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)

TUESDAY, JUNE 11, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3895 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Recreational Land Green Belt Encouragement Act (Bill

15).

Hon. Mr. Barrett.

Introduction and first reading — 3895

British Columbia Noise Control Act (Bill 161). Mr.

Gabelmann.

Introduction and first reading — 3895

Oral Questions

Suggested plebiscite on right to strike of police and

firemen.

Mr. Chabot — 3895

Emergency programme for flooding in Interior. Mr. D'Arcy — 3895

Delay in inspection of damaged vehicles by adjusters.

Mr. Fraser — 3896

Ramifications of court decision on Nishga Indians.

Mr. Gardom — 3896

Government purchase of firemen's hangar.

Mr. Morrison — 3897

Fuel oil subsidy for renters. Mr. Smith — 3897

Payment for housing consultant. Mr. Wallace — 3897

Energy Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 18). Committee stage.

Amendment to

section 1.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3898

section 1 as amended.

Mr. Gibson — 3898

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3898

Mr. Smith — 3899

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3899

Mr. Wallace — 3899

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3900

Mr. Smith — 3901

Report stage — 3901

Forest Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 117). Second reading.

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3901

Mr. Chabot — 3903

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3903

Mr. Smith — 3903

Mr. Gibson — 3903

Mr. Wallace — 3904

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 3905

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3905

Interpretation Act (Bill 153). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3907

Mr. Smith — 3907

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3907

Mr. Gardom — 3908

Mr. Wallace — 3909

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3910

Public Officials and Employees Disclosure Act (Bill 85).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3910

Mr. McClelland — 3911

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3912

Mr. Cummings — 3914

Mr. Curtis — 3915

Mr. Liden — 3916

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3917

Mr. Wallace — 3919

Mr. D'Arcy — 3922

Mr. Phillips — 3922

Hon. Mr. King — 3924

TUESDAY, JUNE 11, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, I'd like to file with the House

the report from the technical subcommittee on televising,

pursuant to the parliamentary practice and procedure Act,

submitted to me yesterday.

Introduction of bills.

RECREATIONAL LAND GREEN BELT

ENCOURAGEMENT ACT

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

Administrator: a bill intituled Recreational Land Green Belt

Encouragement Act .

Bill 15 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.

BRITISH COLUMBIA NOISE CONTROL ACT

On a motion by Mr. Gabelmann, Bill 161, British Columbia

Noise Control Act , introduced, read a first time and

ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at

the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

SUGGESTED PLEBISCITE ON

POLICE AND FIREMEN RIGHT TO STRIKE

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): To the Minister of Labour:

the mayor of Vancouver stated that the legislation allowing

policemen and firemen the right to strike is stupid. Is the

Minister prepared to change the Labour Code, consider the

suggestions of the mayor and hold a plebiscite to decide this

question?

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I hardly

consider the opinion of the mayor of Vancouver justification

for changing the legislation. That's one man's opinion and he's

entitled to his own opinion.

With respect to conducting a plebiscite, his worship is also

free to conduct plebiscites at any point in time — that's

nothing to do with the jurisdiction of my office. If he chooses

to resign on the basis of the plebiscite, that is also his

right.

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary question. Is the Minister unwilling to let the people decide on this critical

public issue?

MR. SPEAKER: I think that's rhetorical.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): On a

supplementary, Mr. Speaker — the Minister mentions that the

mayor is entirely free to hold a plebiscite on the question of

restricting the right to strike of police and fireman. Would

the Minister follow the advice of such a plebiscite if it were

held?

HON. MR. KING: Certainly not a plebiscite in the City of

Vancouver. Legislation applies to the total province, not just

the City of Vancouver.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): A supplementary on that

question, Mr. Speaker. Has the Minister attempted to ascertain

whether there are any contingency plans for maintenance of fire

and police protection in the event of a strike?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, my department is not responsible

for contingency plans. I would rather not deal on a

hypothetical crisis that may occur. I would rather hope that

those people in these crucial public interest areas would take

cognizance of their responsibilities and act accordingly in a

responsible fashion. Very few issues are settled through the

public media; very few issues are settled through making

public statements. I think that if the parties in the Vancouver

police dispute give serious consideration to the third-party

recommendations of the industrial inquiry commissioner, then I

think they can find a basis for a solution without the public

being confronted with some unpalatable crisis.

EMERGENCY PROGRAMME FOR

POSSIBLE FLOODING

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

direct a question to the Provincial Secretary, under his

responsibility for the Provincial Emergency Programme.

Yesterday, June 10, was the first day in 1974 that

temperatures at three southern Interior points — Castlegar,

Penticton, and Princeton — exceeded 80 degrees, in fact they

were up in the mid-80s. Temperatures again today are into the

mid-80s in those areas. There's a tremendous amount of snow in

the mountains, and I can expect that the water courses and the

rivers all across the southern Interior, even the central

Interior, will start to be running off. I would like to know

the general state of preparedness of the emergency programme to

deal with the situation should we get into a flooding

problem.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr.

[ Page 3896 ]

Speaker, the rather unusual fact that surrounded this

situation we are in regarding flooding is that while the

temperatures during the day have been just a little bit below

seasonal, and now at the seasonal point, the temperatures

during the nighttime have been very much below seasonal. From

that we should be thankful because that, I think, has been the

main reason why we're not standing knee deep in water in very

many places throughout the province.

The latest information I have — I get it just about every

day for question period — is that about 25 to 30 per cent of

the run-off has already taken place. It's coming off at the

rate of two-thirds of 1 per cent per day which is now being

accelerated, Mr. Member, because of those temperatures you

mentioned, to just over 1 per cent today. There is a lot of

evaporation which is another helpful fact.

If we continue to get cold evenings and cold nights for

another 10 days we may, and I think we're all hopeful, skid

through a chink in the armour of the disaster, and escape the

kind of levels that we were talking about a month ago.

The freezing level is at 6,700 feet in Prince George, 10,800

feet in Vernon and so on. We'll see us, perhaps, escape the

disaster that we were honestly looking at three or four weeks

ago. That's the position as far as the snow and the water and

the runoff is concerned.

As far as the programme is concerned, everything that is

possible is being done. The federal government have announced

their assistance.

We have responded to that assistance with cooperation and a

request to meet as many times as necessary to make sure that

all the men, machinery and work can take place.

I'm advised daily, and I think that we're in good shape to

protect ourselves.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): To the Hon. Provincial

Secretary, a supplementary: where an area is not in itself

declared a disaster area is the government prepared to look at

individual cases that have suffered extreme stress above the

average high-water line?

HON. MR. HALL: The answer is yes. We don't, nor have we

ever, I think, Madam Member, gone the American route of

declaring something a disaster area. I don't think we've taken

up that particular language. So I don't really want to see us

inadvertently get into that language. Rather we have dealt with

the problems on their merits, which is what you are asking us

to do. Therefore the answer is yes, we will continue to look

upon them on their merits.

DELAY IN INSPECTION OF

DAMAGED VEHICLES BY ADJUSTERS

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): A question to the Minister of

Transport and Communications: is he aware that it takes a week

to get an adjuster to even look at damaged vehicles in towns

such as Mackenzie, McBride, Vanderhoof and Fort St. James? If he

is aware of it, what is he doing about it?

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: Come on then; on your feet!

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): I'm sorry.

I just got handed this note that's topical and I was reading it. Sorry, what

was the question?

MR. FRASER: I'll repeat it, Mr. Speaker, now that the

Minister has awakened himself.

Does the Minister know that it takes at least a week to get

an adjuster to look at a damaged vehicle in towns such as

Mackenzie, McBride, Vanderhoof and Fort St. James? If he is

aware of it, what is he doing about it to increase the service

to these deserving citizens?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mackenzie, McBride and where else?

MR. FRASER: Vanderhoof and Fort St. James.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Vanderhoof and Fort St. James. No, I

wasn't aware of it. I'll certainly check into it this

afternoon.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): To the

Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker….

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: What have I got on, ma'am?

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, I don't ask what you've got on, ma'am.

(Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

RAMIFICATIONS OF COURT

DECISION ON NISHGA INDIANS

MR. GARDOM: To the Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker: the

government Indian advisory committee report states that the

Supreme Court of Canada Nishga decision was "hailed by Indian

leaders across

[ Page

3897 ]

the province as a victory because it was the first time the

aboriginal titles had been given full legal recognition."

I'd ask the Hon. Attorney-General if the Indian people in

B.C. will now be able to be assured that that victory will

become a practical victory. And will your government, Mr.

Attorney-General, be accepting the principle that B.C. native

Indians have a valid aboriginal rights claim against the

Province of British Columbia?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, it

would be transgressing the rules of this House to announce

future government policy at question period.

MR. SPEAKER: That's correct.

MR. GARDOM: Does that mean you're taking the question as

notice, Mr. Attorney-General?

MR. SPEAKER: I think the question is out of order. As you

know, you are asking for future policy, I believe.

MR. GARDOM: No, it may be policy as of today, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Apparently not, from what the Minister

says.

GOVERNMENT PURCHASE

OF FIREMEN'S HANGAR

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, my question is

addressed to the Minister of Public Works. Has the government

purchased the hangar at Victoria Airport which was formerly

occupied by the flying fireman?

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): We are

considering doing that.

MR. MORRISON: Would you explain to the House, then, what the

current situation is with hangars at the airport? How many do

we now own, and what will their use be?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: As you know, we own and service several

aircraft.

MR. MORRISON: Hangars, I want to know.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: We feel that this is a very good opportunity, a very

good buy, for some rental space that we have now. It's just too good an opportunity

to pass up.

MR. MORRISON: Would the Minister then advise the House when

the deal is completed — if they have in fact purchased it — without being asked?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I'd be pleased to give you a full report

as soon as the deal is consummated.

FUEL OIL SUBSIDY FOR RENTERS

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, my

question is to the Hon. Attorney-General. The Hon.

Attorney-General announced yesterday a plan or a scheme to

subsidize the home heating costs of fuel oil for homeowners.

Will this include people who rent homes or apartments?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: What we announced yesterday in the form

of legislation were enabling powers to allow such a programme

to be put in place. We did not announce the programme as such.

But I would think that the legislation would be broad enough to

encompass the bills of tenants as well as the bills of

residential owners if we decide to take those steps.

PAYMENT FOR HOUSING CONSULTANT

Mr. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Minister of

Housing, with regard to the Champlain Heights co-operative

development in which Mr. Al Koehli acted as consultant, whether

Mr. Koehli has received payment for that service and how

much?

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): No payment, Mr.

Member.

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary: since his consultation, Mr.

Speaker, resulted in a reduction of 25 per cent in the

projected costs, could the Minister tell us what basic changes

Mr. Koehli proposed to bring about such a cost reduction?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, I think you'd have to ask that

between the two parties. It's between Kanada Co-operative and

the builders, and it's not really with the provincial

government. In fact, any mortgage moneys will be provided by

Central Mortgage and Housing there. It's on land which is owned

by the provincial government and sold to the provincial

government by the City of Vancouver on the condition and

understanding that it be made available to the Champlain

Heights Co-op, as it was then called — now called Kanada

Co-op.

