, nothing can happen

to the deal. The deal stands. The purchaser may lose his licence. Then,

of course, he's got to go through the civil suit in order to recover

whatever damages there might be. I must say that it's a beginning, but

it's not the kind of beginning that I think the minister was leading

the public to believe the legislation would in fact make. I've devoted

my remarks mainly to the flipping, because that's a major contemporary

concern. Certainly there's the question of time-shared condominiums.

Now that we're going to get into proper presentation of the prospectus,

that's fine. That was something that needed to be done. It's not an

easy piece of legislation in respect to this whole area of time-shared

condominiums, because it's going on all over the world. All of the

problems are now coming home to roost for a lot of people, particularly

those people who are involved in these investments outside of Canada,

where they simply had no idea what they were doing. This is an attempt

to regulate that in the first instance, and that's fine.

think the failure of the minister to really do something about the

flipping question is of more importance in this legislation. That's not

in this bill. All he's doing is trying to build some kind of

accountability system, but that does not help the purchaser out there

at all. That's what's lacking in this bill.

MR. MACDONALD:

As the former Attorney-General says, we're going to vote for the bill,

because it makes some gestures in the direction of greater disclosure.

So you can't knock that; but as my colleague says, the flipping goes on

and the bill doesn't prevent it. There is already a provision that a

real estate licensee has to disclose that he is purchasing as such. If

he doesn't do that, the client can refuse to go ahead with the

transaction. It becomes null and void.

What we have seen out

there in the last year and a half is a wilderness of speculation in

real estate which has driven prices up, and where commissions have been

made on an incredible scale ranging from 4 percent to 7 percent. I've

even seen 7.5 percent. It has all increased the cost of accommodation.

It's all built into the cost of the housing stock, which, as everybody

knows, has become unaffordable for most people. We've seen all kinds of

scams which are not going to be stopped by this bill — for example, the

option scam, where the licensee puts down say $100, and takes an option

on a property valued at $165,000 for six months. If the price of that

accommodation he's got his hooks into doesn't go up to more than

$165,000 in the six-month period, he loses his $100. That was pretty

good bait, though, wasn't it? Hook the homeowner with the option of

money, then see what's going to happen with the market. If you want to

get out he can't even sue you; it's just an option. The bill doesn't

stop that kind of practice.

You haven't stopped flipping in

this bill. You haven't stopped the real estate industry from being part

of the speculation which is driving up the cost of housing in the

province of British Columbia. As my colleague from

Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) points out, the better part of the

real estate industry agrees that this kind of practice should be

curbed. All you have here is greater disclosure, a different kind of

disclosure and a more dramatic disclosure. To that extent, it's fine.

But I really wonder: is this minister serious about flipping? Is he on

the side of the flipper or the flippee? I suspect it's the former.

MR. COCKE:

The first part of the bill, of course, is devoted to disclosure.

There's another part of the bill that particularly worries me; that's

this whole question of timesharing.

It strikes me that the

best possible way to drive real estate values up is this whole area of

time-sharing. As a matter of fact, I understand that in Hawaii people

are allowed to purchase into, let's say, a condominium for two weeks,

four weeks, or any multiple of one forty-eighth they want. The thing

that concerns me around this whole question of time-sharing is that I

think this bill tends to give it a pat on the back. It gives it a

little bit of a background of being okay.

Then, of course, I

have to think about who it's okay for. I've been hearing a good deal

about a project that's going on not too far from here down on the

wharf. It strikes me that something that was not going to be

time-shared — that's the Bawlf complex right down along the shore on

the harbour, immediately adjacent to the protected area — is suddenly

going to be in a position where they can sell time-sharing. That means

that the value of the property, which is already inflated by virtue of

its location and decisions that have been made around that location,

will suddenly soar again. It's not only that one.

It just

concerns me that here we are, when other jurisdictions are frowning on

time-sharing, giving time-sharing some authenticity or some kind of

governmental recognition. I think we should be going the other way. I'm

concerned about those particular sections of the bill, which are

actually in the majority. It's the major principle of this bill, other

than flipping, because flipping is really not being addressed, as my

colleague from Maillardville-Coquitlam and the second member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) pointed out.

Therefore I

would suggest that, generally speaking, this bill is rather a

disappointment. It makes a couple of progressive gestures, but beyond

that it does very little. As far as providing recognition for

time-sharing goes, that worries me stiff.

MR. LEGGATT:

I agree with the comments of my colleagues that, in fact, the bill

fails to address the problem of flipping. But it does strengthen

disclosure, so it's very hard to be opposed to the principle the

minister has placed within the bill. He hasn't really addressed or

grasped the nettle around the most difficult problem, the whole

question of conflict-of-interest in real estate transactions, which

really has to deal with the unequal relationship between one person who

makes it a profession to know what the value of property is and another

who is a complete amateur on the value of his own property. I think

everyone in this chamber agrees with the sentiments about trying to get

a handle on the question of flipping that the minister has been

publicly expressing for a long time. This bill does not do that. It's

almost a case of false advertising that the minister's been engaged in,

or labouring and bringing forth a mouse, because in fact he's had

public expectations rise to a tremendous degree. There's bound to be a

sense of disappointment when people get into the fine print of this

particular bill. We're not against improvement with regard to

disclosure, although that's always been in the law.... This is an

improvement. The increase in penalties is certainly a welcome addition.

[ Page

6343 ]

There

has to be some way of getting a handle on the flipping question,

because the normal transaction for a real estate flip is that the real

estate person, who holds a real estate licence and is an honest person,

generally comes forward and makes a proposal for the purchase which

seems attractive to a vendor. He's working on a rising market. He's

looking at a market that's going up dramatically. Because of the

special knowledge of the real estate agent, he's taking very little

risk in getting into it.

One of the possibilities that the

minister might look at.... I say look at because I think it needs more

study than just being put in a specific amendment. I think he should

study the idea of providing a delay in resale. In other words, if a

real estate agent decides after fall disclosure to participate in the

rising market or increase the rising market by proposing a flip, he

shouldn't be able to flip that property for a couple of years. I think

that would slow down the speculative aspects of the real estate market.

I know the minister's trying to cool the market at the present time by

controlling this, but possibly a caveat in regard to resale and an

amendment to the law which would provide such a resale to be

unenforceable might provide an additional sanction to prevent what the

minister sees as a vice in the real estate market.