MR. WALLACE: Another supplementary, Mr.

[ Page 3898 ]

Speaker: does the Minister know if other companies who were

bidding on the contract were given the same opportunity as was

given to Community Builders to reduce the cost?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, I believe that there were two

companies that bid on the reduced, revised project. I think

that they contacted 24 companies in all asking for

participation in this project.

MR. WALLACE: Given revised figures?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I believe after revised figures, yes.

MR. GARDOM: You indicated, Mr. Minister, that Mr. Koehli did

not receive any consulting fees for this project. Are any

moneys owing to him or anyone in his behalf for consulting

services to either Champlain Heights project?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, no one in my employ has, and I

understand that he hasn't received any from the Champlain

Heights Co-op either.

MR. GARDOM: Did he perform consulting services for this

project which eventually Community Builders bid on and received

the contract for?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I believe that he helped revise plans and

gave advice. There was an architect doing the project; but he

gave advice to the architect on ways and means by which it

could be improved.

MR. GARDOM: Was that gratuitous advice?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: Was he paid for it?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, some people do do things out of

good faith, you know.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Public bills and orders, Mr.

Speaker. Committee on Bill 18.

ENERGY AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 18; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

section 1.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): I move the amendment

standing in my name on the order paper to

section 1. (See

appendix.)

Amendment approved.

section 1 as amended.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Chairman,

could you tell me whether we're on the amendment or on the

section as amended at the moment?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Section 1 as amended.

MR. GIBSON:

Section 1 as amended. Well, it's the same

question in either case. The word "seller" is used both in the

main

section and in the amendment. Could the Attorney-General

make it clear whether "seller" includes retail gasoline outlets

and retail fuel oil outlets?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I would think the answer is yes.

MR. GIBSON: A further question under the amended

section 1

and what is listed as

section 75 in

Part IV of the Act. Noting

that the commission may require seller to furnish to the

commission accurate detailed information relating to the cost

of any of its operations and of the production, refining and so

on of petroleum products I would ask the Attorney-General if

the intent of this legislation is that such information could

be required wherever those operations might be situated, or if

it relates only to operations, cost and so on within the

Province of British Columbia and, if it does have force only

within the Province of British Columbia, how that might act to

vitiate the effectiveness of the Act.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I would think that a company, let's say

an oil company, refining and doing business in the Province of

British Columbia but having its financial accounting procedure,

say, in Toronto, would be required under the subpoena power of

this

section to produce that financial information.

MR. GIBSON: But, for example, if a portion of the crude that

the company was using in its British Columbia refining operations was shipped in from Alberta, would the commission

have the power to require cost data on those Alberta

operations, or would it simply accept the border transfer price

as prima facie valid?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, if it was one integrated operation

where the same company which was refining and selling in B.C. was also producing the

crude, I would think they'd have to furnish the crude audited

information as well. But if it was not an

[ Page 3899 ]

integrated operation, there is no way in which we could look

into the crude costs in Alberta.

MR. GIBSON: I wonder then if the Attorney-General would

expect that companies might for example set up subsidiaries for

the exact purpose of making this line of demarcation at the

British Columbia border.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I certainly hope not. That would be a

way of trying to hide financial costs of a product, and I would

hope that wouldn't happen.

MR. GIBSON: One other question I have with respect to what

would be

section 78 under

Part IV of the Act — it notes here at

the end: "and if the accused person pleads or alleges that the

petroleum products are not for use in the province the burden

of proof shall be upon the accused person." I am not one

learned in the law, but I thought that the burden of proof was

generally on the person making the charge on the other side. I

wonder if the Attorney-General could explain the necessity for

this.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, in public utilities

legislation, where all of the essential facts and data are in

the hands of the company, it is a different situation from a

charge; that company is then required to table or produce that

factual information or data. In that sense, the burden is on

them to come forward and explain the position.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): In reading these

amendments, I believe that almost all of the amendments on the

order paper are included in

section 1, so it would be in order

to speak about any part of the amendments which we have

included.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: No, I really didn't want to speak on the title,

thank you, Mr. Chairman. (Laughter.)

I would like the Attorney-General to define, if he would,

what he means by the amendments that he introduced yesterday to

the House under this particular Act.

I think it was certainly an abuse of the Members of this

House to call a bill which had been on the order paper for

weeks for second reading and introduce the amendments almost

immediately before the bill was called so that no one had any

opportunity or time to study them.

Since looking at them, I'd like to refer specifically to what are now sections

80, 81, 82, 83, and 84, and ask the Attorney-General, if he will, to explain

what he means by consumer grants; who will qualify for a consumer grant; on

what basis they will qualify for that grant; and why, when he is dealing with

such an important matter, he did not specify in the amendments or in the bill

itself what he actually intended or who would actually be the recipients of

the relief for home heating costs that he outlined in this particular amendment.

What is his plan? No one seems to know in the industry who

this will apply to. No one whom you speak to on the street

knows what's going to happen, except that the Attorney-General,

in very vague and general terms, had indicated that somebody,

somewhere, somehow in the Province of British Columbia may at

some time qualify for a consumer grant to help offset the

purchases of certain heating fuels in the province.

I think the Attorney-General should clearly tell this House

what he has in mind and how it's going to operate, because it's

obvious from reading this that once this House prorogues and

this bill is passed, the decisions will be made from that point

on by regulation and order-in-council, and the MLAs who are

elected to represent people will have no say in how that

particular scheme is set up or who will receive benefit by it

or, in fact, how it will work at all.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the Hon.

Member, I say that the amendments did come in late, but we're

dealing with a very rapidly changing picture in terms of the

price fluctuations in industry, what happened on May 15 in

terms of the rise in price of crude oil, what the situation

will be, say next fall when home heating costs have become

important. It's very difficult to predict at this time.

Maybe the companies will be totally reasonable in terms of

the charges they make to the consumers of the province. But all

I can tell the Hon. Member is that the bill spells out in

considerable detail what can be done by the government, but it

will be done after a canvassing of the situation by the Energy

Commission and on their recommendations. I don't think they

could say, for example, what the problems of propane users in

the Province of B.C. will be next fall.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

My estimate of things is that they will have a very serious

price impost on them and some relief should be considered. But

that's something that will be for the Energy Commission to, as

I say, continue to research, canvass, investigate and perhaps

hold hearings and make recommendations to the government.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I would also just like to make a

few comments and specific reference

[ Page 3900 ]

to some of these sections, while I talked in general terms

on second reading.

There's no question that the Attorney-General is using

euphemisms when he says that the amendments spell out what the

government may do. I just want to make it plain that in this

quarter of the House we have no doubt that this is what the

government is going to do. It isn't a question of what it may

do.

We would like to suggest that that kind of example set by

previous decisions to utilize one source of government revenue

to subsidize another government enterprise, namely Autoplan,

certainly has the man-in-the-street wondering why there can't

be a much simpler way of dealing with the effects of price

increases, in particular the case of the gasoline situation.

Other provinces have dealt with it very fairly and squarely by

simply reducing the tax at the pump.

In this case I agree it isn't quite so simple when you are

dealing with a variety of types of fuel including heating oil

for homes. But certainly

section 83, as the Minister has under

the amendments on page 17 of orders of the day, starts to give

a list of very specific regulations which the cabinet can write

after this House has risen.

I think for the Minister to be in a position to write so

many….seven separate general paragraphs describing what

the regulations can do, suggests to me quite clearly that the

Minister has a far more specific programme and plan in his mind

than he implied in his answer to the Member for North Peace

River.

Mr. Chairman, we've had examples in the past where

government or members of the cabinet make statements in very

general terms and say: "Well, of course the details are not

available and they will be disclosed in due course." So often

"due course" means when the MLAs have gone home and there isn't

the opportunity to have a very realistic debate and where there

is no opportunity for the opposition Members of this House to

do the job for which they are elected — that is, to appraise

legislation, to offer constructive proposals and, of course, to

condemn where they consider the legislation is faulty.

Like the Member from Capilano (Mr. Gibson) I'm not learned

in the law in any way but when I read

section 83, regulations

(

a) to (g), that covers the whole ballpark as far as I can see

in terms of the scope with which programmes of consumer grants

or subsidies or whatever similar words you want to use could be

introduced. While I agree in part with the Attorney-General

that it is a fast changing scene in terms of energy resources

and world prices and so on, I have to come to the conclusion

that the Minister and cabinet have much more specific plans in

mind than we are being allowed to debate under subsections (

a) to (

g) in

section 83.

I would just ask again, as the Member from North Peace River (Mr. Smith) did

a moment ago: could the Attorney-General give us some more specific outline

of what he means by "consumer grants"? It's a delightful phrase. It's saying

to the public of this province: "Don't worry, folks. We've got some kind of

plan which will make it easier for the consumer to purchase home heating oil,

but we're not sure exactly at this point in time what the plan is. It's just

a good idea for general consumption by the public but don't press us for the

details." On the other hand we're bringing in pretty wide-ranging amendments

and power to the cabinet to write regulations which to any person who reads

this with any degree of precision and interest can only imply there are some

basic plans which the Attorney-General has which I think we on this side of

the House at this point in time are entitled to know of and be given an opportunity

to debate.

I would like the Attorney-General, if I'm wrong in my

conclusion, to tell us very clearly that he has no specific

plans and that this is just, as he says, enabling legislation

and it won't be a matter of this House proroguing perhaps in

two or three weeks and then we find the day after we all go

home the plans are dumped by order-in-council into the public

arena and we have no opportunity to debate what is obviously a

very, very important public issue. There is no question that

gasoline and fuel costs have to be a very vital component in

the cost of living for many people. Where government is taking

the very important step of subsidizing in some way or other the

actual price to the consumer, I think this House and this

opposition should be given every opportunity to debate the kind

of plans which the Minister has in mind.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, it's nice to have the Hon.

Member accusing us of having plans laid out well in advance.

Some other Member got up once and said we flew by the seat of

our pants. But now we are charged with planning and we

appreciate that kind of a charge.

MR. WALLACE: Do you or don't you have plans?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Specifically for this fall the answer is

no, because we will have the recommendations of the Energy

Commission. We will have to look at the price fixture next

fall. We are doing something rather different because we are

not only looking for price restraint on the part of the

companies but perhaps for the first time in this and any other

province we are also thinking in terms of whether it's price

abuse and maybe unavoidable price abuse — for example in the

field of propane, where half of it comes from Alberta and there

is nothing we can do about the price — and of helping the

homeowner or helping the tenant. But you ask specifically how

much. Whether we will do it in

[ Page 3901 ]

September or October I tell you quite frankly, Mr. Member,

that we can't answer that. I hope that the Energy Commission

will continue to be a highly visible operation, as they have

been. They don't do things behind closed doors; they do them in

the open. They discuss the problems publicly and they make

recommendations which are immediately made public, and I think

that's the way it will go. But I can't be specific, except to

say that the purpose of this is price restraint and home help

for tenants and residential owners.

MR. SMITH: It absolutely amazes me, Mr. Chairman, to sit in

this House and listen to an explanation of an amendment to a

very important bill in the terms I have heard from the

Attorney-General. He said absolutely nothing about what his

real plans are.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: But I said it well.

MR. SMITH: Now what did you do — just pull this out of the

air? Did you decide one day on the spur of the moment that you

wanted to do something for the homeowners in B.C. so you told

the attorneys and lawyers in your staff to draw up a

bill? "Do something. We don't have to tell the people what we

intend to do. We don't have to tell the producing companies

what we intend to do. We don't have to tell those people who

are in the business of marketing petroleum resources and fuel

oils what we intend to do. But somewhere down the line some day

we'll come up with a scheme that will fit into this plan. So

make sure that you draft your amendment very loose and very

wide — don't pin us down."

Do you think that industry in this province can live with

those sort of halfway measures where they don't know whether

they are coming or going? Do you think it's fair to the people

who use fuel oils, who use propane, to hold out a carrot in

front of them and say: "Somewhere along the line we are going

to help you offset the cost of heating your home"?

This afternoon you suggested that you would perhaps do this

for those people who rent accommodation as well, but you don't

seem to have any indication about how you do it. Those of us in

the official opposition don't disagree with the fact that you

should perhaps help these people, but for goodness' sake spell

it out so that the Members of the House have an opportunity to

intelligently debate the policies of the government. Don't

throw something like this at us one day and expect us to buy it

the next like a pig-in-a-poke.

Once this goes through, what you are asking us to endorse is

order-in-council government. There's been enough of that in

this province right now, for the last two years. Too

much of it. Too much altogether, Mr. Attorney-General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Fewer orders-in-council last year than the Socreds.

AN HON. MEMBER: Two less.

MR. SMITH: This type of legislation may cost the Treasury

anywhere from a few million, I suppose, to $30 million or $40

million a year of tax revenue. Now you say this is going to be

a resource dividend from the windfall profits, perhaps, from

the sale of natural gas. We don't disagree with the fact that

those profits should be brought back to the people, but at

least give us the opportunity to debate in this House what your

intentions and your plans are. Don't let the House prorogue, as

you will do in a matter of a week or 10 days or whenever we see

the end of the legislation, and then say: "Oh, we suddenly put

it all together." A week after the House prorogues, we suddenly

have the picture, we know what we want to do, and you pass an

order-in-council. That's not good enough, Mr.

Attorney-General.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Section 2 approved.

Title approved.

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

and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 18, Energy Amendment Act, 1974 , reported

complete with amendment to be considered at the next sitting of

the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 117.

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

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

Mr. Speaker, this Act covers a range of matters, many of which might best be

covered in committee, since they are matters of some detail. However, it also

is enabling legislation in the sense that at a later date, by order-in-council,

changes can be brought about with respect to the old royalty system, with respect

to the so-called temporary tenures.

Now, as Members of the House will recall, Dr. Peter Pearse,

along with the other members of the task force on Crown timber

disposal, prepared a report which was given to the Legislature

in February

[ Page

3902 ]

of this year entitled: "Crown Charges for Early Timber

Rights." It was quite a thoughtful, well-researched and

thorough document.

They point out for example that most of the temporary

tenures, timber leases, pulp leases, timber licences, pulp

licences, were established in the years 1865 to 1907 when these

forms of tenures ended. At that time there was something over

11 million acres in these early tenure forms. Today that's been

reduced to something like 1,778,177 acres. The important thing

to remember, however, is that these are probably the finest,

most productive forest lands in the province, and the bulk of

them are in the southern coastal area of the province, with a

scattering in the Interior.

The task force reviewed these tenures and reviewed methods

of Crown charges with respect to these timberlands, and

concluded, along with people like the early and first Chief

Forester, H.R. MacMillan, in 1914 along these lines.

H.R. MacMillan said at that time, when he was investigating

the question of the pricing of the timber resources held by the

Crown:

"Hence the sliding scale had to be devised in order that the stumpage obtained by the government in time

to come might reflect any change in timber value up or down.

Since these values are the difference between selling price and

cost of manufacture, an exact determination of royalty could

only be made after complete audit of the books of every

operating concern. As a practical matter, the sliding scale had

to be based on some simpler methods than this, and accordingly

the average selling price of lumber was taken as the barometer

of stumpage value."

That was H.R. MacMillan back in 1914 who had this radical

view of the Crown's assets.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Some 60 years ago.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, some 60 years ago.

HON. MR. BARRETT: His diamond jubilee.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: And it's now some 60 years later that

Dr. Peter Pearse and members of the task force conclude

somewhat along the same lines — that system is a reasonable

system in terms of pricing the Crown timber resources.

Interjection.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, I deal with the timber section,

Mr. Member.

One matter which has been raised by the companies is the question of payment

they've made with respect to these old tenures. It's interesting again that

the task force quotes an early royal commission headed up by Mr. Fulton, again

an outstanding jurist and legislator of the day. Mr. Fulton said this with respect

to the payments made over time for these old tenures:

"It seems particularly clear to your commissioners that the answer to this argument is that

during each year of the lease the lessee has received full

value for the rental paid by him, that this annual rental must

be viewed in the same light of the annual fees paid by the

special licensee, namely, as confirming a mere right or option

to cut timber during that one year, and that the fact that the

lessee may have paid rentals for 30 years does not put him in

any better condition or confer on him any higher rights than

those he had after payment of the first year's rental."

And that was an early Tory of the province, Mr. Fulton.

MR. WALLACE: Always around!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Didn't they have any socialists?

Interjection.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Nevertheless, the industry has made

representation both to the task force and to myself, and has

explained some of their concerns. We understand the concerns,

particularly for the major five companies, including MacMillan

Bloedel, the company that virtually has half of its holdings in

this type of tenure.

The question of timing: it was recommended by the task force

that some new system be implemented, possibly in September,

that reflects stumpage appraisal methods.

We've concluded, as a result of our work with the staff,

that that kind of timing was too ambitious and it would not be

feasible to embark on something related to a stumpage appraisal

system until the new year at best.

We therefore regard this as enabling legislation, and the

timing will be in the coming year. The degree of incidence in

relation to stumpage appraisal is still to be determined as

well. That is so that some phasing might be established by

order in relation to these so-called temporary tenures.

There is companion legislation from the Minister of

Finance's department with respect to the logging tax. That was

covered in the Pearse report as well. I won't dwell on that

other than to say that the companion legislation essentially

reflects the Pearse report recommendation, and means that there

would be a lower corporate tax level insofar as the provincial

logging tax is concerned and that these benefits

[ Page 3903 ]

would reflect on all the forest industries of the

province.

I think that covers the main elements in the statute, Mr.

Speaker. I would now move that the bill be read a second

time.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, I hadn't

intended talking until you called me but now that you've called

me, I'm going to speak. (Laughter.)

We are looking at the Forest Amendment Act, 1974 , and

it's a complex piece of legislation touching on various aspects

of the forest industry in British Columbia. Unfortunately, I

haven't had an opportunity to study the entire 54 sections

which change a great deal of things, but no doubt there is

included within that legislation the provision for the Minister

to file or table in this House the study of the Purcell Range

by Professor Chambers.

I hope that when we look at these amendments they will bring

forth that study by the Minister of this massive wilderness

conservancy established in the southeastern part of the

province, and that the Minister will fulfil his responsibility

to the taxpayers of British Columbia, who paid for this report,

and table it in the House so that the public of this province

can see what they paid for in fact.

There are other sections here that are complex, they talk

about legally establishing historical boundaries and changing

boundaries within the Forest Amendment Act . As I stated

before, not having thoroughly canvassed the various changes

that are included in this legislation, I hope there are

provisions in there for the restoration of the name of

Kinbasket to a lake within my constituency. It was named in

honour of old Chief Kinbasket, a noble old Indian in my area,

and I hope that….

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: Well, we're not interested in the beach or any

tokenism on the part of the Minister; we're interested in that

body of water being called Kinbasket Lake, and not McNaughton

Lake.

MR. SPEAKER: Is this part of the principle of the bill?

MR. CHABOT: Yes, this is part of the principle of the bill,

Mr. Speaker. But the bill is very difficult to debate in

principle because every

section involves the changing of the

sections of the Forest Act . Consequently I think it can

best be debated in committee and I'll refrain from further

comment at this time and thoroughly canvass the points I have

raised during the committee stage of this legislation.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, as the Minister said very

well, this deals with a large number of different subjects. On the first page

we have branding, we have grazing; next page we have mining, all sorts of things

which affect forestry and forest tenure directly or indirectly. There really

is no way that this can be discussed in principle because there are far too

many subjects which are put into this omnibus bill.

We will be discussing this unprincipled bill in the

committee stage and dealing with this section-by-section.

MR. SMITH: It is obvious when you look at the bill that

there are many sections — 54 in total — some of them which I

believe we will endorse, some of them which we don't. So I

would suggest to the Hon. Minister that we would be prepared to

debate more fully the principle of the bill, really, when we

discuss it in committee, because each one of the different

sections deals with some different facet of the forest

industry. As I have said, some of the sections and the

amendments proposed we will agree with, and some we will not,

so we would be prepared to debate it in committee stage.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I very much doubt that the Minister

will answer this question, but I hope when he closes the debate

on second reading he will tell the House how, after reading out

those words, with apparent approval, from Mr. H.R. MacMillan,

and citing with approval the Pearse commission report, all of

which call for an appraisal royalty based on cost, he can

possibly support the off-the-top royalty in Bill 31.

I'll just make that little comment right at the beginning,

and I hope you might just take a paragraph to reply to it. I

don't want to suggest we discuss different legislation than

this right now. But it's a very important question because

that's a Minister who contributes greatly to the formulation of

resource philosophy in that government.

Now surely, most comments on this should be in committee,

but I was disappointed in the Minister that he didn't give us a

very good indication as to what would be happening with the

royalties.

When he speaks of phasing, does he intend to simply apply

the phasing to the time of introduction of the royalties, or

does he also mean that the royalties will be brought up to

something less than 100 per cent equivalence with the stumpage

system on TFLs and other tenures throughout the province?

Perhaps he could comment on that when he closes debate on

second reading, and comment as well on the arguments that have

been made by some of the holders of these royalty-type tenures

with respect to previous investment that in some cases they

have had to make and which has been, in some instances, of a

non-shareable character and therefore larger in some

[ Page 3904 ]

areas than in the TFL situations. I have heard this

argument. I don't have the figures to know to what extent it

should apply. I'd be grateful to hear if the Minister has any

thoughts on that.

The argument of the holders of these royalty tenures that

they have had over the years — whether through purchase of a

highly capitalized right to cut or whether through investment

in the improvement of roads and non-shareable fire control and

silviculture and so on — is whether they have in fact got more

investment in these types of royalty tenures which should

entitle them to a lower than 100 per cent stumpage rate by

comparison with other tenures.

Could the Minister also comment on the statement by Mr.