The

second aspect that the minister has not dealt with, which is just as

serious as flipping, is the question of the peddling of options. We

have in an overheated real estate market now a tremendous number of

fortunes being made by real estate dealers simply taking an option on

property for a low cash price. That seals off the capacity of the owner

to reach a profit in a rising market. That profit is therefore all

scooped up by the person who is wise enough to option a good deal of

property. There is an area, I think, that needs regulation as well.

It's

not merely flipping that has overheated the market; optioning all over

the lower mainland has driven the market very high. When you can get an

option on a piece of property for a very low deposit, you're not that

serious about the end price in a rising market. You're probably

offering the person something more than the market value of his

property in expectation of a rising market, and you're willing to lose

a modest deposit in order to do so. The result psychologically is that

everybody in the area where the option has been granted immediately has

a higher expectation with regard to property values. That has a

tremendous psychological upward lift where massive options are being

taken. We've all seen examples of large developments — shopping centres

and so on — where the option psychology has driven prices very high

indeed. That, of course, drives land prices and housing prices up to

the incredible amounts that we're now facing.

I'm saying to the minister that a re-examination of the whole option procedure

should be looked at. Optioning itself is responsible for a tremendous increase

in what people expect to receive for their property. Surely somewhere the peddling

of options should be controlled. Once a vendor takes an option on his property,

while the price looks good, he's suddenly had his expectations sealed off,

but at a slightly higher level than the market. That means the whole market

in that area rises. It seems to me that if the minister wants to address the

problem of flipping, with a view to cooling off the real estate market, he should

also address the problem of optioning at low deposit. That also increases the

price and value of property — artificially I would say — in a particular area.

I believe optioning would be controlled by a real estate operator here. I think

disclosure would still be required in an option. Maybe the minister can address

that. I think it does; if it doesn't, I'd appreciate knowing it.

appreciate that there has been some improvement in the bill, but

flipping and optioning haven't been controlled. Therefore I don't think

it's necessary for the House to spend a great deal of time on this

bill, because it really doesn't do very much.

MR. KING:

I just want to join my colleague from Maillardville-Coquitlam in

raising a concern about the absence of any provision in the bill to

deal with the option-dealer controversy. Indeed it is a controversy in

my particular riding. I know that the minister has received a great

number of letters, as I have, from virtually every real estate dealer

in the riding, expressing concern that the option dealers are not

licensed in any way. I appreciate that there's a legal question here as

to whether or not the option dealers are functioning precisely within

the terms of the law. I understand, through a private discussion with

the minister, that indeed there is litigation pending to determine

precisely what the legal ramifications are, but I don't think that is a

valid reason for failing to deal with the overall problem of option

dealers: basically the fact is that they are largely unregulated, as

opposed to traditional real estate operators.

I don't know

whether there is a valid, legitimate function for option dealers,

within certain parameters, or whether they are a total aberration that

is not in the best interests of the consumers. I'm not sure about that;

but I do know that they're an aberration in law as it exists now. As

such, they're unregulated. and as such, they are a threat to the public

interest. Indeed, there have been many well-publicized cases where

older people in particular have been victimized by granting an option,

only to see the market heat up and to lose the incremental profit — it

was picked up by the option dealer. Of course, when one is moving from

one accommodation to another, rather than using that increase as a

speculative thing, it's a disaster in terms of trying to find new

accommodation.

I just wonder what the minister is planning.

I would like to have some answers for the people who are writing to me

and saying: "Look, what is the policy here? There's a dearth of any

policy guidelines." Quite frankly, I'm surprised that this bill, which

is a fairly major one, has been brought in without any provisions

whatsoever that address themselves to that particular problem. I would

appreciate very much if the minister would outline to the House his

thoughts and his plan of action, if any, so I can respond in a

reasonable and intelligent way to the people who are querying me in my

own riding, and advise them as to what they might expect and whether or

not there is some time-frame for action.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House, might I make an introduction before commencing my remarks.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

I'm advised that in the gallery presently is a very distinguished

visitor from the state of Tasmania, Australia. He is the Leader of the

Opposition, the Liberal Party, the Hon. Geoffrey Pearsall. Would hon.

members welcome Mr. Pearsall.

It's been a thoughtful debate in second reading on this bill, for which I thank members. I propose to address the

[ Page 6344 ]

points

raised by them. My view obviously differs in that I think this bill is

going to achieve the policy goals stated. The difference would be

whether it does. In my remarks I propose again to review how the bill

will work, particularly with respect to so-called "flipping." With

great respect to members opposite, if they will bear with me, we've

attempted here to zero in on the problem in a somewhat sophisticated

way, rather than overkill by going far further than necessary with

legislation. I'm of the view that these proposals, particularly in

section 28, are highly creative and sophisticated and permit us to do,

so to speak, with pinpoint precision what others might try to do with a

far broader but unnecessary brushstroke.

The chief

opposition critic, the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi),

makes the point that there is nothing in the bill about "flipping." By

name, there certainly isn't. We have, rather, dealt with the root

causes and the root manner in which flipping operates. I'd like to make

one thing clear to members; perhaps in committee we'll see amendments.

While I have heard your concern as to whether the bill deals with

flipping — and I'll outline why I think it does — I haven't clearly

heard your policy views as to the preferred route to go. It may be

inferred from what you have said that there should be a wholesale ban

of sorts, or there should perhaps be some broad form of tax or penalty.

For the record, I note the absence of the clearly stated policy

alternative that would be put forward by members opposite.

How

does this bill deal with the particular case of flipping? First of all,

and not of greatest importance but of very great use, is the provision

that by virtue of the new

section 28, for the first time we will be

able to gather data on the degree to which flipping is taking place.

Hitherto that has been impossible. Under the new system provided by

section 28, we are going to have the data as to the degree to which

licensed realtors in this province are making offers on property of all

kinds, and if those offers are accepted, we'll have data on that and we

can track the progress of the result. For the first time, we're going

to have hard, accurate and complete data with which policy analysis can

proceed. May I say to members quite openly that if these provisions

fail to be as effective as I think they will, I have quite an open mind

as to further steps. If these provisions fail to be as effective as I

believe they will be, and if the data we're going to get for the first

time shows that the problem continues unabated or continues to a degree

that it should be a public concern, we are prepared to look at further

remedies. I stress that in my view that is not going to be necessary.

dealing with the problem of flipping I think you have to ask the

question: how, why and in what circumstances does it take place? You

can't deal with flipping without going to the root elements of how it

takes place. A flip is normally defined as the turnover of a piece of

property in a very short space of time for a very substantial profit.