Mahood of the truck loggers group that the upping of these

royalties might work some hardship on the small contractor,

particularly with respect to winter logging shows that have

been traditionally carried on in these often more workable

areas? This would not be a reason not to collect fair royalties

on these properties. But does the Minister have any…?

First of all, is Mr. Mahood's observation correct, and has

the Minister any plans in mind to meet it? I think it would be

the furthest thing from his intent that this legislation should

adversely affect the small operator.

I'd like to go further into this at committee stage. I

notice that in

section 9, which amends

section 36(26), the

Minister has the most extraordinary powers to arbitrarily and

without any kind of notice cancel cutting licences. While it

might not be his intent to enforce it in this way, in theory

the smallest infraction by any holder of a tree farm licence

giving employment to hundreds or thousands of persons could

lead to the immediate cancellation of that licence without any

notice, without any compliance order, without any time being

given to the operator to make good whatever the deficiency

might have been — which, indeed, the operator may never have

known of.

So I would ask the Minister if he perhaps has plans later on

to introduce amendments to control this apparently exceedingly

broad authority. If he does, well and good. If he doesn't, then

I think we must discuss this at considerable length at the

committee stage.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, my comments will be equally brief.

But I think we should just ask one or two questions even in

second reading, although, as other Members have said,

section-by-section debate will be more important.

I think just to put something in context, the Minister quite correctly read

from two of the people who have looked into the forest industry in great detail

at different times in the past 60 years. I think we should perhaps put the whole

issue in context by also quoting someone else whom the Minister didn't mention.

That was Commissioner Sloan, who did what I believe was a very creditable investigation

of the forest industry in 1945 and in 1956.

The only area I think where this party has any difference

with the Pearse report and the legislation is this question of

whether in fact the companies on the old tenures did have any

kind of investment for which they should be given consideration

at this point in time. I think that's really the only area, in

reading the report, where I can, as a layman, wonder whether or

not the companies should be given some consideration. As Sloan

states: "…that royalties be related to stumpage charges

for other current timber, but that past payments should be

recognized by setting the fixed royalty rates below average

stumpage prices." The Pearse commission, of course, gives its

reasons why it disagrees with Commissioner Sloan.

The fact is that while certainly H.R. MacMillan in 1914 made

the statement which the Minister quoted, and another statement

by the Fulton report of 1910, they were stating, with respect,

Mr. Minister, a point we're all agreed upon that a fair amount

of the money derived from these resources should certainly be

returned to the province and the people of British Columbia,

based on the value of the timber.

But, on the other hand, one can't always just all completely

on one day in life change all the ground-rules and ignore some

of the history of the past. The fact is that these old tenures

involve certain expenditures which could, I'm sure, in the

minds of some people be construed as some kind of investment.

I'm talking about the annual rent, the Forest Protection

Act , the annual levy of 1 per cent of assessed value and,

of course, the forestry costs in developing a second crop.

I think it's fair to consider the comments that have been

made by certain people in the forestry industry. One quote I

have here is from Mr. Timmis of MacMillan Bloedel. He said:

"It is not clear to what extent the government will make allowances to the companies for fire

protection costs, land-rental charges, forest protection taxes,

the 1 per cent property tax on lands still outside tree farm

licences and other forestry costs for a second crop, all of

which we have absorbed over the years. These would amount to

millions of dollars in MacMillan Bloedel's case alone."

I realize that this is a matter of a differing philosophy.

The Pearse commission has obviously decided that all these

costs which were put into the old tenures by the forest

companies were in fact equivalent to a rent for the use and the

cutting rights of the timber, and that it in no way represented

any element of capital investment giving them continuing rights

of any other kind, or simply the right only to cut the timber

as they chose.

[ Page 3905 ]

Of course, the point is raised in that regard that if this

is the philosophy, then certainly the operators who cut and ran — I think that is the phrase that I've read somewhere; they cut

the trees, they got them out, they got their money, and the

cutting rights for any second crop reverted to the Crown….

It certainly seems to me that maybe we should take some look

at these two aspects: the fact that these companies have put in

a lot of money in the form of the payments I've mentioned and,

secondly, that the companies — as another executive states:

"Companies who have managed and protected their tenures responsibly, harvesting and

replanting on a sustained yield basis just as they do in

management licences, are now being penalized. But those

operators who strip the tenures of timber, took their profits

and left have escaped the increased charges."

I think, in the total context, that we certainly can support

the government action in attempting to obtain a fair return

from the real value of the timber resources. But I wonder if

the Minister would comment on these two points I have raised:

one, the basic charges of one kind or another which these

companies have paid to retain the old tenures and, two, the

fact that since many of them have acted very responsibly and

have not, in fact, cut down the best timber in the most easily

accessible location and shipped it out and got their money and

couldn't care less about what's left…. Because they have not

done that, is there not room for some consideration and

financial recognition perhaps in the way the Minister proposes

now to decide the new stumpage formula when the old tenures are

changed by this legislation?

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): I also am not that familiar

with the bill that this one is amending. But after reading the

Pearse report I certainly wanted to make clear that I

appreciate the fact that the Minister has brought this bill in

so soon after receiving the report.

I have spoken in this House before about an area in my

riding on the North Thompson River — Blue River — that has

suffered quite some in the past with a large company purchasing

two small existing mills to get the timber and then shutting

them down with a loss of employment in the area. They have had

a bad time up there for a couple of years.

They have one of the largest of these old timber berths or

claims that has been there since the turn of the century with

absolutely nothing being done with it. As far as I've been able

to find out, there was some timber cut perhaps in the '20s and

I heard it rumoured there was a little high-grading done after

World War II for peeler logs. The original owner died in the

United States.

There are 21 timber berths in this one block. This timber is sitting there

now and has sat there for all these years not being used in a community that

must base its future on a wood product industry. There was all this wood in

the area with absolutely no hope of breaking it loose from the owners. The original

owner died in the United States and left it to his estate. His son sold it to

the Rayonier Corporation and the controlling interest was bought in Rayonier,

I understand, by IT&T.

The people of this community are hard-pressed for work and

hard-pressed for timber because most of the timber in the area

is already allocated on timber TFLs and quota to existing mills

farther south. They were desperately looking for industry in

the area based on wood and never could get any of this timber

loose because it was contained in this old timber berth, and 21

berths in this one claim. While it may not be large compared to

some owned by some of the companies on the coast, it is

certainly an important part of that community as far as timber

is concerned.

There is a mill in the area, for instance, that should

benefit under this bill, if I understand it right — and I hope

I understand it right. The timber in these berths will either

have to be used or there will be a considerably higher tax paid

on them so that it will be to the benefit of the owner to use

it. There are people in the area who would develop this berth

if they can get hold of it. But, being tied up in this old

tenure, it was impossible to get any kind of a new industry in

and the economy has remained stagnant.

One mill now has been bought and enlarged by a local man,

but he only has a four-year timber supply unless he can buy or

reserve or somehow get hold of some of this timber or someone

else can so he can buy it off him and get some activity in

there.

There are many people in that area who are the pioneer

types. They would go up in these small communities and would

start a small family-type operation for splitting shakes for

which there happens to be a good market now. Apparently, the

small family operation is about the only one that remains

solvent in this kind of work. With all the overaged timber, the

downed timber and the hollow-centre cedar they can use for

shakes, it could all be used and certainly would all be

used.

I didn't quite get clear, when the Minister introduced the

bill, what the future of an area like this would be. Will they

be able to keep it simply by paying a little more money and

doing nothing with it or will they be able to pay a decent

amount into the Crown for what they're holding away from

someone else who could make good use of it?

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I might just deal roughly with the

matters as they were raised by Members. The

[ Page 3906 ]

question of Kinbasket which is outside this bill

nevertheless might be partly dealt with by the naming of one of

the major reaches of McNaughton Lake as Kinbasket Reach, which

we are quite prepared to recommend.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Why wipe out history?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Because we happen to think General

McNaughton one of the great Canadians and should be so

honoured.

The question of the arguments raised by, I think, the Member

for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson), regarding the right

to cut and various expenditures. I think as formulas are

developed, certain expenditures will certainly be recognized so

that the industry should expect some benefits there in terms of

the formula that is developed. The principle, though, of this

in effect as fee simple property, which I think in a broad

sense is argued by the industry, is not accepted by the

government and, of course, is totally thrown out by the task

force.

The point with respect to the statements made by Ian Mahoud

and the truck loggers. Unfortunately, Mr. Mahoud has made many

absolutely outrightly wrong, false statements about so many

aspects of the forest industry in the last few months that I

find it very difficult to take any of his statements seriously

at all.

He was one of the gloom-and-doom people with respect to the

establishment of the new stumpage appraisal system in the

Interior, saying it would destroy the industry. Now we're

receiving letters from major companies and others indicating

they're ready to eat crow over all the statements made about

the Interior stumpage appraisal system. In fact, it's a fair

and reasonable system and is far superior to the kind of

patchwork system we had in the past. Mr. Mahoud's colleagues,

at least, are eating their words with respect to previous

actions we've taken in terms of improving the stumpage

appraisal system in the Interior.

He has made outright false statements regarding Canadian

Cellulose and other operations of the government in recent

months. I simply am unable to take any of his statements

seriously.

Of course there's no intent to make life difficult for the

small contractor. We want to see them survive and flourish

within the industry. The steps we're taking here should have no

direct impact in a negative way on the small contractor.

The point made regarding

section 36, again by the Member for

North Vancouver-Capilano, is one we are reviewing with respect

to notice and with respect to infractions on Tree Farm

Licenses. We might well consider some amendments in that

regard.

The main point to be made there is that we're concerned about possible major

environmental damage in relation to fishery streams and the like. The way the

statute presently is we don't really have the power to deal with the problem

if we had an operator who was simply out to wreck the immediate area. While

we've generally had cooperation with the industry in terms of getting closure

reasonably quickly where there is an obvious problem, we don't have the power

under the statute as it now stands. There's no intent to use it in a rigid and

harsh manner. The intent is really to protect the environment where the environment

is in danger.

The point made by the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace)

is a matter of consideration. The cut-and-get-out philosophy

that did prevail on some of these tenures with some of the

other companies and former owners is a real fact of life.

That's part of the reason we're departing somewhat from the

Pearse force recommendation. We think some modifications are possible. We're talking in terms of both timing and, to some

extent, the increment of the tax or the stumpage.

Interjection.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No, I would not go so far as to say

that, but you're talking in terms of very detailed formula,

recognizing what they invested in the tenure, interest over a

period of time and so on. I think I could say no; we're not

thinking in those terms. We are thinking in terms of

modification of the increment in relation to the Pearse

recommendation.

The point made by the Hon. Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H.

Anderson) is very well taken. The question of holding back

resources that could well provide a base for a community is a

matter of real concern. I'm afraid this legislation won't work

quite the way he would want it to work. It's a matter that I'll

keep under active consideration in terms of lessening this kind

of wastage and holding back of resources. I'm willing this

summer to spend some time in the Member's riding and in that

particular area so I have a better understanding of the

immediate problem. I'm most sympathetic to changes to see to it

that there is not withholding for the sake of withholding, and

withholding simply for the sake of capital gain. Rather, the

resource base is to be used to benefit the local community.