If we're talking about a residential home, it means a homeowner has

agreed to sell the property, and in say three weeks it can be turned

over for a very substantial gain. In those circumstances one of two

situations must have obtained if that property was sold directly to a

licensed realtor for the realtor's direct account. Either the homeowner

was misadvised as to the current fair market value of the property —

therefore a person could, in effect, buy it as a steal or a bargain and

flip it over — or the homeowner was misadvised as to the trend of the

market. On day one the homeowner might have received current fair

market value of, say, $85,000 without being aware that the market was

increasing at, say, 10 percent a week, and hence three weeks later

somebody picks up a $30,000 bill. If those two conditions do not

prevail — if the vendor is truly advised as to current fair market

value and currently advised as to the state of the market — it is

virtually impossible that the homeowner is going to agree to sell the

home for less than current fair market value. It seems to us that to

deal effectively with flipping you've got to get to the root

circumstances under which it can arise, which is that case.

suppose there is a minuscule and theoretical possibility that a

realtor, in effect, could say: "Mr. or Mrs. Homeowner, I would like to

buy your home. We agree on current fair market value and the trend of

the market." If, unexpected to everybody, and as a total surprise,

either the market turns around or in three weeks some unique purchaser

walks in who wants to pay substantially more, then in those

circumstances, if the realtor has taken all the risk, that's a

different kettle of fish.

Given that the root circumstance

is no advice, incorrect advice or incomplete advice as to current value

of the property or the trend on the market, how do you strike at that?

How do you ensure that the vendor is so advised? We believe you remedy

that problem by ensuring that the vendor is so advised. Through this

bill, in a form and manner prescribed by the superintendent of real

estate brokers, there will have to be advance notice given to the

property-owner of the intention of the licensee to make the purchase,

and in the course of that notice we will take all reasonable steps to

ensure that that homeowner will acquaint himself with the true facts of

the market and the situation, and get some independent advice.

would caution members that until you've seen the precise wording and

layout of the form, you may want to defer your conclusion that this

approach is not going to work.

The member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam raised the very good question of what happens

if a real estate licensee fails to observe the provisions of

section

28: isn't it still too bad for the homeowner? My view is that that's

not going to be the case at all. There's going to be a very serious and

effective remedy both for the superintendent of realtors and for that

homeowner if

section 28 is not observed. First of all, let us consider

the case in which a realtor consciously chooses to ignore

section 28

and deal with a homeowner without reference to it. In that case, as

I've indicated publicly, the penalties applicable under the statute in

terms of suspension, cancellation of licence and possible fines are

going to be substantially increased under a new get-tough policy, and

realtors are going to be well and fully warned that anybody who wishes

to avoid

section 28 by choosing not to follow it is going to be in very

serious trouble as far as the superintendent of brokers is concerned.

MR. MACDONALD: Can a vendor back out of a deal?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: I'm coming to that, Mr. Member. Just let me finish.

Let's

consider a second situation in which the realtor — and this may get to

the point raised by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam — has

complied in a sense with

section 28 but not honestly or accurately.

There are going to be provisions on that required form of notice that

the realtor must complete. It's worthy of note that for the first time,

as a consequence of this bill, the

section 28 kind of disclosure is

going to be uniform and province-wide. Up to this point it was up to

the realtor to author his or her own manner of

[ Page 6345 ]

complying

with

section 28, including the form of notice and the wording, and so

forth. Let's assume that a realtor is working with the new prescribed

form and chooses to, shall we say, shade the truth, or be incomplete in

completing that form. There would be two consequences. Apart from,

first, any civil remedies that may accrue to the homeowner, a civil

remedy based on the negligent or fraudulent miscompletion of the form,

there will be the full range of offences under the statute. Apart from

non-use or misuse of the form, there are going to be the usual and

remaining provisions at common law for civil remedies in terms of

damages for negligence or damages for breach of duty of care from the

licensee to the homeowner. In my view, there is going to be broader and

far more complete protection for the vendor than has been the case in

the past.

The member raised the question of input: should

the bill not have been circulated for advance input? I want to assure

members that, over the three or four months that I have worked with the

problem, I have had lengthy meetings and discussions with the B.C. Real

Estate Association, the Canadian Real Estate Association, the Real

Estate Institute of B.C. and individual realtors. Of course, I've had a

raft of mail from the public, some of it including complaints from

members of the public about particular cases that affected them. In

assessing the mail and the complaints, it's clear that the real root

cause of the problem is what we're striking at — the homeowner who did

not have adequate or full knowledge of the value of his home, or

alternatively, of the state of the market.

The member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam also raised the question of commissions. As an

additional factor, the new particulars to be provided under

section 28

of this bill will include full particulars of any commissions or

commissio- sharing. The member makes the point, if I understand him,

that in any event that's probably wrong, because if you're dealing on

your own account you shouldn't be earning a commission — there are

conflicts of interest. First of all, there is a perfectly legitimate

kind of commission arrangement that may arise with which we would

normally have no quarrel. That is the case in which the purchaser is

paying the commission. I think the former Attorney- General would agree

with me that there is a very substantial distinction at common law

concerning the duties of a licensee to a vendor in terms of who's

paying the commission. Situation (a), under which a licensee approaches

a homeowner, completes the necessary declaration, and makes it clear

that he is receiving a commission paid for by the purchaser as the

responsibility of the purchaser, and not by the vendor, is much

different that situation (

b) where, in effect, the vendor is paying the

commission. So there's a very distinct difference at law, and my point

in response to the member is that, as between the provisions of the

form as it will be required and the provisions of common law, I think

the question of commissions is very effectively dealt with.

The

member has also said that flipping will still continue under the

provisions of this bill. In my view, flipping in the sense that it has

concerned members this morning in debate is going to be virtually

impossible. On the data which we'll have a year from now, we'll see

just how accurate my prediction is. We have not gone so far as to

impose a broad and heavy-handed form of penalty that would apply to all

realtors, the majority of whom are very hard-working and responsible

people. We are trying to target in on that very small handful of

realtors who would use their licence as an inside track for personal

benefit or gain. We also have not followed the route of some complete

and wholesale ban of activity that goes far beyond what is required to

deal with the problem of flipping; nor have we brought in legislation

superimposing some special form of tax on the real estate industry.

There are several good reasons for that, including efforts in Ontario

in the early 1970s. The results of that experience suggest that the

home purchaser or the real estate buyer simply ended up having those

kinds of approaches tacked onto the price of housing.

Several

members raised the question of options, and it's obviously a concern to

members on both sides of the House — not options in the traditional and

legitimate commercial sense of their use. I think that members on both

sides would recognize the valid place that the traditional option has

in our commerce today. Some so-called option dealers or dealers in

options or independent listing services or no-commission

we'll-sell-your-house kinds of operation may be quite well-meaning and

legitimate, but clearly there are a number generating a great deal of

concern across the province. The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr.

King) and the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) have spoken on

this in second reading debate.

For the record, let me review

my concern about the matter. First of all, I share their concern that

certainly a number of the so-called option dealers are legitimately of

concern to government, because they pose a risk to the unsuspecting

public. As members opposite know, I think, the first action taken by

this ministry was some months ago. It was the most serious action that

we can take in response to the problem. That was the initiation of

criminal proceedings against the apparent major operator in this field.

Because of that, obviously I cannot say too much more, except that I

understand that the matter comes to trial within approximately six

weeks. It may be, of course, that the results of those proceedings will

completely resolve and determine the matter; but if not, it is my

intention to look then at the results which flow from or don't flow

from the criminal prosecution. Then, to the degree that further steps

are necessary, we'll look very carefully at taking them, be it by way

of change in policy, change in regulation or, if necessary, change in

legislation. It is my personal observation to members that the results

of the proceedings may very well determine the matter.

The

member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) spoke on the question of

time-sharing. If I understood his comments correctly, his concern or

worry is that this legislation, in his view, would appear to legitimize

— I think that was the word he used — time-sharing. Again, I was not

clear as to the policy alternative which the opposition would propose,

but I would infer from his comments that to go in the other direction

would suggest that the government should have moved to ban time-sharing

or time-share offerings in the province. Obviously, we have not moved

to ban time-sharing or time-share offerings in this province. A number

of members opposite represent constituencies in which time-sharing is

or is about to be a very important part of tourism or the economy of

those areas. For example, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke probably

knows that the concept of time-sharing as we know it today was

virtually invented in his constituency at the St. Ives resort. In my

view, the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy), the member for

Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead), the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr.

Nicolson), the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) and the member for

Comox (Ms.

[ Page 6346 ]

Sanford)

all represent constituencies — and there may well be others — where

important time-sharing developments are either taking place or in the

wings. They are important in the sense that they will be potential

additions to recreation, tourism and local business. For that reason,

we reject the suggestion that time-sharing as such should be abolished.

We do believe that if it is to continue in this province, its rules

should be clearer, more comprehensive and strengthened in terms of

consumer and public protection. We believe that the correct route is

one which enhances, in terms of consumer protection, the manner in

which time-share offerings can be made.

In the age of

growing real estate values and inflation I think time-sharing, if

properly done, has the potential to make a form of real estate

investment a form of vacation much more affordable to working families

in British Columbia. In a very broad parallel, if we could look at the

manner in which condominiums and strata titles have developed over the

last 15 years, after a relatively rocky start, into what is now a

reasonably perfected and, in many cases, quite attractive and

sophisticated form of real estate offering, it would be my hope that

this legislation will help the potential that time-sharing has for that

kind of result.

I'm not saying that the book is closed at

this stage. We will monitor how time-sharing continues to develop in

the province. Members are probably aware that this legislation deals

with time-share offerings, whether they consist of time-sharing

property in or out of the province. I appreciate the member's concern,

and I will be monitoring the success of the new legislation as the year

advances.

The member for Coquitlam-Moody had some further

comments on flipping and option dealers. I think that I have touched on

most of those comments. In closing I would leave this observation for

members, on the question of flipping and the effectiveness of this

approach. For the first time, commencing in September, we are going to

have the ability to collate, analyze and track the data on flipping of

all kinds of real estate in the province. I hope members appreciate

that this legislation goes far beyond just residences. At estimate time

next year I look forward to sharing the data, such as we have, with

members. Let us have a good review of the effectiveness of this

legislation.

In concluding and moving second reading, I

would thank members for their obvious thoughtful concerns. We clearly

have a difference as to how effective

section 28 is going to be in its

new form. I stand to be tested and examined on that next year, as I

say. With that, Mr. Speaker, may I move second reading of Bill 23.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

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

Bill

23, Real Estate Amendment Act, 1981, read a second time and referred to

a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of

the House after today.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

On vote 22: minister's office, $150,500.

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to return to the subject of the sealed

transcripts and the secret evidence. I wanted to say that in the

morning paper we saw that Mr. George Lenko, god bless his soul, has

been hired by the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications

(Hon. Mr. McGeer). Do you know what the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Williams) said about the conference organized by Mr. George Lenko that

led to the phony letter-writing campaign? In one of his candid and

lucid moments, which don't occur very often, the Attorney-General said:

"Whether criminality exists in any letter or not, the practice evident

in these instances discloses, except in justifiable cases where a nom

de plume may be used, a cowardly, reprehensible and irresponsible

attitude involving the use of the medium for the expression of opinion

which has become a traditional feature of our newspapers." One and a

half years later this government pays that much attention to its own

Attorney-General that another minister, a former Liberal colleague of

his, hires the person who shouldered the blame and took the

responsibility for organizing the infamous Bayshore conference.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. We're on vote 22.

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Chairman, the words I quoted were the words of the Attorney-General

of British Columbia. I'm saying that this Attorney-General has no

weight. The one time that he gave a little slap on the wrist to his

Socred colleagues for some of the dirty tricks, they paid no attention

to it whatsoever — not even his old Liberal colleague. That's the kind

of government we have.

MR. KING: How much are they paying George?

MR. MACDONALD: He's just getting $100 a day for 30 days.

MR. KING: Oh, poor George!

MR. MACDONALD:

Maybe that's for starters, I don't know. I see the Minister of Labour

(Hon. Mr. Heinrich). Will you give George a job when the 30 days are

up, Mr. Minister of Labour? Trudeau takes care of his own, but he takes

care of his own who haven't been caught out.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's Raymond Rodgers now when we need him?

MR. MACDONALD: I have his letter of resignation.

would have thought that the Attorney-General would be proud to be not

only the chief law officer of the Crown but also the model of ethical

government, good legislative practices and public morality. Instead of

that, he has a report....