Just a final point, Mr. Speaker. Essentially, what we're

trying to move towards is a forest industry which is treated

more equally throughout the province. The kinds of special

benefits the major industries on the lower coast have had for

decade after decade after decade should certainly be pulled

back and modified considerably. Frequently the industry talks

about the need for free and open competition, and we wouldn't

argue that.

[ Page 3907 ]

The point is that the coastal industry for a great length of

time has had access to Crown resources at a bargain-basement

price compared to the Interior. We brought in stumpage changes

in the Interior and again made the differences between the

industry in the Interior and the coast considerably different.

I'm sure all free-enterprisers in the province would applaud

the idea that there should be an equal starting point for those

in industry so that the most efficient might well receive the

most benefits within the industry.

With that right-wing speech, Mr. Speaker, I move that the

bill be referred to Committee of the….

MR. SPEAKER: Order! First, we'd better pass second

reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 117, Forest Amendment Act, 1974, read a second

time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Second reading of

Bill 153, Mr. Speaker.

INTERPRETATION ACT

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, this bill was introduced

last night, but it is the modification in minor particulars of

the bill that was before the House and has been before the

House for some months — certainly days.

It is an enactment of great importance in terms of the

revision of our statutes, which is going ahead under one of my

Deputies, Mr. Gilbert Kennedy, and important in terms of that

revision work. That is why we would like it considered at this

session.

I think that if there are questions, they are properly

questions for committee, because the sections deal with

different things. I might say two things, though. We do have

that interesting little

section that says that the Crown is

bound by

an Act unless it is otherwise provided for. That's

reversing that age-old exemption of the Crown, which again is

something of this little government towards the little people

of the province — a little more of that openness. It's an

undictatorial practice, which is so much appreciated by people

on the outside, coming from this government.

The other thing is that there is a difference between this

bill as filed last night and the previous one in that I've

eliminated from the new bill the right of a public official to

sign a delegation of his authority so that if he's required to

sign something somebody else can do it. You know, John Mitchell

got into a lot of trouble on that in the United States because

he had the power to approve bugging under United States legislation. He delegated that power so

loosely that clerks everywhere around his department were

approving the things. Finally, the Court struck it down in the

United States, and a lot of valuable police investigation work

went down the drain.

Now I think that where

an Act of the Legislature says that a

Minister shall approve something, that should be the Minister

or his Deputy. You can't just delegate it anywhere. So we've

restricted that power.

I move second reading.

MR. SMITH: It's amazing, Mr. Attorney-General, through you,

Mr. Speaker. You feel that this delegation of authority should

only be done in certain matters, and very closely controlled by

either yourself, if you're the responsible Minister, or no

further than the Deputy. Then you turn right around and seem to

have ignored Bill 18, which we just debated in committee this

afternoon. It takes the whole authority of the Legislature and

puts it into the hands of an appointed committee, Mr.

Attorney-General. Which side are you on? Or are you on both

sides of the question at once?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: This is a different bill.

MR. SMITH: Oh, now that we have a different bill, there's a

different principle involved. It seems that you change your

principles every 30 minutes, Mr. Attorney-General, depending

upon which bill is before the House. I think it's amazing. I

agree with the Attorney-General that the bill could best be

debated in committee stage. The debate would probably be more

relevant in committee stage, so I'll reserve any further

comments until that time.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): There are a

few comments to make on the principle of this legislation.

Certainly the

Interpretation Act has needed some

revision. But for the Attorney-General to suggest that he's now

taken a major step forward by making the Crown subject to the

laws of the province…. It is important that you interpret

the words "unless otherwise provided."

I think we can have an

Interpretation Act with some

clear definition of what "unless otherwise provided" means.

Really, what it means is that the government, if it sees fit,

can exclude itself from the laws of this province, or any one

of its Crown corporations, or all or part of the laws of this

province as they may apply to any Crown corporation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Like the Companies Act .

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Like the Companies Act .

Everyone should recognize that the government has

established these corporations for many and

[ Page 3908 ]

various purposes and that the government sees fit to exclude

from the responsibility of those Crown corporations compliance

with significant sections of the Companies Act .

The Attorney-General also mentioned this question of the

Minister having the right to delegate authority. I applaud what

the Minister has said; but I ask the Attorney-General, if it is

the intention of the government that responsibility for

approval given to the Minister should be exercised by the

Minister or his or her Deputy, if that's where you are going to

draw the line, then….

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Oh, so now we have another

interpretation. The Attorney-General says: "Oh, not

necessarily." We have legislation on the books of this province

which gives the Minister the right to designate any person to

exercise the authority the Minister has been given. We've

complained about this year after year after year — indeed, even

in the years when the Hon. Attorney-General sat in opposition,

when he was a far-seeing legislator. His vision has become a

little blurred since he's got over on the government side.

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: In those days he used the sunshine to see

with; now he's blinded by it. That's the distinction. I would

like the Attorney-General to be perfectly serious about

this.

Are you going to say that authority of a Minister is to be

exercised by the Minister or his or her Deputy — period? Or is

that Minister going to be able to delegate, as is the case now,

where anybody else can do it? As the law presently stands the

argument of the Attorney-General, the example that he gave of

what occurred in the United States with regard to the

delegation of authority, applies right here in the Province of

British Columbia and will continue to apply, because the

Minister can pass to the Deputy, other senior officials of

government and on and on and on the authority to give approval

and assent and sign documents in and for the name of the

Minister.

Some people will read the

Interpretation Act , Mr. Speaker, and suggest that

we should have an

interpretation Act to interpret the

Interpretation Act . Now

I must admit that in the few moments that have been available since this bill

was introduced last night I see some significant improvements. But I really

must say I am surprised that the Attorney-General would have brought this bill

in for debate at this stage, only having introduced it last night. There are

people out in the community who this morning in the paper would have learned

for the first time of the bill, and they won't know the changes that have been

made from the former one.

I have got a bill here that has been worked over by two or

three experienced lawyers, many comments, and they've had no

opportunity to see this bill. I just happen to think it is

shocking that the government moves in these particular

ways.

Hopefully, we will have some time to give close examination

both here in the House and by people outside to this

legislation before we go into the committee. But I am a little

surprised that we debated Bill 18 second reading yesterday and

committee today with amendments. I'd like the Attorney-General

to indicate the extent to which there will be time afforded to

give careful examination to this legislation before we get into

the committee stage. If we don't, then the whole process breaks

down.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): It is interesting to

note in the explanatory note that the drafter of the bill

relied upon the uniformity of the legislation in Canada. Yet we

do find an interesting

section under 10 that such statements,

of course, form no part of the enactment.

I thoroughly concur and agree with the comments of my

colleague from West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams)

concerning the presentation of the bill. On the whole, this is

not a contentious piece of legislation. But it is a piece of

legislation that requires the closest scrutiny, and it is a

piece of legislation that, if the government knew what it was

doing and was functioning in an efficient manner, could well

have come in at the inception of this session.

To bring a bill such as this in at the end of the session is

just an example of ineptness on someone's part, Mr.

Attorney-General. If it's not your ineptness, it's the

ineptness of whoever is responsible for producing this. From

the viewpoint of you having the conduct and control of your

department, I have to question your priorities as to bringing a

statute such as this in at the termination of the session.

Dealing with that and also with this bill itself, to me, the

method of presentation of legislation in this House has been

deplorable and continues to be deplorable. There is absolutely

no reason that I know of, Mr. Attorney General — and I have

relayed these remarks to others in the House before — why, when

you introduce amendments or when you introduce a statute such

as this which is an amendment of a companion statute, there

isn't on the other side of the page the companion former

statute so that it is possible for everyone within this House

to make an intelligent and, though it will be in the time you

are giving us, a cursory examination of it. But they have to go

from this Act back to the ones over there.

Even these revised statutes are not up to date, which is a

matter I've mentioned to the Hon. Premier

[ Page 3909 ]

before. It's just preposterous here, when we're trying to do

the business for all the people in this province, to not even

have a set of revised statutes that are current and up-to-date.

It's an absolutely slipshod method of doing business. The whole

of the government should be criticized for this and, with every

respect, Mr. Attorney-General, particularly you. You are the

chief law-enforcement officer of the Province of British

Columbia, and you are the Attorney-General.

I would hope that all of the legislation that does come to

this House will continue to be screened through the Department

of the Attorney-General. There is some suggestion and thought

scurrying around the halls today that even now that's not the

case. If that is not the case, I certainly hope you could

indicate to the House whether or not I am incorrect in my

assumption.

One cheery thing; one small, little ray of sunshine which

must have snuck in there, Mr. Attorney-General, without you

seeing it. In

section 8:

"Every enactment shall be construed as being remedial,

and shall be given such fair, large, and lliberal construction…"

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM:

"… liberal construction and

interpretation as best ensures the attainment of its object."

I'd like to say that this was new but I'm afraid this is

from the former bill itself. But I'm happy to see that you

didn't throw that out with the bathwater, Mr.

Attorney-General.

I have been serious in these remarks. I must request and

commend the government to present its legislation in an

intelligent manner, in a rational manner and in a manner

whereby the Members of the House, in those specific interest

groups will have an opportunity to consider. You are not

presenting us with this kind of bill at all.

Secondly, in future and certainly in the next session, when

amendments to statutes are introduced in this House, have the

statute to be amended on another side of the paper. The only

person who has so far seen fit to effectively present material

in this fashion, Mr. Speaker, is the council for the City of

Vancouver. Mr. Fleming has done an excellent job in presenting

amendments to the private bills committee. One knows what the

statute is, one knows what amendment is sought and the reason

for it. You should be doing that kind of a job for the whole

province.

MR. WALLACE: I'd very much like to support the comments made by the

Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) and the Second Member

for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom). In no way can I suggest that I appreciate

the legal ramifications of this bill in the way these professional lawyers do.

Reading through it, it's quite obvious to me as a layman that we're back on

one of the subjects that concerns me greatly: the use of power.

Paragraph after paragraph of this bill spells out the

definition or the

interpretation of various powers in the hands

of various people: corporate rights and powers, the power to

judges and court officers included powers to act for Ministers

and public officers. I guess that's what the Minister was

referring to when he talked about delegation of power.

We are living in a society, Mr. Speaker, where time after

time it becomes rather frightening to discover how individual

citizens can suffer at the hands of power which is either

incorrectly defined, incorrectly interpreted or incorrectly

applied.

I think of the example that was publicized the other day of

a man who served a jail sentence because somebody had stolen

his credit card. He couldn't possibly prove before the law that

he wasn't the man who committed the offence. I believe this was

in Ontario, Mr. Speaker, as I recall. This man went through a

terrible time because someone was impersonating him with the

use of his credit cards, social security number and various

other numbers. Before the law, this man was found guilty and

put in jail.