To come back to the ridiculous

assertion he made yesterday to the effect that he can't reveal the

evidence taken by Prelypchan and Vogel, his deputy, with respect to the

Eckardt inquiry to the ombudsman because, he says, it's

solicitor-client privilege under

section 11 of the act, I've never

heard a more ridiculous legal argument in any place — any court, any

legislature, anywhere. The

section says that the ombudsman can't

investigate a decision, recommendation, act or omission "(

b) of a

person acting as solicitor for an authority...." Now presumably the

Attorney-Gen-

[ Page 6347 ]

eral....

Are you the authority? Is that what you're saying? Or is Eckardt the

authority? They weren't acting as solicitors for Eckardt. Dan Campbell,

who, presumably, gave notes of evidence, or else told them to go and

get lost.... We don't know what he said to Norm Prelypchan or to Mr.

Vogel, but he wasn't a solicitor. If the Attorney General is claiming

protection of that section, presumably that refers to legal advice that

he may have received himself. But he spilled the legal advice here in

this House. In his report to the House of August 5, 1980, signed by Mr.

Vogel, he says: "This is my report." The legal opinion is right here;

you've revealed it. If there was a privilege, which there is not —

there could be in respect to a solicitor speaking to you about legal

advice.... You've revealed it; you've blown it right here. So you have

the right to, of course, waive the privilege, and you did, in fact,

waive the privilege.

Then that report discusses the evidence

that was taken: Miss Tamoto was interviewed and asked what her facts

were; she replied and so forth. Do you really think you can play

peekaboo, Mr. Attorney-General, and say: "I'm going to reveal the

opinion of my solicitor, my deputy minister, here and give that to the

House. I'm going to reveal some of the evidence that he has gathered

from people, who obviously weren't solicitors — transcripts of evidence

taken in the courthouse and other places — but I'm only going to reveal

to you what helps the government; the rest of it you shall never see"?

Now that's hiding evidence. If you're going to reveal part of the

evidence, you reveal it all. There isn't a court or a legislature in

the land that would let any Attorney-General or any other minister of

the Crown get away with that — just show the stuff that gets this

government off the hook. Clean at last! The cleanup man for the Social

Credit government. I'll just show you a little tip-off. The ombudsman

wasn't very far wrong in his 1980 report to the Legislature, whence he

had this to say about the Attorney-General's ministry. He said:

"Since

this particular ministry has unique kinds of responsibilities" — so it

has — "it was inevitable that, sooner or later, various jurisdictional

questions would arise with respect to my investigations. In such

situations, I had expected to find in the Attorney General's ministry a

recognition of the spirit and intent of the Ombudsman Act" — and he had

every right to say that, of all the departments of government, this one

would back up his investigations in the spirit and the letter —

"reflected in a willingness to find permissible ways of allowing my

investigations to proceed out of respect for the interests of

complainants, or the public interest generally. Instead, I have often

encountered a self-protective, narrow, legalistic approach, and one can

almost believe that finding jurisdictional or procedural fine points to

block or endlessly delay my investigations presents a more exhilarating

challenge than cooperating for the resolution of citizens'

difficulties."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

MR. MACDONALD:

What the ombudsman said there is nothing to what he ought to say about

the Attorney-General sitting on vital evidence relating to an

investigation that the ombudsman has properly embarked on. To say that

that is privileged under that

section is an absolutely ridiculous legal

argument. If it is, waive it, Mr. Attorney-General. You're the client,

eh? You can waive it, if that applies, but obviously it doesn't. You

waived it with respect to all of the evidence favourable to the

government. Why don't you waive it and let the public see all of the

evidence? It's peekaboo, hugger-mugger justice; hide the evidence.

I'm

going to sit down for a moment. I suggest that the Attorney-General has

a duty, We're asking him, after a spirited debate, to make available

the notes of evidence taken in the Vogel commission, which he has

refused to show the Legislature. Make them available to the ombudsman

in the legitimate investigation he's carrying on, and don't fight him.

The Attorney-General isn't like a criminal defence lawyer, saying: "I

can defend. I don't have to answer that question. This is not evidence.

I can hide this. I can take this technical objection." The

Attorney-General of British Columbia is supposed to be cooperating in

terms of legitimate investigations under legislation to bring the truth

out.

Supposing one of those witnesses who made a statement

had disappeared. The ombudsman will never see what he said to the

investigator. When Dan Campbell was asked, "Did the Premier know that

you had asked Dale Mearns to send a special plane to Victoria to fly

over their own political maps so that Eckardt would have them before he

made his decision?" supposing Dan Campbell had said, "Get lost," to Mr.

Prelypchan and Mr. Vogel. Would that not be something that the

ombudsman should know if he's to get to the bottom of this thing? Of

course it is.

It's unbelievable to me that the

Attorney-General should hide behind this absolutely phony so-called

technical objection he's got in

section 11, and say the transcripts

shall not be made available and the evidence taken shall not be made

available. This government passed the legislation, the Ombudsman Act.

For heaven's sake, live up to your own legislation. I suppose the

ombudsman could lay a charge against the Attorney-General, because

there is obviously no privilege, and say: "This man is blocking me in

my legitimate investigation." No one wants that to happen, but the

powers are there.

We've asked that the whole matter of

stealing an election, of fixing electoral boundaries.... It was

gerrymandering of the worst kind. It's obvious from what happened that

it was. But we've also said — and there is abundant evidence to show

it; the Attorney-General half admits it, because he ordered his own

investigation — that there may very well have been foul play as well:

direct political interference; political considerations overruling

public policy in the distribution of electoral boundaries in this

province.

We have already asked him to refer it to an

independent authority to hold an open hearing so the public will see

the evidence. Then if we're wrong, we're wrong, and we'll take our

lickings. Instead of that we get shots at us from Eckardt, who says the

worms have come out of the woodwork. Presumably he's referring to

something we're saying; I don't know. The Minister of Lands, Parks and

Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) agrees with that, because Mr. Eckardt was

always their boy. When he made that statement, he was referring to the

opposition, of course. The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing agrees

with that statement by nodding his head — unless he's sleepy, and I

don't believe that because it's only 11 o'clock in the morning.

The

simple question to the Attorney-General on his estimates is: will you

cooperate as you're required to do by law and make available all papers

relating to this matter so the ombudsman can do his duty? Whatever the

decision is, I

[ Page 6348 ]

would

think it would be accepted by the public of British Columbia. But when

you say, "No, this you won't see; that you won't see; that I'm hiding;

I'll give you a little bit of the evidence, but I won't give you all of

it," that is totally unacceptable.

MR. KEMPF: Mr.

Chairman, I've listened intently to the members opposite in this

debate, and particularly to their critic the former Attorney-General of

this province. Isn't it typical of those members opposite — the

muckraking, the guttersniping and a literal barrage of personal

attacks? I suppose that's all we're going to hear from the members

opposite in this minister's estimates, because it's all those people

over there know.

I want to talk about things which really

concern the people of this province — things other than the people's

concern for a completely ineffective opposition, an opposition bankrupt

of any sound policy. All they do is come in here and muckrake. Personal

attacks! Their only resort is to throw dirt and hope that if they throw

enough of it, some of it will stick. They don't want to talk about the

real concerns. I want to talk about those real concerns. But before

doing so I'd like to remind this House of something. The members

opposite have delighted in talking about the Eckardt report. They have

attempted to have the people of British Columbia believe there is some

government wrongdoing in regard to that report. They won't accept the

validity of the Attorney-General's investigation. In order to attempt

to make that mud stick they have dreamed up a catchy phrase like

"Gracie's Finger." Very cute. What they don't want to talk about and

what we don't hear anything about in this chamber is a report they

commissioned back in 1975, just before they were thrown out of office

by the people of this province. It was a report on electoral-boundary

reform. Had it not been for the fact that they were turfed out of

office, they'd have put it into effect. I'm calling on the

Attorney-General to say that possibly we need an investigation into

that report.

They talk about gerrymandering and Gracie's

Finger. What utter gall! I have that report in my hands — the Norris

report — which was commissioned by that administration back in 1975.

They talk about "whose boy?" Whose boy was Norris? You say that he

wasn't a friend of the NDP?

MR. LAUK: On a point of

order, perhaps the hon. member does not know that a person who cannot

answer for himself, either in this House or outside of it —

particularly a distinguished jurist who served this province for a

great many years.... The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing laughs

because of his own abysmal ignorance of the career of Mr. Justice Tom

Norris.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you're on a point of order.

MR. LAUK:

All I'm saying is that anybody who is cowardly enough to attack in this

chamber a man who is deceased should be made to withdraw his remarks or

put up or shut up. If he wants to stand out in the corridor and make

those charges let him do so, but he should not hide in here like a

coward.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, notwithstanding

the fact that a member has what he feels to be a legitimate point of

order, during the presentation of that point of order it is incumbent

upon the member himself to remain in order. The point made by the

member bears consideration by the member currently addressing the

committee.

MR. KEMPF: They can sure dish it out, but

they can't take it, can they? What about Judge Eckardt? What about the

things they've said in this House about him? Would they say them out in

the corridor?

MR. LAUK: I have.

MR. COCKE: Everything's been said outside.

MR. KEMPF: Hypocrites!

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please, hon. members. Possibly we could resolve this matter by

reminding ourselves that under vote 22 we are discussing the

administrative responsibility of the Attorney-General, and we are

dealing with the estimates presently before us. While reference has

been made to the matters regarding the Eckardt commission, members must

remind themselves that matters referred to the ombudsman are one thing,

but to go back over the actual commission itself into a previous annual

period does not fall within the purview of vote 22.

MR. KEMPF:

I was saying to the Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Chairman, that

possibly we need an investigation into the Norris report. The NDP talks

about gerrymandering and a Gracie's Finger. I want to show you a

finger. Let's talk about a whole arm with a whole hand attached and

with all the fingers. They talk about gerrymandering. The member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) smiles. He knows of the whole arm, with

all fingers and hands attached, in the Norris report. He knows what

they suggested for the new riding of Columbia–West Kootenay. It's very

clear on this map. And the socialists opposite talk about

gerrymandering. What utter gall. Gerrymandering indeed! Gracie's Finger

indeed! Whose finger is this — whose arm, Mr. Former Attorney-General,

is this? What political interference made this possible? They'd have

put it into effect, had they not got turfed out in 1975.

They

talk about one of the boys. I'm sure that everyone in this House knows

that Mr. Norris' wife ran for the NDP in this province. Yes, she was a

socialist candidate and ran against the member for Dewdney (Mr.

Mussallem) in 1979. They talk about friends and political interference.

Ask the member for Dewdney; he knows. Who was the counsel for the

commission on that report? Who was it, Mr. Former Attorney General? You

tell me. It was a fellow by the name of Peter Leask, and as everyone in

this chamber knows, he's certainly not a Social Crediter.

Gerrymandering indeed! Gracie's Finger indeed!

They think

they're as clean as clean can be. I want to tell you they're not, and

they talk about fingers and gerrymandering. They figure if they can

throw enough mud, they might make some of it stick. Let's hear both

sides of the story. Let's tell the whole story. They mentioned the

dirty tricks affair this morning. I'd like to talk about that for a

while, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Hon. members, again I must remind members that we are on vote 22, which

is the Ministry of the Attorney-General, the minister's office and

[ Page 6349 ]

administrative responsibility thereof. To go back, as the member indicates he's about to, would be out of order. I so rule.

MR. KEMPF:

I was going to ask the Attorney-General if there should be an

investigation into this dirty trick. The members opposite have talked

about letters to the editor. What about the letters to the editor that

were written to some of my newspapers in my constituency? Maybe we

should have an investigation in regard to this situation. I have a

letter in my hand from Mr. Bruce Canary. I'm sure we all know who Mr.

Bruce Canary is, and I'm sure the members opposite do anyway. He was

just nominated recently as my next opponent in the next election,

whenever that is. I have a letter here written by him back in November

of 1979. It reads as follows:

"Dear Mr. Kempf:

"This

letter is to inform you that editorial letters signed by Mr. M. Unruh

are written by myself. The reason for this is to keep my personal

political views separate from my function as president of the

Vanderhoof Environmental Society as requested by the members of that

society.

Yours truly."

They

talk about writing letters to the editor under phony names. At this

time he was secretary of the Omineca NDP Association. He's now a

candidate for the socialists over there, and they talk about dirty

tricks. They curb the market on dirty tricks.

I don't really

want to talk about these things in this minister's estimates. I would

like to deal with those things which are of real concern to the people

of this province. They're not worried about the muckraking and the

guttersniping that goes on in this chamber — or they certainly

shouldn't be. But they are seriously concerned about some very serious

matters that confront our society today.

I want to know, as

do many of the citizens of British Columbia, what we in this chamber

are going to do about the virtual holocaust which now exists on our

highways. What are we going to do about the wholesale slaughter

happening daily out there on the roads and highways of this province?