I don't mean by that that in that particular instance the

judge exceeded his authority or otherwise. I just think that in

a modern society the individual has to have the greatest

possible protection in the face of ever-increasing numbers of

people, commissions, boards and levels of authority who have

power of one kind or another over the behaviour and actions of

the individual in society.

That being the case, surely the accuracy and suitability

with which power is accorded to these people in our society to

judges, public officers, sheriffs, you name it should be

subjected to the closest scrutiny in this House.

I have listened very carefully to the comments of the two

Members who have just spoken. I feel a sense of apprehension

that this kind of bill, which does in fact interpret what the

powers of these people really are, has been brought before the

House in a way which has not afforded the legal profession and

the civil liberties association and many other bodies to….

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Well, that may be, the Minister has since

changed the original bill and brought in another bill. I do

believe the Second Member from Vancouver–Point Grey had a point

when he said the bill as such is not contentious: the goodwill

of the

[ Page 3910 ]

Attorney-General in improving the

Interpretation Act is to

be commended. The fact that we are now into June — and

presumably we will be meeting in the fall — to my mind suggests

that this bill could be held over or not proceeded with so that

the various citizens in society, who are knowledgeable and very

concerned about how valid and suitable and well-thought-out

this bill is can react and perhaps submit briefs to the

Minister or at least have private discussions with the Minister

or with his staff.

When we are interpreting and defining power in the hands of

law officers and public officers, and when you look at

the very long

section 25 which is a definition of all the

various Ministers and what we understand by definition of

executive council and so on, it just seems to me that this is

such a far-reaching bill which is not contentious and which

could well be debated in the fall in a much more intelligent

way than we are able to do at the present time.

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister give serious

reconsideration to whether this bill perhaps could be held over

and reintroduced in the fall.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party made some

very valid points today but they were wrong in applying them to

what is happening with this bill. They said bills like this of

a technical nature should have a time given to them to be

explored in the community by the Canadian Bar Association and

bodies of that kind. Well, this one has. It was introduced in

practically the same form on April 23.

There are some modifications throughout this bill that are

minor; I referred to the major ones in my opening remarks. I'll

be glad to make this copy that I have marked showing the minor

modifications between the first Bill 110, I think, and Bill

153. If it's convenient for the House, depending on the

schedule, the committee stage could be put off a day or so.

Fine.

It has been out there; we have received the representations.

Here's the new bill. We had the time in this case to put it all

together again and get a message from His Honour and bring it

all in in one piece. I think that was requested in the case of

another bill, but I think that was to make a political point. I

was a little leery of that suggestion in that case.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 153,

Interpretation Act , read a second time and

referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at

the next sitting after today but one.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill

PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES

DISCLOSURE ACT

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I thought the Speaker would announce in

ringing terms the title of the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: I left that for you.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: So I will. It is called the Public

Officials and Employees Disclosure Act .

MR. SPEAKER: I didn't want to disclose it.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It has been considerably debated — a

little bill to clean things up for future generations. That's

right. Just a little one that way.

The use of public office for private gain, of course, is

corruption. It is, and I think we should call it by that name.

The question that is really before us in this age of Watergate,

and it is a fair question today — it is a fair question to

anybody who reads the newspapers — is whether this use of

public office for private enrichment should become the norm of

public life or not. I say that is a fair question to ask

today.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're looking at the seamy side of it.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, I suppose I am looking at the seamy

side. I'm looking at the kind of Watergate thing. I'm looking

at the kind of thing that goes on in municipalities in terms of

people owning land and then, say, sitting on the zoning

committee of the municipal council.

Apart from the Conservative Party, which I understand

supports the principle of sunshine — of disclosure — the thing

that divides this government and that opposition and this

counter-opposition is the principle that the voter should be

entitled to know these things. We say that is the only salutary

check, over the long term, to the abuse of public office.

We have, of course, our corruption laws. Maybe they should

be strengthened. There is the Criminal Code , the standing

orders of this House, the Municipal Act and the Constitution

Act . But unless people know, there is no use having great

criminal sanctions about things that are never brought to the

light of day.

In this bill we say that we should drive a wedge between

public interest and private action. In doing this we are doing

two things. On the one hand we are lifting clouds of suspicion

from politicians, statesmen or elected people that unjustly

cling to those people and to the profession of which we are all

a

part in this chamber. There are all kinds of gossips and

rumour-mongers throughout the province who are ready to say

when the deal comes up, "I'll bet

[ Page 3911 ]

you that fellow had a finger in the pie," when he

didn't. It's fair to politicians that the disclosure should be

made public and that they should not be unfairly accused of

using their office for private enrichment.

On the other hand, just to finish off that point, the

calling of elected politicians should be held in esteem in the

community. How best to do that than to say that the voters

should know things that might affect that person's judgment

when he comes to cast a vote in the Legislature or on the

municipal council?

We say that we should not, as politicians, judge ourselves

and make a disclosure to the Provincial Secretary or to the

Attorney-General and have it clubby and closeted. We say that

the people should be in a position to judge the politicians — not the politicians judging themselves.

There is only one way to accomplish that. That is the

principle of sunshine, disclosure or call it what you will. We

say that we should let the searching eye of Heaven dart its

light into every guilty hole. (Laughter.) I'm not going to name

the author of that but I will just remind you that Richard II

lost his life shortly after that line was spoken.

AN HON. MEMBER: Poor Dick.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I don't think I need further describe

the bill, Mr. Speaker. I think it is well known to the Members

of this House. We are extending it out into the field of

candidates to make it fair to all concerned. We are extending

it down to the municipal level. We say that our important

public servants who have decision-making power should be

designated so that they too will disclose and we can eliminate

those conflicts of interest and those suspicions — sometimes

justified — of government that are always there. I move second

reading.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, certainly no one in the

opposition disagrees with the concept of public disclosure although it is regrettable

that we have to move into that area. It is because of attitudes that have developed

in our community.

We are a little concerned, though, with some parts of the

bill.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You don't call it Gestapo tactics, do

you'?

MR. McCLELLAND: Did I say "Gestapo tactics," Mr.

Speaker? That has never been attributed to me.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, it was one of your colleagues.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'm saying to you that this bill has been an

example of the kind of legislation that this government has

brought in without thinking, without checking, without

researching. We get pages and pages of a bill which is

thoroughly bad. Then we find, once the government realizes the

mistakes it has made, that it brings in pages and pages of

amendments. What we have left now is the title of a bill which

is called the Public Officials and Employees Disclosure

Act . How can we do anything else but vote in favour of the

principle of that title? That is all that is left of the

original bill.

It would have been far better, Mr. Speaker, if the

government had seen fit to establish some kind of a public

trustee who would have been able to accept the disclosures of

public officials and candidates and disclose them to other

interested people for just cause, not on any frivolous basis to

which anyone might wish to have a look at the disclosures that

are made.

We still feel that the trustee route would have been far

better. We intend to make those amendments so that we can

establish the need for a public trustee. Other than that, Mr.

Speaker, the official opposition supports the concept of

disclosure. We hope that the Minister will live up to the

agreement he made the other day that we will see the amendments

printed in a new bill for committee stage.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: For third reading. Yes, it's all put

together.

MR. McCLELLAND: Okay. That will help the opposition

considerably, Mr. Speaker. With those few comments, we'll wait….

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: For committee?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, for third reading we put it all

together.

MR. McCLELLAND: What about for committee state? Will we have

this?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order. We are discussing the principle of

the bill.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, I'm sorry. It's disappointing to us,

though, Mr. Speaker. We had the assurance of the

Attorney-General on the floor of this House that we would have

that bill in committee stage.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'll give you an unofficial copy of it.

Okay?

[ Page 3912 ]

MR. McCLELLAND: Okay. That's fine. With those few comments,

Mr. Speaker, we will wait for the committee stage before

speaking further to the bill.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I think it is unfortunate

that the government has brought this legislation in for

consideration. I think it is unfortunate because it seems

predicated on an assumption, which I find completely

distasteful, that elected people and people appointed to

positions of public trust and responsibility will use those

positions for personal gain.

The Hon. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) suggested

that because of Watergate — and all that involved — this kind

of legislation was necessary. Watergate wasn't a matter of

personal gain, Mr. Speaker. Watergate was a matter of political

gain.

AN HON. MEMBER: Both.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I suspect that this particular

legislation that we have here is being introduced for exactly

the same reason — political gain on the part of the

government.

What it really is is "snoop" legislation. It is encouraging

people with nothing better to do to concern themselves with the

private affairs not only of Members of this assembly and

members of local government but senior public servants and all

those responsible people who are taking positions with Crown

corporations and commissions established by this government who

will have very great powers which could be used for their own

personal gain and which, Mr. Speaker, in spite of this

legislation, could still be used for personal gain.

The Attorney-General said in his remarks that in respect to

public officials this legislation would eliminate conflicts of

interest. Mr. Speaker, it won't eliminate conflicts of interest

at all. If any person who is elected or appointed to positions

of public responsibility or trust would be so corrupt as to use

that position for their own personal gain, then that individual

will have no difficulty in circumventing the special

requirements of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, a person who would take a position of public

responsibility and trust and use it for personal gain obviously

has a philosophy which would be no barrier to circumventing

this legislation. It's not conflict-of-interest legislation at

all; and I'm glad that the government was at least responsible

enough not to call it that in the title. It only calls for

certain limited disclosures, very limited disclosures.

I recall something else that the Attorney-General said in his remarks. He says

that the voters — if I've written it down correctly — "The voters should know

things which affect the elected person's judgment." That would lead one to suggest

that the Attorney-General believes that merely what you own and under this Act

are obliged to disclose — and that's a very limited amount — is somehow or other

definitive of what affects a person's judgment when they are called upon to

make a decision which their office or position places before them.

The next thing we'll be having…. If we are to look into

the minds and hearts of Members of this assembly, and of local

governments, to determine what affects them in their judgment,

then are we going to start asking what their religion is? Does

that affect their judgment on any particular subject?

Are we going to ask them whether they belong to the Kiwanis

Club or Rotary? Does that affect their judgment? Are we going

to ask them whether they belong to a union organization or a

management group? Does that affect the judgment they may bring

to bear in a matter which comes before them in their public

responsibilities?

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Just their property interests. So you

will be able to make a value decision on a person's judgmental

ability merely upon the very limited property qualification

disclosures contained in this legislation. Some disclosures!

Some sunshine!

Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but when you look at…. The

Attorney-General used the word. He said: "You know, if you use

a position of public trust for private gain, it is corrupt." Of

course it is. But when you look at the punitive provisions in

this legislation, there is nothing in this statute which

prevents a person in a position of public trust and

responsibility from making and keeping private gains as a

consequence of his decision, of his vote, or whatever the case

may be. If he's made the disclosure, he is not prevented from

applying his judgment to the problem and of making any private

gain.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: He'll sure think twice first.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Maybe he will. But, you see, what the

Attorney-General has said to me across the floor, Mr. Speaker,

is that he'll think twice about it. Mr. Speaker, the

responsible public official, elected or otherwise, in my view,

knowing that personal gain from his actions is corrupt, will

already think twice about it. The fact of disclosure doesn't

change that situation one bit.