The member for Dewdney said it very well yesterday. I want to know what

the minister has in mind regarding that most serious concern to our

province. What does he intend to do in order to put a stop to this

useless loss of life, particularly among our young people, our teenage

citizens? It's a horrendous and useless loss of life and a horrendous

loss of property, causing untold mental and emotional hardships to many

innocent people, and all of us have to pick up the tab, as well as the

pieces — the tab of untold millions of dollars in health costs and

increased insurance rates. My first question to the Attorney-General

is: what are we going to do about that? It's of real concern to many

people of this province.

I would also like to ask the

Attorney-General what he has in mind for government direction in

tightening up our justice system. In my mind, we have become a

jellyfish society. I believe that the citizens of this province are

generally fed up with the kid-glove approach to law enforcement, an

approach which clearly is not working. For whatever reason, we have

become a far too lenient society. From what I have heard and seen out

there among the public of this province, the people want a change. They

are ready as never before for a harsher approach to those convicted of

breaking the law. Vandalism and the flagrant abuse of most of the laws

of this province and laws of all kinds — not only in this province, but

in this entire country — have reached impossible proportions. We coddle

the lawbreaker. The leniency regarding law enforcement and the

treatment of lawbreakers when incarcerated virtually lends credence to

the breaking of the law. I think this morning's Province

and the half-page story in it is a clear indication of what the people

of this province and of this entire country are looking for. The news

story is headed: "Courts Are Failing To Protect Society. On Judges and

Jailers and the Legal Paddycake Along the Way." There's a subheading:

"Judges Should Realize They Are Too Permissive." I believe that. I

believe this fellow by the name of Glen Dalke, publisher of the Peace River Block Daily newspaper, who says:

am sick and tired of hearing of people who have been arrested for one

crime or another and released on bail, only to go out and commit yet

another offence.

"The penal system was at one

time a way to protect society from these criminal types and, when the

judiciary followed the old adage of punishment fitting the crime, it

worked well; however, our society's permissiveness has now infiltrated

this body that was set up to protect us."

There's a great,

strong feeling out there for tightening up our justice system. It's

about time that we in this province took the lead. We have seen what

the federal leadership has done in this area. We have seen what Trudeau

has done, supported by the federal NDP and the members over there, the

provincial NDP. They're all socialists in the same basket. I wish the

member for Vancouver East were here, but I see he has left his chair. I

hope he's listening on his speaker.

MR. LAUK: To what?

MR. KEMPF:

Listening to what's being said, Mr. Member for Vancouver Centre. You

above all should be listening to this; you, a lawyer in this province,

I would suggest you get your paper and read this story.

know what Trudeau has done in this area. We know what his leadership,

supported by the socialist party at all levels, has done in regard to

this situation: the abolition of the death penalty, gun control,

putting guns in the hands of only the lawbreakers, lenient moral laws

of all kinds. We've seen that over the last 11 or 12 years. Yes, we

know what the federal Liberals, supported by the federal NDP and this

province's official opposition, have done. They have created a

jellyfish, no-backbone society in this country, one which particularly

the people of this province are fed up with.

We've got to

get tougher. We've got to take a strong, positive approach to law

enforcement and the treatment of those who have broken the law in

British Columbia. That's my second question to the Attorney-General.

What are we prepared to do at this time in order to carry out the

wishes and will of the people of this province to tighten up our

justice system?

MR. KING: We've just heard from

Attila, the advocate of the rack. I'm not sure whether we should call

him that or the $4,000 maverick, but whichever, I don't think his

ramblings contributed greatly. The only two things he said which it

occurred to me were deserving of any response were the suggestion that

the opposition is involved in some personal thing.... I want to confirm

that that's the truth. I want to tell the member for Omineca (Mr.

Kempf) and his colleagues why the Eckardt gerrymander was a very

personal thing to

[ Page 6350 ]

indeed. I had my riding abolished as a result of the partisan

recommendations of the Eckardt commission. Eckardt was not a judge at

the time of his appointment; he was a former judge. He was also a

former Social Credit candidate for provincial elections on two

occasions, unlike Chief Justice Tom Norris, who had a distinguished

career as a jurist and was a known Conservative — no supporter of the

NDP. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that unlike the Eckardt thing,

where one partisan former Social Credit candidate was appointed.... It

eliminated my own riding, which had some 11,000 voters; it preserved

the riding of the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr.

Chabot) with some 6,000 voters; it preserved the constituency of Atlin,

which was held at the time by a Social Credit member with about 3,200

voters; it abolished Revelstoke-Slocan, with 10,000 voters; it

abolished Burrard, with two NDP members — and that guy has the

unmitigated gall to compare the two inquiries into electoral boundary

reform.

The other thing, of course, is that we didn't

appoint one partisan political supporter, as the Socreds did; we

appointed a three-person panel, composed of Chief Justice Norris;

Lawrie Wallace, who is an outstanding and long-term public servant and

is at this particular time in the private office of the Premier —

hardly an NDPer — and a person from the University of British Columbia.

It was a credible tribunal to sit and make decisions with respect to

electoral boundary reform. Be that as it may, I think it's a bit

regrettable — let me put it that way — that that member is prepared to

make very uncomplimentary statements about the late Judge Tom Norris.

He's not able to defend himself now. It's true that Judge Norris' wife

was an NDP candidate — after his death and long after the report came

out. Be that as it may, I don't think it behooves any member of the

Legislature to call into question the integrity of somebody who is

deceased, and somebody who had a very distinguished record, not only on

the court benches of the province of British Columbia but on the

supreme court too. I think that's regrettable.

I think the

irony is that the member then comes on with a ringing cry for better

law enforcement. He wants to get tough. He wants to make the justice

system work a little better. Well, that's what the debate has been all

about. The opposition has been trying to persuade the Attorney-General

that there should be one standard of justice in this province for all

citizens, not a different standard for Social Credit supporters.

AN HON. MEMBER: Muckraking.

MR. KING:

That's called into question when a partisan report like the Eckardt

report comes out, when there are serious questions as to the method in

which that commission was undertaken, when there was serious question

about Danny Campbell's involvement in drawing the electoral boundaries,

and when indeed that whole matter has become the subject of an

investigation by the Attorney-General himself, which he chooses to keep

secret and which is now the subject of further inquiries by the

ombudsman of the province of British Columbia. It's not the

opposition's fault. It's no use pointing the finger at the opposition

benches and saying: "You're muckraking." It's not our fault. We

criticized the Eckardt commission when it was set up. We said you

shouldn't appoint a partisan friend of yours, because that calls into

question....