Now I heard the Hon. Premier say a minute ago: "What's the harm of it?" Mr.

Speaker, I didn't say there was any harm in it. I'm not going to vote against

this bill in second reading. I'm just saying that it's pointless to bring it

in. It doesn't improve the situation that exists today. It prevents nothing;

it advances nothing.

[ Page

3913 ]

It does one thing, however, Mr. Speaker: it gives the stamp

of approval of this Legislature and of this government to the

suspicion which, in my view, improperly rests in the minds of

many of our citizens — the suspicion that somehow or other

politicians and public officials do use their positions of

public trust and confidence for their own personal gain.

By bringing in this legislation and by passing it we are, in

effect, saying: "Yes, it's true. All those things you suspected

are true. Therefore, we of the government are moving in this

way, this limited, pointless way, to oblige individuals in our

community who are prepared to accept responsibilities to make

very limited disclosures."

That's what this legislation does. It will satisfy the idle

curiosity of some. It will, startlingly enough, also provide an

opportunity for some not so idle to use the information which

is disclosed for their personal advancement. At election time

they will be able to use it to the detriment of individuals in

our communities who are prepared to stand for public

office.

Interjections.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I'm not saying that it hurt Art Phillips.

I said it is creating the opportunity for those who are not so

idle to use this for their own personal political gain.

Interjections.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Obviously the Minister of Highways (Hon.

Mr. Lea) doesn't recognize what would happen under this

legislation.

You know, late in a campaign, having made a disclosure, some

not so idle but mischievous person in the community can under

this legislation institute proceedings in the courts of this

province which will have the most detrimental effect upon the

candidate by claiming in those proceedings that the candidate

had failed to disclose and had made a personal gain as a

consequence of that failure. That would become front page news

the very next day.

Mr. Speaker, it is not necessary for the person who

instituted those proceedings to take one further step. The

proceedings will be allowed to lapse.

Interjections.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That's right. Who was it that sued the

former Premier of the province? I'm sure that wasn't done for

any political purpose.

Interjections.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, such a mischievous person, having instituted

these proceedings, having done the damage that would result from the publicity

given those proceedings, escapes without penalty. There is nothing in the legislation

which could in any way redress the harm that such an action may cause.

Mr. Speaker, if the government wants disclosure, by all

means let them have it. But let the people of British Columbia

understand exactly what this legislation does. It does not

advance one step the standards of morality of politicians and

public servants over what exists today.

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I have stood the critical

comments of the Second Member for Little Mountain (Mr.

Cummings) on the floor of this House week after week concerning

the profession of which I am a Member. I ask, Mr. Speaker, that

that Member withdraw the remark he has just made.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thought you were rising on a point of

order.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): No, I'm not. I'm on the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don't think the Member for West Vancouver

is finished. He has asked you to withdraw a statement.

MR. CUMMINGS: What — that morality and lawyers are

incompatible?

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don't think it's a matter for debate.

MR. CUMMINGS: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member has withdrawn. The Member for

West Vancouver–Howe Sound may continue.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the

Member for withdrawing.

The legislation is not going to advance the morality of

people in public office. It is not going to provide

penalties for cases of conflict of interests. What it may

provide, to the detriment of the public service and in the

broad context, to the Province of British Columbia, is that

responsible people will withhold their candidacies for elective

office and

[ Page 3914 ]

may be encouraged to decline the opportunity that the

government would extend to them to serve in appointed

positions. I trust that won't happen. But the nature of the

disclosures that must be made under this legislation are such

that other people become involved. By the very fact of

disclosure the interests of others, peripherally, also become

disclosed. And it is this aspect that troubles me more.

MR. CUMMINGS: Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to take my place

in this debate. I wish to congratulate the Attorney-General for

bringing in one of the finest Acts…. You know, Mr. Speaker,

I am very rarely very nice to lawyers because they have a

problem — if they are any good, they have no conscience.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): You're the one

with the problem.

MR. CUMMINGS: How's the United Party coming, brother?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CUMMINGS: A small number of civic officials oppose this

bill on the grounds that you can't legislate honesty. Actually,

this is rather a weird statement. In fact, it was almost as bad

as the argument advanced by the Hon. Member for West

Vancouver-Howe Sound because nobody has ever tried to legislate

honesty.

The Ten Commandments…even our Lord didn't try to

legislate honesty, he said what you're not supposed to do.

There has been no government ever try to legislate honesty,

because they tell you what happens to you if you do something

wrong. To have people make broad statements that you can't

legislate honesty and get away with it, and especially legal

people using this argument, is ridiculous.

Now, the public demands an exposure of corrupt practices.

They want to stop the influence on the back stairs; they want

to stop the graft, the pork barrel, the rezoning, the spoils of

office at the civic level and at all levels.

This bill is going to really play hell with the land

speculators, the rezoning artists because it's going to just

stand out and they're going to be exposed. They'll either be

revealed to have a conflict of interests, or they will have to

evade the laws by hiding it, and become a thief. Honest

politicians are going to welcome this bill; the pork-barrel

politicians are going to either have to resign or find another

place.

All public officials should agree that it's time to put all

their cards on the table. A citizen should welcome the chance

to see that there are many, many honest politicians. In fact,

I'd say 99.9 per cent of the politicians are completely honest

and above board.

We have seen examples of what happens when people get into

high offices in the past, and the public has to have all this

visible.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 85 is a pledge to the citizens that all

politicians will tell the truth or will be branded a willful,

perjured individual, totally unfit to hold public office in

British Columbia.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) publicly took a

stand against this bill, but I see he has waffled. Mayor Vander

Zalm of Surrey publicly took a stand against this, but, you

know, political loyalty is not one of his virtues. Actually, I

admired Mayor Goode of Delta's stand the best. He wants to wait

until after July 7, after the federal election, before he

decides which side his bread is buttered on.

MR. CURTIS: What's that got to do with this bill?

MR. CUMMINGS: A lot, a lot.

Interjections.

MR. CUMMINGS: He used to be a Liberal. This is loyalty. What

colour coat?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MR. CUMMINGS: Critics of this bill will say that the curious

will look and probe. Curiosity will stop the public official

from betraying his electorate.

MR. CHABOT: Name names.

MR. CUMMINGS: Now, Mr. Speaker, there are other professions

that need a little sunshine.

Interjection.

MR. CUMMINGS: That's true. Car dealers, they are branded as

a pretty rough racket.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CUMMINGS: But the professions I'm thinking of are the

self-policing professions like the lawyers and doctors. The

public….

MR. CHABOT: What have you got against lawyers?

MR. WALLACE: What have you got against doctors?

MR. CUMMINGS: They're just pillars of the community;

they'll do anything, anything you want as long as it's

50-50.

[ Page 3915 ]

Actually, I'd like to point out that sunshine is important

because there should not be any type of self-policing, and I

support this bill completely.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, it's unfortunate, I suppose, that I

believe firmly in the principle of this bill because I think

the extreme and thoughtless remarks of the previous speaker

might well, if I did not believe very firmly in it, shake me

from my conviction that it belongs in the statute books. This

is the Member, you know, who wants to cross the floor but no

one will have him in, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.)

I feel that we….

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Nobody will move the rock.

(Laughter.)

MR. CUMMINGS: On a point of order, I'd like the Hon. Member

to withdraw that remark because he's a s.o.b. liar!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I believe both Members should be withdrawing

the remarks they made — the first remark that was earlier said,

and the last remark that was made by the Member who just sat

down. Would the Second Member for Vancouver- Little Mountain

(Mr. Cummings) withdraw the last remark he made?

AN HON. MEMBER: What, the s.o.b. or all of it?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: He withdraws.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I withdraw.

MR. CURTIS: I feel that we've also, perhaps, had second

reading of this in two consecutive CBC radio panels where

representatives of the four parties in the House discussed it

at length.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The principle of public disclosure is commendable, and probably it will be

found that this bill, with polishing in the months and years to come, will prove

to be a very effective piece of legislation. I think it will need some polishing,

it will need some improvement from time to time.

This is the Attorney-General's third try at the bill in effect. It was introduced

last year and withdrawn, and now, as the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland)

indicated a few minutes ago, we have virtually a new bill with amendments which

appear on the order paper of today's date covering in fine print pages 20 to

24 inclusive. Those are not minor changes. That is in some respects a rewriting

of many of the principles of this particular bill in many of the sections.

I criticized the Attorney-General publicly on a previous

occasion and I do so again this afternoon for his department's

apparent inability or unwillingness, or his inability or

unwillingness, to communicate with two organizations which

surely would be recognized as having a positive contribution to

make towards this kind of bill, this type of legislation. I

refer to the British Columbia School Trustees Association and

the Union of B.C. Municipalities.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: They were both in my office, so

you are wrong on two counts.

MR. CURTIS: Well, I'm not through, Mr. Speaker.

After the bill was introduced in the House, the meeting took

place. Now, is that correct or is that not correct? The bill

was on the order paper and then the meeting took place. I ask

the Attorney-General: is that correct or incorrect?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That is correct.

MR. CURTIS: The Attorney-General says that is correct. So I

repeat, Mr. Speaker, that the bill was introduced and then the

process of communication and consultation took place. And we

have to ask: what else is new? Is that not the pattern for so

much of the legislation which is introduced by this present

government and which requires extensive amendment after it has

been sitting on the order paper for some time?

The Attorney-General, I am sure, knows full well that he

could have on an earlier occasion called the Union of B.C.

Municipalities, representatives of the B.C. bar society, the

British Columbia School Trustees Association, other

organizations, and said, without revealing line by line and

point by point precisely what he had in mind in terms of

legislation, "This is the kind of thing we want to do."

HON. MR. MACDONALD: But we did. We filed the bill last

year.

MR. CURTIS: Well, you filed the bill last year but still we

have extensive amendments required today.

MR. SPEAKER: Now, Hon. Member, this is more in the nature of

housekeeping complaints. We should really be dealing with the

principle of the bill. How it got here is not really the

question before the House. What it is about in terms of its

principle is the discussion.

MR. CURTIS: Well, I think I must disagree with you to this

point, Mr. Speaker: we have such

[ Page 3916 ]

extensive amendments that one is forced to question what

principle was first advanced by the Attorney-General and what

principles are now before us for committee or third reading

stage.

But I won't pursue that particular line of argument any

further. I feel I've made the point. We have literally four

pages of orders of the day dealing with amendments on this

bill.

I think I indicated to the Attorney-General that one of the

advantages of this legislation is not what it will disclose but

the rumours which I hope and believe it will put to rest — rumours which are certain to spring up from time to time. When

at the local level, a piece of property is undergoing rezoning,

when a development is planned, when a subdivision is being

created, when some activity at the city or municipal level is

underway, inevitably there are those in the community who

suspect that an elected representative serving on that

particular council has more than legislative interest in the

application or proposal. I know this has been a source of

concern to a number of mayors and aldermen and school trustees

as well in the past as they have moved in connection with a

development in their community or within their area of

jurisdiction in the case of a school trustee.

The Attorney-General in earlier discussion indicated that

yes, indeed, this was another advantage of this particular

bill.

This party supports Bill 85. It regrets….

Interjection.

MR. CURTIS: It has supported it from the outset, the

cynicism of the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King)

notwithstanding. We support what is being attempted here. We

recognize that it is going to require further work, and,

indeed, there are two amendments on the order paper which will

come up at the appropriate time where we feel further

improvements can take place.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): I support the second reading in the

principle of this bill, but there is some confusion here. I'm

wondering if we should not hold the bill until the Leader of

the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) returns.

I participated in a panel here a couple of weeks ago and the

message I got from the four parties who participated in the

panel…. I was defending the bill; the Social Credit leader

was opposing it; the Liberal spokesman was opposing it; and the

Conservative was walking on the fence. He had his tippy-toe

shoes on and was trying to do a very delicate job. Today there

is a somewhat different story being told.

But we had all these headlines: "Gestapo Tactics." It seems to me there have

been a lot of things said against this bill and now these people are going to

vote for these Gestapo tactics.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, they changed the bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. LIDEN: Mr. Speaker, in all fairness to the opposition,

every one of them is going to be in trouble. The Leader of the

Opposition, the one who had claimed to be the leader of the

Majority Movement…

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LIDEN: …has been making statements against this

bill and he isn't here to defend his position. Now his troops

are deserting the ship. That's a very dangerous situation.

We've had so much said about this bill in the last month or

so that it really scares me.

The Mayor of Surrey, Bill Vander Zalm, said this would mean

that garbage collectors are going to have to disclose their

holdings.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is he a Liberal?

MR. LIDEN: I don't know what he is. But Bill Vander Zalm

recently made what some people have termed to be an

opportunistic move. He has been skirting around the various

political parties. I've heard of people deserting a sinking

ship but I've heard of very few people who try and find their

way to a sinking ship. But there he is, swimming away, trying

to get there while they're all mixed up and confused.

I noticed in the Sun on May 3 that the Leader of the

Opposition said it's the single most dangerous bill presented

by the socialist-controlled government since they took

office.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. LIDEN: I'm really surprised at the Member for Langley

(Mr. McClelland) for his statements today, saying that he's not

so concerned and that he might even vote for the principle of

the bill.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that in all fairness there is some

real confusion. These people don't know where they are

going.

[ Page 3917 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. LIDEN: The Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips).

Listen to what he said: "Just more Gestapo tactics."

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. LIDEN: He said, "Why should I tell these socialists what

I don't tell my children about my business." (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. LIDEN: There's some real danger to letting the sunshine

in, letting some light shine on what's going on in people's

businesses and so on. If people want to be in public affairs,

they're going to live in glass houses; they're going to have to

let the people know where they stand and what their influences

are. To me, that's what this bill has said from the beginning

and that's the kind of argument that has been made by our side.

The opposition to it has been made by so many people in so many

different ways.

The leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson) said he

would like to see it in a sealed envelope — a sealed envelope

that would only be opened, I suppose, after some great court

battle to decide whether or not there was a conflict of

interest or what kind of conflict there might be.

There was a letter from a legal firm in Kamloops, I think it

was, in which the member says here that he has placed a letter

with the mayor. He says that when the bill becomes law he would

want to resign from the city council in that he's going to be

away at the time that this is likely to happen, and that there

is just no question about it. He says, "I have every respect

for the right of the civil servant, school teacher and

non-businessman to participate in running in the community."

But, he says, at the same time he must be able to hide these

transactions that people might have. He even said in one case

where he was involved in a transaction only he and his client

knew about it. No one else would have known. He could have sat

in council and cast his ballot, voted the way he might have

wanted to vote because of the interest he had in the particular

instance.

Then he said at the same time that this sort of thing should

never be disclosed; it should only be between him and his

clients and his interest should always be hidden.

I think that there are so many things being said that it is obvious to everyone

in this province that this is the kind of legislation we need. That's why I

see some of these people changing their minds and all of a sudden refuting the

statements of their leader. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Attorney-General,

that we might very well wait until the leader of the official opposition (Mr.

Bennett) returns so that he can put his people in line so that they know what

they're doing and what they're saying and how they're voting.

MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the previous

speaker, the Member for Delta (Mr. Liden), in discussing the

position taken by the respective opposition parties referred to

a CBC radio panel and the fact that the Progressive

Conservative representative on that panel was straddling the

fence, or words to that effect. I reject that absolutely. The

record of the programme would in fact show that that was not

the case.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Was the man referred to

yourself?

MR. CURTIS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Then the objection is in order.

MR. CURTIS: I further present to you, Mr. Speaker, an

article from the Prince George Citizen of May 3 of this year

which refers to my statement: "Public officials have a duty to

divulge their interests, but the public has a right to know

where a conflict of interest might exist, and the public

officials become public property when they're elected." I would

ask the Member to note the fact that at no time have I

straddled the fence on this position and I ask him to

withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: There's no requirement to withdraw. If a Member

has misstated your position, or you state that he has misstated your position, you're entitled to stand up and correct that

impression, and that's all.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, bills such as this which

stir up the government back bench don't seem to get much of a

fair hearing. The fact is that much of what has been said does

not deal at all with disclosure but deals with conflicts of

interest.

The point should be made in this particular piece of

legislation at the present time that it does not rule out

potential conflicts of interest. It is a disclosure bill. With

this particular piece of legislation it might be that a person

will buy one share in innumerable British Columbia companies to

make sure that he at least has the appearance of substantial

assets. It may be on the other hand that he concentrates all

his assets in one particular company. Totally misleading

information would be made available to the public under one or

other of the two cases. In the one case, he may be a man of

relatively modest means and in the other he may be a man of

substantial means. So I think that much of what has been said

is erroneous

[ Page 3918 ]

and we should get down to what the bill actually does.

For example, disclosure does not mean that we're going to

settle conflict-of-interest cases. The bill, and I think of the

definition section, talks of the number of people who might be

involved — people employed by the provincial government,

employed or appointed by a board agency, a member of a board or

agency, et cetera. But how about the case of consultants — consultants perhaps who have not been paid by the provincial

government? Without in any way suggesting there have been

conflicts of interest in the community builders case, I give

that as an example where the vice-president of that company

worked for or at least advised the provincial government. As

far as I can see from the Act, there would not be any

requirement for that person to divulge interests under this

particular piece of legislation. Similarly, the most celebrated

case we have in the province, Mr. Speaker, of which you are

fully aware — the Sommers case — in no way would have been

prevented, averted or foreseen by legislation of this nature.

Not in the slightest. This point again should be borne in

mind.

The public should be aware that this legislation is

extremely limited in many respects. It will not prevent

conflicts of interest. It does not let the sun shine in, as has

been indicated. It may lead to totally misleading situations in

terms of disclosure. Indeed, if a person wishes to be dishonest

and wishes to make use of a position, be it an elected position

or an appointed position in the civil service, they can proceed

to do so, of course, by transferring their assets into the name

of their wife, child or someone else. If a person wishes to be

dishonest, in other words, they'll find way around this Act

just as fast as can be. It will not prevent the type of

conflict of interest which so many speakers in this debate have

been arguing about. I think that it's important that the

legislation should be analyzed more accurately than has been

done.

The Member for Delta spoke about the sealed envelope reference I made. This

is a fairly standard procedure to deal not only with disclosure but also with

potential conflicts of interest, the second aspect of the problem and by far

the most important aspect of the problem. That is, the assets of any public

official are placed in a sealed envelope. In the case of a Member of the Legislative

Assembly, it would be either in your hands, Mr. Speaker, or that of the Clerk

of the House. Were there any suspicion of dealings which were untoward, the

envelope would be opened by that particular official, such as yourself, the

Clerk of the House or someone else in a responsible position above politics,

and it would be a case of that person determining on the evidence whether there

was such a conflict of interest and whether there was enough evidence to justify

making the contents of the envelope public. It's a perfectly standard procedure

used in many jurisdictions, used indeed by the city council here in Victoria

with great success to on the one hand get around the difficulties that have

already been described in terms of this type of legislation and on the other

not only have disclosure but also have protection against potential conflicts

of interest.

I cannot see that the Member who made the remarks that he

did really understood what he was talking about. There are many

ways of dealing with disclosure and many ways of dealing with

conflict of interest, and certainly we as elected public

officials should be doing our best to make sure that the public

has confidence in their officials, elected or otherwise, and

that there are not cases of unjust enrichment or cases where

advice is proffered to the government and decisions are made on

the basis of personal interest of individuals, as opposed to

what is most effective from the public's point of view.

We have others, Mr. Speaker, in this situation who are just

as important in terms of their influence upon public opinion. I

fail to see, for example, having accepted some of the arguments

of the Attorney-General, why he has not extended this to

Members of the Fourth Estate — the press, radio and television

people. Sure, they're not necessarily elected, but the argument

is put forward that they have an influence in the community

which is substantial. Dealing with just about every matter

affecting citizens, they can, by colouring the news

unconsciously or subconsciously as well as deliberately, create

a situation where they are using their positions to influence

events. For example, I would be interested in knowing whether

the publishers of the two major newspapers in Vancouver and the

two major newspapers in Victoria had any interest in mining

stock — and the editors as well and perhaps even these

reporters. Does this affect their attitude?

HON. MR. BARRETT: They're not in public life.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, but then nor are your civil

servants, Mr. Premier.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's right. He's in the position to

influence public opinion and political attitudes.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member

proceed?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'll try and proceed, Mr. Speaker. The

Attorney-General two weeks ago talked

[ Page 3919 ]

about this bill being to uncover anything that might lead to

wheeling and dealing. It wouldn't necessarily do that at all.

He said it is to remove suspicion from those people in local

and provincial government where rumours go around that he's

dealing in this matter and the rumours aren't true. I don't

know whether that, again, is a valid comment or not. I doubt it

under the legislation that we're dealing with at the present

time.

He talks about disclosure and says that there is no point in

having disclosure if an elected representative can hide his or

her assets in a holding company behind the corporate name, but

they can also do that by putting assets in the name of members

of their own family or, indeed, close friends. If they wish to

be dishonest they can do that, surely. You were assuming that

people were trying to benefit from their position, Mr.

Attorney-General. These are not accidental cases. We're trying

to prevent unjust enrichment or bad advice being proffered to

the government. I think that your statement there simply

doesn't make sense in view of the limitations on the bill.

There is the problem dealing with some people reporting to

you as Attorney-General, as opposed to making their assets and

their holdings public. I will discuss that during the committee

stage.

I would like to say that to date the situation that I have

found myself in and the policy that I have adopted is simply

that I own no real property or anything of that nature. The

only thing I might own are shares. I have no knowledge of when

they are traded and what the sale or purchase might be. It's

left entirely in a blind trust.

Under your legislation I will now have to become aware of

the financial position of my share account. In act