MR. KEMPF: It's not your fault you're muckraking. Is that what you're saying? You're in the gutter all the time. That's all you know.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, don't let him bother you. Empty vessels make the most noise. I wouldn't worry about him at all.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just let me ask the member for Omineca not to interrupt, please.

MR. KING:

Perhaps he was hopeful that he could make a more intelligent

contribution from his seat than he made when he was on his feet.

Perhaps we have some empathy with that proposition.

The

question is whether or not the Eckardt commission was fair and just and

whether it was conducted appropriately. We have some reservations about

that. Initially, on the basis that former Judge Eckardt was also a

partisan Socred, we had reservations about his ability to be impartial

when he had that kind of an affiliation with one of the major parties

in this province. The other questions that came to light were revealed

not by the opposition but by the media, in terms of alleged changes to

those boundaries after the commissioner had finished his report, with

suggestions and inferences that perhaps the Minister of Human Resources

(Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) had some role in the changes in those boundaries

all of which became known as the infamous Gracie's Finger affair. There

was another question about Dan Campbell's involvement — the delivery of

maps from his office to the commissioner's, a very partisan arrangement.

the basis of that prima facie case of impropriety, the Attorney-General

conducted his own investigation. Now the ombudsman has been asked to

investigate and is trying to mount an investigation. What this debate

is all about is simply trying to persuade the Attorney-General that he,

as the chief law enforcement officer in this province, has an

obligation to cooperate with the ombudsman. He has an obligation to see

that the evidence is put on the table, because, after all, it was an

investigation commissioned at public expense. The taxpayers who paid

for that investigation have a right to know. They're mature enough to

know. The proposition that this Attorney-General has to sit on that

evidence leaves a further inference that there is a coverup here, that

there is evidence that the Attorney-General does not want revealed to

the public because it would further call into question the impartiality

of the whole electoral boundary reform affair. That's what the debate

is about.

If the member for Omineca is genuinely concerned

about a high standard of justice in this province, he should be on his

feet saying to the Attorney-General: "Yes, by all means let us ensure

that there is complete public knowledge and complete public access to

all of the evidence that was uncovered in that investigation."

Otherwise, the inevitable conclusion that the public will draw is that

there are indeed two standards of justice in this province — one for

the unwashed public and another for Social Credit and their friends.

What other conclusion can one draw from the fact that the

Attorney-General has stonewalled for over a year now and sat on the

results of that investigation? If you have nothing to hide, Mr.

Attorney General, then release all of the evidence that was adduced

from your investigation into that affair. The ombudsman has

[ Page 6351 ]

right to know; he was given the right to know under a statute

introduced by your own government. To now take the position that you

refuse to reveal this evidence — that you refuse to reveal the

transcripts that were taken by your representative, Norm Prelypchan, in

interrogating these witnesses and in looking at documents — is to

indicate, or certainly to imply, that you indeed have something to hide

that would be a political embarrassment were it revealed. If that is

not the case, I certainly would be very happy to hear it; I would be

very happy for the credibility of the law in this province to have you

stand in your place, Mr. Attorney-General, and say: "This government

has nothing to hide; all of the books, all of the transcripts, all of

the records of interrogations are on the table for the ombudsman to

freely peruse." What's wrong with that?

What's wrong with

that, if you want to make sure that the integrity of the law is

preserved, that people are satisfied and have respect and confidence in

the law, that there is an even-handed application of that law to all

British Columbians — whether or not they are friends of the government,

whether or not they have friends in high places or whether or not they

are some average working persons out in the boondocks of this province?

The very integrity of the law itself requires that the Attorney-General

of all people be above reproach in protecting the integrity of the law.

When we have an unwilling representative in that chair at the moment,

who has conducted an investigation at public expense and who has

assigned competent staff from his ministry to look at the documents and

to interrogate the witnesses, but then comes forward and refuses to

reveal those details either to this Legislature or to the ombudsman,

then he cannot expect anything but to have cynicism directed at him. He

cannot expect anything but to have suspicions raised that there is a

reason for him to hide this evidence, to protect the political

interests of the government. That's regrettable coming from the chief

law enforcement officer of the province. That's the issue here, pure

and simple.

Mr. Chairman, we had a case not too many years

ago, not in this country but south of the border, where evidence was

deliberately smothered and stonewalled. Everyone remembers the

18-minute gap in the tapes of a former President. That left a bad taste

in the mouths of voters on both sides of the border. Why give even the

faint impression or taint of anything similar here?

I'm not

over-exaggerating the thing. I'm not suggesting that the

Attorney-General was involved in the kind of serious improprieties that

took place south of the border. I'm simply suggesting that it is

important for public confidence that all of the data be put on the

table. This Legislature deserves that. The people of the province of

British Columbia are mature enough to make their own assessments, given

the chance. I suggest that the Attorney-General, for the sake of his

office, take a similar position and put it on the table and assure the

House that the ombudsman will receive the full support and cooperation of his office in prosecuting his own investigation.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Chairman, I think that this matter was canvassed at some length

yesterday. But in view of the wild exaggerations and hyperbole in which

the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke has just engaged, I think it may be

appropriate that the position be clearly restated. The ombudsman is

embarked on an investigation into the entirety of matters associated

with the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform. He has available to him

and will have available to him all of the material associated with that

royal commission's task, plus the opportunity to interview and use his

considerable powers to ascertain from every person who was associated

with that royal commission what their roles in the final result might

have been.

MR. LAUK: What are you afraid of, Al?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I fear nothing.

is appropriate that the ombudsman, in the exercise of his

responsibility and in dealing with the complaint which is before him,

make his own investigation. The review which was made of these matters

by officials of the Ministry of Attorney-General a year or so ago did

not deal with the matters which are before the ombudsman. There was an

allegation which, if substantiated, would likely have led to criminal

proceedings. That is the responsibility of the Attorney-General. For

that purpose it was my role, with the assistance of my officials, to

examine that one narrow aspect of the matter. Examination did not

support the allegations, and I so reported to this House. It's quite a

different matter from the subject which is before the ombudsman for his

consideration. That is a distinction which the ombudsman himself

recognizes.

I want to answer, at some length, the

appropriate questions which were raised by the member for Omineca. I

doubt that the time remaining before adjournment is appropriate. I

therefore move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit

again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:01 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1981,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada